Federal Legislation News Pro-gun Safety

Happy New Year ya anti-gun freakazoids!

NRA Backs Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill in U.S. House

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.

Federal H.R.38 Legislation News Pro-gun Self-defense

America’s gunnuts are actually on the Left…


Clinton Pushes Semi-Auto Ban as Public Rejects Gun Bans in Record Numbers


Is she trying to look like Donald Sutherland?!?

Hillary Clinton has made clear that she would make gun control a top priority of her presidency, and has pointed to a new ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms as one of her chief goals. At a June 17, 2014 CNN “town hall” event, Clinton was asked, “Do you think that reinstating the ban on assault weapons and banning high capacity magazines would do any good?” Clinton affirmed her support for a ban, and stated, “We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” Clinton’s team might want to rework this line of attack, as a Gallup poll released this week shows that a record number, and a majority, of Americans oppose a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms.

In a poll conducted October 5-9, Gallup asked 1,017 adults, “Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?” An overwhelming 61 percent of respondents answered that they were against such a ban, while a mere 36 percent support the restriction.

Gallup began asking this question in 1996, and has done so several times in the last two decades. The trend in favor of greater respect for gun rights is undeniable. Since 1996, support for a ban has dropped more than 20 points and opposition has risen 19 points.

Moreover, Gallup’s data shows that support for a ban has fallen across both major political parties and independents. Gallup points out, “Currently, 50% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans favor a ban; in 1996, 63% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans did so.” Additionally, support for a ban is well below 50 percent in both gun-owning and non-gun-owning households.

In addition to the question about semi-automatic firearms, Gallup also asked respondents, “Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?” As with commonly-owned semiautomatics, the results reveal that Americans are opposed to a handgun ban in record numbers. In the 1980s and early 1990s Gallup measured support for a handgun ban at around 40 percent. Today, only 23 percent support this restriction. 

While Clinton might like use incendiary rhetoric that labels gun rights supporters as a minority that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans, in fact it’s her support for gun bans that is extreme. We’d ask Clinton to stick to the truth, if she were familiar with the concept.

A few take-aways from this:

  1. Hillary Clinton knows what she knows and she’s not going to let the opinions of the “small folk” stand in her way. (Like that’s a surprise!)
  2. Support for an “assault weapon” ban fades away when it’s not called an “assault weapon” ban. Did you notice how Gallup phrased the question? Usually the question is “Do you favor banning deadly assault weapons that slaughter women and children?”. Whether they mean to or not, pollsters push-poll the question with wording like that. One wonders why Gallup did not do so here. Perhaps they’re tired of getting smacked for it by people like us.
  3. Gunnuts, those who obsess over firearms, are on the Left in America. Only people like Hillary get their knickers in a twist over rifles that are almost never used in violent crimes.

News Politics

From NRA News:

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2016


The AR-15 Is The Musket Of Its Era

As the standard firearm of its day, the AR-15 does not represent some bizarre over-extension of the right to keep and bear arms. It is the very core of that right.

In the middle of June, a self-described radical Islamist ruthlessly gunned down a room full of Americans in the worst terrorist attack on United States soil since 9/11. In response, the Obama administration joined the usual suspects within the media and inveighed relentlessly against the perpetrator of the crime. It was time, the president said, to get serious in fighting terrorism, and that meant “making it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on assault weapons.” Once again, the AR-15 was under the microscope.

If it seemed a touch peculiar that the president would reserve his most vehement words of condemnation for a firearm, rest assured that it was. But, alas, it was also par for the course. In the eyes of America’s ever-zealous gun-controllers, the AR-15 represents all that is wrong with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, indeed, with the country’s culture at large.

In consequence, banning it is imperative not only in the fight against “gun violence,” but as a means by which individualism itself can be checked. Time and time again, those who own AR-15s—or similar—are cast as reactionaries, or bitter clingers, or, worst of all, as full-on terrorists. “Why,” the critics invariably inquire, “are we allowing this supergun and its unbalanced owners to destroy the public peace?”

It makes no logical or constitutional sense for the people’s employees (our politicians) to be permitted to disarm their employers (the voters).

In pushing back against this rather ignorant way of thinking, I could marshal an almost endless supply of inconvenient facts. I could point out, for example, that despite all of the propaganda to the contrary, the AR-15 is not a “supergun,” a “machine gun,” an “automatic weapon” or an “assault rifle”; that it does not “spray bullets” indiscriminately, as one sees in the movies; that it is owned by a fascinating cross-section of American citizens; that it is not especially powerful, especially when compared to rifles that are primarily used for hunting; and that it is used so infrequently in crimes that the FBI doesn’t even bother to keep statistics.

