Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

Washington State gun grabbers gone insane with SB 6396

This is the most draconian anti gun law ever suggested. Here is the basic breakdown. “Assault Weapons” would be banned in the state of Washington if SB 6396 passes. Why is this so bad? Here is the new definition of “assault weapon” according to the bill itself. “”Assault weapon” means:
(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also possesses any of the following:
(i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located rear of the trigger;
(ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any
configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below
the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;
(iv) A barrel shroud;
(v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
(vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
(b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle, or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition; (That is ALL semi auto pistol sold today)
(d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
(e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
(f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of any person.
(21) “Detachable magazine” means a magazine, the function of which p. 5 SB 6396 is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
(23) “Muzzle brake” means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
(24) “Muzzle compensator” means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
(25) “Conversion kit” means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault weapon.”

So what does this mean? The only modern firearm that will not be classified as an “assault weapon” is a revolver. Reread this and think about it. Do you really think all of these firearms should be banned? Does it make sense? Criminal’s by their very nature do not follow the law. So if you ban all these firearms from the law abiding, the only ones who will have them are criminals.

Some Kentucky state representatives are working on adding Kentucky to the growing list of states that tell the ATFE and the feds to kiss off in 2010

Three Kentucky lawmakers have pre-filed legislation to be considered in the 2010 regular session that would strengthen the gun rights of Kentucky citizens.

Kentucky State Rep. Stan Lee (R-Lexington) pre-filed a bill in the House on Nov. 6 that would exempt firearms and ammunition made and used in Kentucky from federal law.

BR348, (HB87 when the session begins) named the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act, would, “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law; provide that the exemption does not include machine guns, silencers, exploding ammunition, or firearms with a bore over one and one-half inches.”

The bill builds upon the foundation of state’s rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The first section of BR348 opens:

The General Assembly declares that the authority for Sections 1 to 6 of this Act is the following:
(1) The tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Kentucky certain powers as they were understood at the time that Kentucky was admitted to statehood on June 1, 1792. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the Commonwealth and people of Kentucky and the United States as of the time that the Kentucky was admitted as a state of the United States on June 1, 1792;
(2) The ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Kentucky certain rights as they were understood at the time Kentucky was admitted as a state of the United States on June 1, 1792.

The legislation makes up part of a national movement known as the Firearms Freedom Act. Montana was the first state to propose this type of legislation, declaring that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its Constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The Montana legislature passed its bill Oct. 1, 2009.

The Tennessee legislature passed a similar bill in July of 2009. The Tennessee Senate passed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act by a 22-7 vote. The House approved the bill 87-1. The legislation became law without Gov. Phil Bredesen’s signature.

Lawmakers in Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota and Florida have introduced similar legislation.

Two other Kentucky representatives have proposed a bill reaffirming gun rights.

Last August, Rep. Bill Farmer (R-Lexington) and Rep. David Floyd (R-Bardstown) pre-filed a Concurrent Resolution that affirms Kentucky citizens’ gun rights under the Second Amendment.

BR124 urges support for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and urges Congress not to enact any law that would infringe on the right to bear arms under the Constitution of Kentucky.

Idaho State lawmakers to introduce bill to ATF and the federal government to go stick it

Idaho has been a strong supporter of the right to bear arms — even attracting firearms manufacturers from other states to spur its economy.

But is it willing to take on the federal government to defend that right?

Rep. R.J. “Dick” Harwood, R-St. Maries, will ask that question when he introduces a bill to the Idaho Legislature in January that could make it cheaper and easier to buy a firearm that’s made and sold in Idaho.

The bill, which is circulating among a small group of Republican lawmakers, will mirror the Montana Firearms Freedom Act — the now famous bill that pit Montana against the federal government in a pending legal battle.

Harwood said the bill is a shot across the bow of the federal government.

“This is a way that we can tell the federal government that they can’t take away states’ rights,”he said. “I know the feds are going to have a problem with it — they already say we would be superceding their authority.”

He said the bill would mirror one that was passed in Montana in 2009.

Montana was the first state to pass a bill that slapped the federal government’s hands off of in-state firearms sales.

Montana House Bill 426 — also dubbed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act — says all firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold within Montana is exempt from federal regulation.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association filed a complaint against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in federal court in October to validate the bill’s passage.

