Dana is now an official spokesperson for the NRA. She was named a special assistant to Executive Vice-president Wayne LaPierre for public communications.
Dana is now an official spokesperson for the NRA. She was named a special assistant to Executive Vice-president Wayne LaPierre for public communications.
Bill Would Eliminate Confusing Patchwork of State Laws
Fairfax, Va. – On behalf of its five-million members, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded the introduction of H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, authored by Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-8). This legislation would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state carry laws by allowing individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.
“The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA. “Congressman Hudson’s legislation provides a much needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners.”
This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected. If under federal law a person is prohibited from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under this bill.
“Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines,” continued Cox. “This is an extremely important issue to our members and we thank Congressman Hudson for leading the fight to protect our rights,” concluded Cox.
The effort to qualify ballot initiatives to overturn the “gunmageddon” bills appears to have fallen short. However, our gun-hating betters in Sacramento shouldn’t pop those corks just yet. NRA, CRPA, and other groups are moving forward with legal actions to overturn these unconstitutional laws in the courts.
Thank you to all of those who put in the sweat equity (And I mean that literally. Do you know how freakin’ hot it gets in places like Reseda?!?) to gather signatures. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by the rest of us. Please don’t let this news dishearten you. The fight isn’t over yet and you’re still needed.
From America’s 1st Freedom magazine…
In response to a Democratic presidential debate question on Oct. 13, 2015, Hillary Clinton put the 5 million members of the NRA at the top of the list of enemies she is most proud of.
This is unprecedented: On national television, a candidate for president of the United States named peaceable, law-abiding gun owners, who are simply trying to protect the Second Amendment, as her biggest enemies. She even listed NRA members ahead of Iran—the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. Drug cartels, Vladimir Putin, North Korea and ISIS terrorists didn’t even get a mention.
Clinton’s declaration made us wonder how NRA members feel about being recklessly declared her enemy. So we decided to ask them: How does it feel to be named Public Enemy Number 1 by Hillary Clinton? Yet you have to be careful of who it is that is inspiring you to hate, and why.
Today we hear from Corinne Mosher, Kansas State Rifle Association training committee member, professional competitive shooter, wife of a police officer and member of the D.C. Project.
It is a politically rewarding strategy to demonize one group of people in order to unite another group against a “common enemy.” The more unlike yourself you can make your enemy seem, the bigger the lies you can tell about them.
When a presidential candidate publicly denounces five million American citizens as the people she is most proud to call her enemies, she is shamefully putting politics above patriotism, and pandering to constituents rather than embracing her responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once said, “Love, friendship and respect do not unite people as much as a common hatred for something.” Yet you have to be careful of who it is that is inspiring you to hate, and why. For the same knife that in the hands of a surgeon is used to save lives, can, in the wrong hands, be a destructive tool, severing vital connections and leading to permanent ruin.
The question to ask ourselves is not if the irresponsible rhetoric by Hillary Clinton is being used as an attempt to divide us, but why she is attempting to do so. The most obvious answer seems to be that she realizes once we are divided, we are susceptible to attacks from without and within. … once we are divided, we are susceptible to attacks from without and within.
“We the People” of the United States do have enemies, but the voices, faces and stories that make up the NRA are certainly not among them.
NRA’s membership represents a rich collection of different stories, races, religions, gender and sexuality preferences, socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, family structures, and political parties. We have differing levels of participation in the shooting sports and in politics in general, but we all believe in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We uphold, honor and sustain the law, especially laws that are intended to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to promote safe firearm storage and handling.
Placing all members of the NRA in one category, as Clinton did, is like trying to complete a paint-by-numbers kit using a paint roller.
If you aren’t a member of the NRA, that doesn’t make you my enemy. If you disagree with my views, political and otherwise, that doesn’t make you my enemy. To truly be my enemy, you have to be attempting to take away any of the basic human rights endowed by my Creator—my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Therefore, my short list of enemies is as follows: terrorists, rapists, murderers and tyrants.
So, if you have proudly declared yourself to be my enemy, then I ask, “Which of these are you?”