Moreover, I could explain that there are a host of reasons why the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. Among them, that its ergonomic design makes it universally easy to use; that its modular structure renders it simple to repair or to customize; and that its pinpoint accuracy makes it the ideal choice for those who are weaker or lacking in training. But I won’t. For now, at least, I shall leave those arguments to those who are more technically qualified than am I, and focus instead on the principle that is at stake in the debate over the AR-15.

That principle? That Americans are in charge of their representatives, and not the other way around.

In most countries, the regnant political presumption is that the government enjoys unchecked power unless otherwise stated. In America, mercifully, the opposite doctrine applies. To review the debates that raged both before and after the revolution of 1776 is to learn not only that our forebears thought of government as a means primarily of protecting liberty, but that they did not believe they were obliged to surrender their pre-existing rights when they entered into the compact. It is for this reason that the federal government was given only certain, carefully delineated powers. It is for this reason that the framers of the Constitution were so keen to impose hard checks on authority. And it is for this reason that, even today, civil society takes on a much greater role in the United States than it does elsewhere.

All told, there are few better illustrations of this than the Second Amendment—the meaning of which is not at all confusing if one understands the era in which it was written. As the English system of juries was born from a sensible unwillingness to hand full judicial control over to a clique of professional judges, so the right to bear arms came from a general reluctance to put unalloyed trust in the power of the state. Grudgingly, Americans consented to be guarded by a standing army. But, as a check upon the ambitions of their government and its staff, there would be the militia, which, per George Mason, would be composed of “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

This arrangement was intended to achieve two crucial ends. The first, Tench Coxe wrote in 1791, was to ensure that there would be a means by which the people could resist should “the military forces which must be occasionally raised” seek to “pervert their power.” The second, as John Locke had confirmed in his Two Treatises, was to affirm that self-defense was an unalienable individual right that “could not be denied the community,” and that to delegate it entirely to Leviathan was a foolish idea indeed. To the founding generation it did not matter whether the question at hand was the protection of the home or the best insurance against would-be tyrants, the answer was invariably the same. “Who will defend me if things go wrong?” came the inquiry. “You will,” came the answer.

This idea has been cherished throughout American history. In Europe, ostensibly free people are routinely denied the opportunity to take charge of their own defenses on the grounds that the police and the security services can do a better job. In America, by contrast, these organizations have been seen as an addition to—rather than a replacement of—the status quo. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently confirmed that the police have “no specific legal duty” to protect individuals from threats. Now, as in the 18th century, the prevailing assumption is clear: At all levels, Americans are responsible for their own security—and if the government can help, that’s a bonus.

It is for this reason that the framers of the Constitution were so keen to impose hard checks on authority.

All of which, ultimately, brings us back to the AR-15. In my view, there is nothing that better symbolizes the proper relationship between the citizen and the state than a robust right to keep and bear arms. When one stops to think about it, it makes no logical or constitutional sense for the people’s employees (our politicians) to be permitted to disarm their employers (the voters).

And yet Americans fight constantly to prevent their representatives from doing just that. During heated debates, owners of common rifles such as the AR-15 are asked by those in positions of power, “Why do you need one of those?”—to which the appropriate response, in a voice dripping with suspicion, is first, “Why don’t you want me to have one?” And second, “If the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs need $20 million worth of firearms; and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service needs shotguns, propane cannons and drones; I think I’m on solid ground with my AR, thank you very much.”

Bluntly put, it is impossible to separate out the structure of the American settlement from the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. If, as many desire, the federal government were to rid the people of the United States of their most commonly owned rifle, it would be ushering in not just a change in the legal status quo, but a profound shift in the balance of power. Crises, as Edmund Burke observed, are perilous for the free.

Those who wish to avoid such a change must thus ensure that their rifles are cast in the correct light. Day in and day out, the gun control movement attempts to represent the AR-15 as being in some way extravagant or outré—as the unlovely corruption of a worthwhile principle. “Sure,” one hears it said, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but that gun just takes it too far.”

Bluntly put, it is impossible to separate out the structure of the American settlement from the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.

This, of course, is nonsense. In truth, the AR-15 is the contemporary equivalent of the musket—an everyday gun for everyday citizens. Fundamentally, the AR-15 is democratic. It is the yeoman’s gun; the people’s gun; the Brown Bess
of our era. It is what William Blackstone was referring to when he praised private arms; what George Orwell had in mind when he sought to keep the “rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage;” what Ida B. Wells imagined when she recommended that endangered blacks give a rifle “a place of honor” in their homes. As the standard firearm of its day, the AR-15 does not represent some bizarre over-extension of the right to keep and bear arms. It is the very core of that right.