The case is pending in court and officials say they don’t know how long — or how costly — the case may be.

But there is more behind the act than its title conveys. And it has more to do with dollars and cents than states’ rights.

Manufacturers and state lawmakers say Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act is also a valuable tool to attract gun makers from states that are imposing more rigid gun laws.

Something that hasn’t been lost on Idaho lawmakers.

“This is an opportunity to create jobs and help spur the economy by bringing manufactures to Idaho,” said Representative Marc Gibbs, a Republican legislator from Grace. “I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but right now our state’s economy is my biggest concern.”

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter announced an initiative earlier this year that markets Idaho to firearms manufacturers in other states that are looking to move or expand.

The initiative, known as Project 60, has already seen some success when Advanced Precision, which makes shotguns for Legacy Sports, opened manufacturing facility in Meridian.

However, Gibbs said Idaho should wait to see what the outcome will be of the case between Montana and the federal government.

Even firearms manufacturers in Idaho — those who would benefit the most from the bill — say it’s not a fight they want to pick right now.

“As a freedom loving American, I think the bill is a great idea,” said Jay Quilligan, who manufactures firearm accessories in south-central Idaho. “But as a business owner, it doesn’t really change anything.”

Quilligan said he would still be required to pay all federal taxes and fees because he is licensed by the federal government — something he needs to continue doing business with military and law enforcement.

“Most manufacturers in Idaho and other states are not going to take that risk of losing their business,” said Matt Dogali, Idaho liaison with the National Rifle Association. “The bill sounds good, but in practice these guys would be spending a ton of capital just to make a statement.”

And some Idaho lawmakers aren’t willing to put the state’s firearms and ammunition manufacturers in the federal government’s crosshairs.

Idaho is home to ATK CCISpears, one of the largest manufacturers of ammunition for law enforcement and civilian use. The state also fosters small businesses such as Tactical Solutions, Primary Weapons Systems, CheyTac and several others that build high-grade firearms and accessories for military and civilians.

Representative Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said the cost and risk would be placed primarily on the manufacturers.

“The state can pass the Firearms Freedom Act, but ultimately it will have to be tested in court,”he said. “That means one of (the manufacturers) would have to be the guinea pig.”

Harwood said he still plans to submit the bill in January, and lawmakers appear poised to support it.

However, whether it will receive support from those who would have to risk their businesses to test the validity of the bill remains to be seen.

Rumors have it that the good folks of Utah are getting ready to tell the fed to shove their unconstitutional gun laws up their collective ass’. Bad news for the NRA

We are starting to see rumors that Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton is in the process of trying to get an FFA (Firearm Freedom Act) law presented to the state congress there in Utah. Utah would be roughly number 14 to either pass a FFA law or introduce one. Go get them Utah.

How is this bad for the NRA? Well simply, if every state pass’ FFA law’s then the NRA would loose it’s big gun status in the “second amendment” supports group. Please excuse the Pun. There would in fact be no need for the NRA at that point. This writer can’t help but wonder when (Not if) the NRA will start fighting to stop states from doing this. What it comes down to is money. Think about it. If every state in the union were to pass these laws. Or at least 45 or so people in said states will begin to wonder what do they need the NRA for. Just something to think about.

By the way Good Luck Senator Margaret Dayton we hope and pray you can get this passed for your state residents.

Get your tax free firearm’s in South Carolina

South Carolina shoppers will get a second chance to buy tax-free guns.

The state Revenue Department sent out a reminder yesterday of the “Second Amendment Weekend.” The 48-hour tax break begins just after midnight the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Shoppers will pay no state or local sales taxes on handguns, rifles and shotguns, which can tally 9 percent. Taxes still apply to ammunition and accessories.

South Carolina had the nation’s first tax holiday on guns last year, after legislators tacked it on to a tax break on energy-efficient appliances. But the state Supreme Court threw out that law in May because of an unrelated energy amendment. Legislators restored the tax break as a one-time event in the budget this year.

Louisiana followed this year with its own sales-tax holiday for hunters in September. That break went further, applying to any item that can be used for hunting or fishing, including off-road vehicles and airboats.

South Carolina is the only state to designate a tax-free weekend during two of the year’s biggest shopping days.

