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

Police Launch Stealth Gun Control Group: The National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence

“The National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence was launched today at the annual conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police in Orlando, Florida,” prnewswire.com informs us. “Representatives of the founding organizations were on hand to speak to the devastating impact of firearms, which kill and injure 100,000 Americans each year.” Yada yada yada gun crimes suck. Not one word in the release on what this new group will actually do. “Reducing gun violence is absolutely essential. Far too many of our citizens live in fear and far too many of our officers have lost their lives,” said Chief Rob Davis, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. “This unprecedented partnership is about bringing a fresh, pragmatic perspective to the debate about how to enhance community and officer safety.” Like that. So . . . what’s the real deal?

Like I was sayin’, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence ain’t saying. The only clue comes in their Statement of Principles. [Click here to download.] And that’s just as vague as the press release. Point three gives us an inkling:

Elected officials must commit to closing gaps in the current regulatory system, including those that enable felons, minors, persons with mental illness, and other prohibited persons to access firearms, and those that allow the trafficking of illegal guns.

What about the gaps between words? (Justification’s like that.) I wasn’t aware of any gaps in the current regulatory system that enable felons, minors, persons with mental illness, and other prohibited persons to gain access to firearms, or the trafficking of illegal guns. As far as I know, it’s already illegal to provide any of these groups with firearms. Perhaps we should focus on enforcement of existing laws.

That said, the statement’s meaning depends on how you define “access.” If you limit the meaning to “purchase or possession,” it’s all bad. But a wider interpretation of this seemingly innocuous “principle” could also green light attempts to legislate against the so-called “gun show loophole” and the equally phantasmagorical “terrorist loophole.” What’s the bet that that’s exactly what this new meta-group’s gunning for?

Needless to say, there’s no website for The National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, or a contact number at the bottom of the press release.

The biggest indication that I’m not wearing a tinfoil hat: the new org’s Statement of Principles is hosted on the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) website, along with their contact person (left message). The IACP was solidly behind H.R. 2159, the now stillborn Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. The bottom line: the IACP never met a gun reg “loophole” they didn’t want to close, regardless of its effect on Americans’ gun rights.

While we attempt to chase this down, I would once again caution those who seeks to defend and extend the Second Amendment: the law enforcement community is not your friend.

Why In The Name Of All That Is Good And Holy Do People Still Think Car Doors Provide Cover And Can Stop All Bullets?

The only part of a car that you could kinda maybe count on to stop a bullet is the engine block. And yet IDPA and the rest of the run n’ gun crowd are constantly holding competitions where you have to shoot from behind a car door. Yes, I know the difference between cover (ballistic protection) and concealment (hiding). But I reckon the combat sim crowd should run drills and comps where the shooters have to fire from behind more realistic fake cover (if you know what I mean). I’d also like to point out that most times these shooters expose their entire upper body while firing, rather than “peeking out” from cover. Or concealment. Anyway, talk to me about cover. Do you scan for it when you walk around? What do you look for?

2 shot riffle sight in video

Below is a video showing you ho to sight in your riffle with 2 sots. Enjoy.

Second Amendment Foundation Sues Eric Holder & FBI Over Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial

At least these guys are doing real good for the Second Amendment and gun owners here in the USA. Unlike the nra Watch for the NRA to eventually to try to jump on board and take credit on this suit as well.


Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation yesterday filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their “territory,” according to the complaint.

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

“Schrader’s dilemma,” explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.

“No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way,” he added. “Mr. Schrader’s case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust government bureaucrats to enforce gun laws.”

Ted Nugent on Pedophiles: Shoot Them on Sight, Repeat offenders, shoot them dead rather then send them back

We have to FULLY agree with Teddy on this one!

Watching Ted Nugent’s sit down with a bespectacled interviewer doing his best not to look bemused, I expected the same old same old on gun control from the Motor City Madman. You know: liberal numb-nuts, don’t tread on me, gun rights from God, yada yada yada. But Ted takes it to the limit, one more time. At 1:56 . . .

“Instead of arresting people for molesting children twenty-four times, I would rather the Dad walked in the room, found a person molesting that child, and blew his brains out.”

While I’m not against removing pedophiles form the gene pool, what of a Dad who doesn’t find the pedophile in the act of molestation but decides to follow Ted’s advice anyway?

“I don’t like repeat offenders,” Ted declares after a litany of crimes against defenseless citizens. “I like dead offenders.” I bet he doesn’t like them, either. Just sayin’.

A Politician’s Stance On The Second Amendment Determines If You Are A Subject Or A Citizen a free man or a slave

Texas legislator Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp said, “How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”

Every election cycle we see candidates with marginal commitment to gun owners doing a masquerade intended to deceive voters. A standard buzz-phrase these candidates use is “hunter access,” words designed to bait unsuspecting gun owners into thinking the candidate is truly committed to the right to bear arms.

Don’t take the bait for that particular trap, and don’t fall for the on-paper-only, hunting-sounding “groups” that emerge only shortly before each election to offer political cover for candidates who do not fully support the right to bear arms.

Rather, trust the entities that have been in the trenches for decades fighting for your rights – the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the National Rifle Association. Both MSSA and the NRA evaluate candidates for you. Find the MSSA evaluations at mtssa.org or at VoteSmart.org.