This being so, it is unsurprising that the AR-15 has played a valuable role in ensuring that the Second Amendment can be enjoyed by everybody. The old line that “God created men, Sam Colt made them equal” hit on a key truth: Namely, that the right to self-defense remains largely theoretical absent the widespread availability of easy-to-use methods to provide for that self-defense, like firearms. On paper, both a diminutive woman and a 230-pound criminal have precisely the same opportunities to defend themselves. But unless she can find a way of overcoming the natural disparities in strength, that fight will not be a fair one. The AR-15 provides that way.

Speak to any gun store owner and he will tell you that the AR-15 is so wildly popular in large part because it is so versatile. Thanks to its smart design, it can be handled without trouble by men and by women, by children and by the elderly, by the able-bodied and by those with disabilities. Moreover, it can be easily and inexpensively customized to fit any body shape or size, and because its parts are interchangeable, they can be found by the inexpert and fitted without the need for costly tools. Because the media is proudly ignorant on all matters related to the Second Amendment, many members of the general public have come to believe that the AR-15 is unusually “high powered” or that its shooting system functions differently than other commonly used firearms. That, though, is wholly false. The AR-15 is unusual only insofar as it is usefully protean. Want a gun, but have special needs? There’s an app for that.

Which is to say that our present political contretemps is the product less of the fallout from a specific event, and more of a deep-seated and longstanding philosophical disagreement as to how modern Americans should relate to their government and to each other. In our cynical, distracted age it can be tempting to perceive the icons of the past as untouchable heroes, or to regard their grand deeds as one might a tall tale in a fading book of fables. But to elevate those who have stepped into the breach is often to do ourselves a disservice—indeed, if indulged too readily, it is to separate us cleanly from our history.

The United States has always been home to people who filled those roles that the government could not, and who proudly took responsibility for themselves and their security. To deprive them of the most effective, most democratic, most popular tool with which they choose to play that role would be a dangerous departure indeed.

Charles C. W. Cooke is the editor of National Review Online.




California: Anti-Gun Bills To Be Voted on Tomorrow!

The legislature will convene tomorrow for the last time before summer recess. It’s anticipated that a number of gun bills will be considered in both chambers. This could be the last opportunity to voice your opposition before the bills are sent to Governor Brown’s desk for his consideration. The eligible bills range in topic but hold a central theme, limiting and restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.  Click here and here for additional information on the eligible bills.

It is CRITICAL that you contact state Senators using the take action button below urging them to OPPOSE AB 450, AB 1664, AB 1673, AB 1674, AB 1695, and AB 2607.

Contact state Assembly Members using the take action button below urging them to OPPOSE SB 880, SB 894, SB 1235, SB 1407, SB 1446, AB 156, AB 857, and AB 1511.

Yesterday, June 28, the Senate Public Safety Committee passed Assembly Bill 450 on a party line vote.  AB 450, sponsored by “F” rated Assembly Member McCarty, is a  “gut and amend” that covered a completely different subject matter until last week. Now, AB 450 is aimed at arguably the most law-abiding citizens, CCW permit holders.  The bill seeks to increase fees to not only cover issuance but also enforcement.  Exactly what “enforcement” is to cover remains unclear, however what was abundantly clear is McCarty’s disdain for concealed carry permit holders and his desire to put a price tag on permits beyond the reach of average citizens.

It is important that you forward this alert to your family, friends, and fellow guns owners and sportsmen and urge them to contact state Senators and Assembly Members. 

AB 1511 AB 156 AB 1664 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2607 AB 857 AB450 Anti-gun Legislation News SB 1235 SB 1407 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State


MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2016

California: Anti-Gun Bills Could Receive Floor Votes Today

Contact State Senators and Assembly Members IMMEDIATELY

Thirteen anti-gun bills are now on third read and concurrence calendars where votes could possibly take place as early as today, Monday, June 27.   Should these bills not come up today they will stay on the calendar until they are brought up on the floor.  It is CRUCIAL that you contact state Senators and Assembly Members TODAY urging them to oppose these anti-gun measures.

On Thursday, June 23rd, anti-gun legislators continued to play in the shadows by suspending the Assembly rules to pull several anti-gun bills out of the Appropriations committee and straight to the floor.   While no further action was taken, this moved several bills one step closer to Governor Brown’s desk without public participation.

Rather than fight the criminal element, anti-gun legislators would rather continue to erode the rights of law-abiding Californians by making firearm laws even tighter and unworkable.  WE MUST send a clear message that more onerous restrictions of our constitutional freedoms, which only impact law-abiding Californians, will not be tolerated.

It is CRITICAL that you contact state Senators using the take action button below urging them to OPPOSE AB 1664, AB 1673, AB 1674, AB 1695, and AB 2607.

Contact state Assembly Members using the take action button below urging them to OPPOSE SB 880, SB 894, SB 1235, SB 1407, SB 1446, AB 156, AB 857, and AB 1511.