There’s a saying: Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Yes, there’s probably some perfect way to accomplish a particular task, but a good way will work too. And it will work right now when you need it.
You can say the same thing about political candidates. There are perfect candidates and there are good candidates that can get elected now.
There are many gun owners who let the perfect become the enemy of the good. They want a candidate who emerged from the womb with a CCW clutched in his tiny, little fist. This year’s GOP primary cycle gave us some good candidates when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. There were also, arguably, some perfect candidates when it comes to gun rights. (One hopeful comes to mind that was actually bad.) But the apparent winner is Donald Trump and there are likely more than a few gun owners who have a case of the tight jaws over the NRA’s endorsement of Trump for President.
Is Trump perfect? No. Is he good? Yes. Is he really good? Yes. NRA Board Member Bob Barr calls a vote for Trump a “No-brainer“.
While there are and will continue to be legitimate questions about Trump’s views and positions on a wide range of issues and policies important to conservatives, for any voter who cares about protecting our God-given and constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, the vote for President this November is a no-brainer: Trump, Yes; Hillary, No.
This is quite simply because Hillary is the “perfect” candidate; perfectly bad.
Even as Trump is strengthening his bona fides as a Second Amendment supporter, Clinton is racing further in the opposite direction. Most disturbing in this regard is her recent statement that the 2008 Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court — which simply reached the common sense, and historically sound conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm, as opposed to some sort of “collective” right – is “wrong”; and that she would make it a priority as president to change it.
We’ve mentioned the differences between the two presumptive nominees before. And we’ve also reported here that Hillary has doubled-down on her gun-hating position. There is a stark difference between the two. It’s important this year that gun owners not let the perfectly bad candidate win at the expense of the imperfectly good one. This really is a no-brainer.
Fairfax, Va.— The chairman of the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Friday:
“The stakes in this year’s presidential election could not be higher for gun owners. If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia with an anti-gun Supreme Court justice, we will lose the individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. Mrs. Clinton has said that the Supreme Court got it wrong on the Second Amendment. So the choice for gun owners in this election is clear. And that choice is Donald Trump. That’s why the National Rifle Association of America is announcing our endorsement of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States.”
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook andTwitter @NRA.
From America’s 1st Freedom:
It’s now in black and white in the Federal Register: President Barack Obama wants to ban firearm ownership for millions of Americans who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments or Disability Insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.
In the biggest gun grab in American history, the Obama White House wants to retroactively nullify the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans who receive Social Security benefits, who get those payments through “representative payees.”
As the Los Angeles Times reported in July, this new proposed gun ban tracks with what the Obama administration has already done to disarm American veterans through the Veterans Administration: If you receive benefits, and if for whatever reason, you have been assigned a “fiduciary”—in other words, someone who helps you manage your financial affairs, whether it’s balancing your checkbook or depositing checks in your account—then your gun rights are gone.
Under the Social Security Administration’s proposed implementation of the same scheme, if such a beneficiary has a “representative payee,” then their right to keep and bear arms would be nullified, as well.Proposed rule could ban gun ownership by millions through executive fiat.
As the L.A. Times pointed out, this wholesale revocation of the right to keep and bear arms for an entire class of people casts an extraordinarily wide net. Yale psychiatrist Dr. Marc Rosen told the Times, “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe. They are very different determinations.”
Under the proposed rule published May 5 in the Federal Register:
“… we would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits … or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments … and also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual’s mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee.”
Once those individuals were identified, they would be reported to the National Instant Check System (NICS) “on not less than a quarterly basis” as prohibited persons barred from purchasing, owning or even using firearms, and:
“We would also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such inclusion, [and] the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act …”
As the Times pointed out, 2.7 million Americans currently receive Social Security disability payments for so-called “mental impairment,” and 1.5 million have assistance with their financial affairs through “representative payees.” That’s at least 4.2 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits—and possibly more—who could lose their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their families.