Don’t get sucked in by the photo op candidates who borrow a shotgun for a campaign photo. In Montana we call that “All hat and no cows.” Check candidates out carefully or trust MSSA and the NRA to have done a good job evaluating candidates for you.

As Dr. Gratia-Hupp implies, a candidate’s true attitude about your gun rights is a litmus for much else about that candidate.

Bank encourages second amendment and tells robbers beware. Customers inside are armed

Any would-be robbers looking to walk into the bank here had best think twice.

There’s a new sign in town.

About a month ago, Chappell Hill Bank president Edward Smith looked at a sign on the front door prohibiting concealed weapons from his business and decided to make a policy change.

Licensed to carry a handgun? Come on in, and bring your weapon.

*
The sign, now prominently displayed on the bank’s front door, says, “Lawful concealed carry permitted on these premises. Management recognizes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right of all citizens. We therefore support and encourage the carrying of licensed concealed weapons.”

Smith said he made the policy change to send a warning to potential robbers, and also to express support to Americans’ right to bear arms.

“We had the sign on the window, the red circle with the pistol inside and a line through it. And I started thinking, ‘We’ve got this no gun sign up and the guy (robber) can come in and do what he wants.

“But if you’ve got a policy allowing handguns, he won’t know how many people are going to be in here carrying a concealed weapon. There may be some little old lady who’s mad at the government, and she’d love to use it,” he said.

The bank has been robbed twice in the last three years, including last March when a Western-attired man walked in, ordered bank employees to fill a canvas bag with money and then fled in a pickup truck. The man, who did not brandish a weapon, has not been caught.

The sign has made Chappell Hill Bank and Smith somewhat of an Internet sensation.

A photo of the sign has made its way around the world, and Smith has even been interviewed for the National Rifle Association’s radio network (http://www.nranews.com/#/nranews). He’s also been contacted by other media outlets wanting to do stories.

“It’s kind of gotten a life of its own,” he said.

Expressions of support have far outnumbered criticism.

Smith been contacted by officials from larger banks considering to take similar action, and has received e-mails in support from across the United States and even from England, Canada and Germany.

“I haven’t gotten any from Chicago or California, which doesn’t surprise me,” Smith said with a laugh. “We did get a real nice e-mail from an 88-year-old World War II veteran who said it’s about time somebody stood up in this country.”

The NRA has even invited him to speak at an upcoming convention, but Smith said, “I’m still deciding on that.”

Smith said he’s only received one negative e-mail, from an anonymous sender.

The policy change has also brought Chappell Hill Bank a handful of new customers and comments from people outside Washington County that they’d bank there if they lived here, said Smith.

“I tell them that we’re a full-service bank and we’re on the Internet. They can bank online,” he said.

The Misunderstood Denied and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Bill of Rights is not intended to be an inclusive statement of our rights. All of our rights are to be equally protected under the Constitution, whether enumerated or not. The Constitution, in general, and Bill of Rights, in particular, are intended to be limitations upon the power of the federal government.

Point 3: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Inviolable Personal Right. It is clear from the words of the men who founded this country that the right to “keep and bear arms” is an inviolable personal right and that there are good reasons for it to exist and to be protected by the Second Amendment. This is not a subject for debate, except for those ignorant of our history or those that purposely wish to debase the American citizenry under the tyranny of government and ultimately into subjugation. Anyone who holds the position that the American people do not possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, or that it may be legislated away through gun control laws, is ignorant of the basis upon which this country was founded; including the means by which the founders intended for us to maintain our personal liberties.

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction” — St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803

“That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… ” — Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book “Massachusetts,” Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87

“The great principle is that every man be armed…. everyone who is able may have a gun.” — Patrick Henry

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Tench Coxe in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

I would like to point out in Mason’s article, he states two things is one sentence: 1. That The Constitution is a Limitation on the Power of Government and 2. the Bill of Rights is not an inclusive listing of personal rights.

The rights are already there as the creators of the constitution believed, that they were granted by God, and should be rights to all people on the earth. But sadly, this is not the case by far. The Bill of Rights is to limitthe power of the federal government–created by the states to serve the states and its citizens.

If Citi does not want to support our troops then maybe we should not support them!

As the report below shows it seems Citi does not and will not allow business’ who handle military contracts to se their services. So we say we will no longer do business with them, until or unless they change. As such we have canceled our accounts with them. We told them why as well. If you support our troops you may want to do the same.


“Citi does not prohibit the financing of firearms purchases by individuals nor the financing of businesses that manufacture and sell them to individuals for recreational use. However, we do prohibit financing merchants in the non-ancillary military equipment industry, including the financing of businesses that manufacture and or sell firearms for military use.” That’s the statement from Elizabeth Fogarty, Citi Public Affairs, after Home Depot yanked credit from Oregon’s Warne Scope Mounts Company because of “the industry you’re in.” The big question: why? More to the point, I thought we’d already put this one to bed . . .

frfry Rotating Header Image If The Government Were To Declare Martial Law Would You Defend Your Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms?

If they were to declare martial law the gov would have the “right” to take away your weapons. Would you allow them or would you defend your freedom to bear arms? Once the gov takes your freedom to bear arms away they could take away any right that we have left because we wouldn’t be able to defend our rights. Also marshal law is supposed to be only temporary but if they were to declare it nationally they would probably think it would be a wonderful idea to make it permanent.