How much shoppers saved in the gun-friendly state last Thanksgiving weekend is unknown. State economic officials estimated it would cost the state about $15,000.

The National Rifle Association praises the idea. But the director of a nonprofit group that advocates for changes in South Carolina’s tax structure said “there is no good tax reason to have a gun sales-tax holiday.”

“It isn’t tax policy. It’s gun policy,” said John Ruoff of South Carolina Fair Share.

NRA (National Riffle Association) late to the party and trying to take credit for said party

I personally are really begining to HATE these guys.


We keep seeing reports of the gallant NRA rushing in to sue Seattle’s mayor over an unconstitutional law. There is a small problem with said suit. The Washington STATE attorney has ALREADY said it NOT only violates the second amendment of the US constitution, but, it violates the Washington STATE constitution as well. Hence the law is not valid and thus not enforceable. So as far as it goes the law does not exist. So the police can not enforce the law, if they try to they stand to be sued civilly and open to prosecution by the attorney general of the state of Washington.
So basically the NRA is spending it’s members money and trying to get headlines showing they support gun rights, when, in actuality the case has already be resolved by the attorney general. There is ABSOLUTLY nothing to be gained here. All that can be gained here is the NNRA can say “we fought for and won Seattle gun owners rights” join the NRA and we will do the same all over the country. The actual truth here is they will when NOTHING but a court ruling saying the NRA filed a brief and the court aggress that the NRA’s point was agreed upon by the Washington State Attorney General. Basically the NRA will be giving themselves a virtual hand job.
Anyone could have filed the lawsuit and won. The win is as fake as the NRA itself. They both are as fake as the belief that the world was flat of several hundred years ago, and as fake as the Y2K ending of the world scam. All this is, is a scam. A scam put forth by the outgoing Seattle mayor and a scam put forth by the NRA since the issue has already been determined by the state attorney general. Do not buy into the hype.

Some States launch boycott of ‘unconstitutional’ federal laws

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a “joint working group between the states” to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.

State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been “blurred, bent and breached.”

“The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay,” Lynn wrote. “Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.”

She continued, “Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.”

Lynn said that the people created the federal government to be their agent only for certain enumerated purposes.

“The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States,” she wrote. “The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.”

She noted that the Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. Attempts to include such provisions in the Constitution were rejected by the Founding Fathers.

“With this in mind,” she wrote, “any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.”

(Story continues below)

In one example of Tennessee’s battle against federal government policies, federal gun regulators wrote to gun dealers around Tennessee in July, dropping the hammer on a state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The letter was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, “purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations.”

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

More recently, the state of Montana filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management
of its own firearms.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.

The idea is spreading quickly. Similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

“The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889,” the law states.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict

PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict. That is down 5 points in the last year and 34 points from the high of 78% recorded the first time the question was asked, in 1990.

Today, Americans are as likely to say the laws governing gun sales should be kept as they are now (43%) as to say they should be made more strict. Until this year, Gallup had always found a significantly higher percentage advocating stricter laws. At the same time, 12% of Americans believe the laws should be less strict, which is low in an absolute sense but ties the highest Gallup has measured for this response.

These results are based on Gallup's annual Crime Poll, conducted Oct.1-4 this year.

"Compared with views in 2000, each major demographic or attitudinal subgroup has shown a shift toward a more pro-gun stance on the question about whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict."

The poll also shows a new low in the percentage of Americans favoring a ban on handgun possession except by the police and other authorized persons, a question that dates back to 1959. Only 28% now favor such a ban. The high point in support for a handgun-possession ban was 60% in the initial measurement in 1959. Since then, less than a majority has been in favor, and support has been below 40% since December 1993.

The trends on the questions about gun-sale laws and a handgun-possession ban indicate that Americans' attitudes have moved toward being more pro-gun rights. But this is not due to a growth in personal gun ownership, which has held steady around 30% this decade, or to an increase in household gun ownership, which has been steady in the low 40% range since 2000.

Nor are more pro-gun attitudes a specific reaction to the election of a Democratic president, Barack Obama, whose support for gun rights is questioned at times. Though the trends on both the gun-sales and the gun-possession measures have moved in a slightly more pro-gun direction this year compared to last, both trends had been moving in that direction during the latter part of the Bush administration, which strongly supported gun rights.