Ari Ne’eman, who sits on the federal National Council on Disability, said that group would oppose any federal rule change that used the existence of a representative payee as a reason to deny fundamental rights. “The rep payee is an extraordinarily broad brush,” Ne’eman told theLos Angeles Times.
Here’s the tricky part, at least right now. Unless you’re a Philadelphia lawyer or someone fluent in the language of Washington bureaucratese, it’s not easy to figure out in advance, who, exactly, will fall under such a ban.
Once you start wading into the wilderness of the Federal Register—as we did—to try to sort out exactly who will be banned from owning firearms, several things strike you:
First, the regulations are so voluminous and impossibly impenetrable (and changing all the time) that it’s hard to figure out where even to begin your search.
Second, even after you identify one of the groups whose rights will be nullified—for example, those whose “mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments”—when you finally find and read that section of the Federal Register, the definitions spiral off into an undefined infinity where (for example) having “odd beliefs” can qualify you as having a “personality disorder” … or where “sleep disturbance, fatigue or panic attacks” qualifies you as having an “anxiety disorder” … or having “poor conceptual, social and practical skills” qualifies you for having an “intellectual disability.” It goes on and on, with the terms getting vaguer and more subjective the deeper you wade.Another scheme to deny the right to arms to as many people, for as many reasons, as often and as permanently as possible.
Just as the psychiatrists’ bible of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has grown under the pressure of disease mongering—so that everyone gets their own mental “disorder” and everyone gets a pill—you can bet the number of disqualifying characteristics for lawful gun ownership will grow as fast as anyone can justify them.
And just because you’re not on the “Listings” today doesn’t mean you won’t have your rights denied tomorrow. As Dr. Allen J. Frances notes in aPsychology Today article headlined “Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis”:
“The NIMH estimates that, in any given year, 25 percent of the population has a diagnosable mental disorder. A prospective study found that, by age 32, 50 percent of the general population had qualified for an anxiety disorder, 40 percent for a depression, and 30 percent for alcohol abuse or dependence. Imagine what the rates will be like by the time these people hit 50, or 65, or 80. In this brave new world of psychiatric overdiagnosis, will anyone get through life without a mental disorder?”
Disarming dangerous, mentally ill people is one thing. This is something an order larger.
If someone is mentally ill and presents a danger to him- or herself or others, no one wants to see that person have access to firearms. That goes without saying. No one benefits from the tragedies that can result except the anti-gun lobby, which often exploits them. The rest of us suffer, not just with our safety and loss but also, thanks to Obama’s SSI and VA schemes, with our ability to protect ourselves from those very dangerous people. That’s wrong.
But this isn’t about keeping guns away from the mentally ill. It’s about denying the right to keep and bear arms to as many people, for as many reasons, in as many places, in as many ways, as often and as permanently as they possibly can.
It’s part of a bigger trend, where politicians seek to take away the gun rights of ever more people—not just through the diagnosis of a medical professional, but also with little more than hearsay, as they’re pushing to do in California now.
And it’s just one of the ways Obama is going around the law to make new law—just as the NRA warned he would do in his last months in office.
But Obama’s scheme isn’t just the biggest gun grab by an American president in history.
For President Obama, who said his failure to win gun control is the “biggest frustration” of his presidency, to turn around now and bend the law into knots to disarm countless Americans who pose no threat—just so he can leave behind a blob of regulations for decades of lawyers to try to disentangle, despite the legislative process and regardless of how many good people are needlessly left defenseless—is more than arrogant. It’s a downright embarrassment.
In the end, your best way to fight back may be to contact your U.S. senators and representative. Urge them to oppose Obama’s Social Security gun grab. Americans who pose no threat to anyone should not have their most fundamental right—the right that gives us the ability to survive criminal attack—denied by hearsay, financial incompetence or a president’s arrogance.
Most importantly, get registered to vote, and on Nov. 3, cast your vote. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, you can bet she’ll push through schemes like this that make Obama look like an amateur.
Use Your Power!
Right now, Obama’s proposed rule is open for public comment until July 5, 2016. You can submit your comments by
©1994-2017 Gun Owners of the San Fernando Valley
Re-publication permitted with attribution.