Rather, Americans as a whole may just be more accepting of gun rights now than in the past. Compared with views in 2000, each major demographic or attitudinal subgroup has shown a shift toward a more pro-gun stance on the question about whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict. (The results are similar on the question of a ban on handgun possession, with nearly every major demographic group less supportive of a ban now than at the start of the decade.)

Even with the change, there are some subgroups among whom a majority continues to favor stricter gun laws, including liberals (67%), Democrats (66%), Easterners (59%), gun non-owners (57%), postgraduates (55%), women (55%), and nonwhites (51%).

The groups least in favor of stricter gun laws are gun owners (20%), Republicans (28%), conservatives (30%), and men (33%).

Bottom Line

Americans continue to trend toward holding attitudes that are more in favor of gun rights, and Gallup today finds new low points in favor of gun control on two separate measures dating back at least two decades. While solidly against a ban on handgun possession, Americans are nonetheless about equally likely to say they favor stricter laws on firearm sales as to say these laws should not change. Still, the current poll marks the first time Gallup has not found a significantly higher proportion of Americans preferring tighter gun-sale regulations.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,013 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 1-4, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Gun Groups File Lawsuit to Validate Montana Firearms Freedom Act

MISSOULA – The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula today to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

The MFFA was enacted by the 2009 Montana Legislature, signed by Governor Schweitzer, and becomes effective today, Oct. 1.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC.  The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA.  It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” The MFFA relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to challenge Congress’ commerce clause power to regulate a wide spectrum of in-state activities. This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.

MSSA continues to strongly urge that no Montana citizen attempt to manufacture an MFFA-covered item, even after the law takes effect today, until MSSA can prove the principles of the MFFA in court. Until the courts rule in support of the MFFA, any such manufacturer could be subject to federal criminal prosecution.

This concept has caught national attention. Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA.  Other clones have been introduced in Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota. Legislators in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MFFA clones in their states once their legislatures reconvene, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.

This movement follows multi-state rejection of Washington-mandated Real ID, a law passed by Congress requiring state drivers licenses to conform to federal identification standards. The FFA movement also works in tandem with resolutions introduced or passed in many states asserting state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As is the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are limitations on federal power. The Ninth Amendment says:  “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  The Tenth Amendment declares:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Under our federated system of government in the U.S., Marbut noted, states and the federal government are widely recognized to share power and authority, with definite limits placed on federal power by the states, the creators of the federal government. The MFFA lawsuit is designed to test and define those limits, to assert states’ authority, and to limit what many see as overbearing authority assumed by Congress and the federal government.

Beginning during the New Deal, federal courts have generally upheld federal commerce clause authority, initially in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn and continuing recently with the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich.  Raich was the Supreme Court case allowing federal regulation of medical marijuana in California.  However, other cases such as the 1995 case of US v. Lopez suggest that federal commerce power is not infinitely elastic, that there are limits to federal commerce power, and that it has just not yet been determined what those limits may be. The MFFA litigation is structured to clarify and affirm those limits.

The modern era of dramatically-expanded federal commerce clause power was ushered in with the Wickard decision. The Supreme Court allowed this considerable expansion of federal commerce power under Wickard only after President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court with cronies if the Court didn’t cease declaring Roosevelt’s New Deal programs to be unconstitutional and beyond federal reach. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause)

MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. SAF is a national organization headquartered in Bellevue, WA that works nationally to advance the interests of gun owners.

New Jersey’s Firearms Advisory Task Force to Hold Public Hearing on Newly Enacted and unconstitutional “One-Gun-A-Month” Law

On Thursday, September 24 the Firearms Advisory Task Force will hold a public hearing at 11 a.m. in Committee Room 4 in the State House Annex, adjacent to the State House.
The Task Force was created by Governor Jon Corzine’s (D) Executive Order 145 which directs the Task Force to consider New Jersey’s firearms laws, in particular the recently signed “one gun a month” bill. The hearing will focus on the new law, its exceptions for collectors of handgun and retailers, consideration of other exceptions and provide possible recommendations for any legislative changes to ensure that collectors and sportsmen are not adversely impacted by the new law.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog would like to invite every freedom loving, gun tooting, red blooded American to attend this circus and let them hear from you. Also let them know this bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!