Please click here and here to read the background on all of the above mentioned anti-gun bills.

These onerous anti-gun bills will do nothing to reduce firearm crimes nor will they make California safer.

It is important that you forward this alert to your family, friends, and fellow guns owners and sportsmen and urge them to contact state Senators and Assembly Members. 

AB 1511 AB 156 AB 1664 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2607 AB 857 Anti-gun Legislation News SB 1235 SB 1407 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State

From the NRA:

FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 2016

California: Anti-Gun Legislators Continue the Push Through Misguided Legislation

Anti-gun advocates are working overtime to ram their agenda to restrict the Second Amendment through the legislative process before they go on summer recess, which starts July 1 after floor session has adjourned. After passing 10 anti-gun bills through committee earlier this week, both the Senate Appropriations and the Assembly Public Safety committees have anti-gun legislation on their respective agendas.

On Tuesday, June 21, at 9:00 a.m., the Assembly Public Safety Committee in State Capitol room 126 will hear Assembly Bill 1511. This legislation appears to be self serving to Bloomberg and other anti-gun groups who have been pushing similar misguided measures in other states. California’s long-standing temporary loan provision to so-called “universal background checks” has been a thorn in their side as they have struggled to explain to other states, such as Nevada, why their proposals are more restrictive than what is currently allowed for in California. Rather than continue their struggle, the answer was simple, continue to erode the rights of Californians by making the temporary transfer laws even tighter and unworkable.

Assembly Bill 1511 would effectively end the long-standing practice of temporarily loaning a firearm for lawful purposes.  Under this legislation the ability to loan a firearm to anyone other than a family member, absent limited exceptions, would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer.  Gun control advocates are pushing legislation like AB 1511 under the guise that this will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.  Criminals do not go to FFL’s to loan their firearms out to their friends.

Please contact the members of the Public Safety Committee by using our TAKE ACTION button below and urge them to OPPOSE AB 1511.

With just a one “work” day notice to their constituents, the Senate Appropriations Committee has decided to schedule five anti-gun bills to be heard on Monday, June 20, at 10:00 a.m., in the John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203). The bills have been scheduled as a “Special Order of Business” which seems to indicate that the bills will not follow the general process of being sent to the suspense file, which they are eligible for, and instead be sent immediately to the floor for consideration upon passage in an effort to continue to fast track the attack on your rights.

Please contact the members of the Appropriations Committee by using our TAKE ACTION button below and urge them to OPPOSE AB 1664, AB 1673, AB 1674, AB 1695, and AB 2607.  Please click here to read our previous alert with an explanation of all of these bills.

Don’t forget to forward this alert to your family, friends, fellow gun owners and sportsmen.

The California Democrat Party is determined to ram these bills through the Legislature. In part because they hate your guts. They also hate Gavin Newsom nearly as much as they hate you; so, some of this is intended to derail his goofball initiative and his gubernatorial aspirations. (It’s not that they disagree with his policy goals. They’re bent because he jumped the line. It’s “not his turn yet” to run for governor.) In all likelihood, these will be passed. However, your emails and phone calls are still extremely important. Gov. Brown has already vetoed versions of these bills. He’ll need your emails and phone calls on record to justify another round of veto letters.

AB 1511 AB 1664 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2607 Anti-gun Legislation State


FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2016

Katie Couric is an Anti-Gun Fraud and Hypocrite

Google-search “Katie Couric, gun control, edited” and you’ll see what we’re talking about. Actually, you’ll see what most news organizations are talking about.

Fox News: Katie Couric slammed for ‘deceptive’ documentary about gun rights

Washington Post: Audiotape: Katie Couric documentary falsely depicts gun supporters as “idiots”

New York Times: Audio of Katie Couric Interview Shows Editing Slant in Gun Documentary, Site Claims

Reason: Katie Couric Anti-Gun Doc Deceptively Edited to Suggest Gun Rights Activists Don’t Have Answers

The Blaze: Katie Couric Documentary Accused of Deceptively Editing Gun Rights Activists—Here’s the Evidence

Washington Free Beacon: Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

Daily Caller: Katie Couric Edited Gun Documentary to Silence Pro-Gun Opinions

The articles’ titles pretty much tell the story, but the details go something like this: Couric has produced a documentary promoting gun control. Lest there be any confusion on that point, the documentary’s website says that its partners include Everytown, Moms Demand Action, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and other anti-gun groups. And it urges people to “Reject the NRA” and to contact lawmakers, urging them to support background check legislation and other gun control efforts.

In the documentary, Couric interviews members of a local, Virginia-based pro-Second Amendment group. She asks them why they don’t support “universal” background check legislation. What is shown on camera thereafter is the interviewees sitting speechless for a full nine seconds, after which time the video cuts away, as if they never figured out an answer and the cameraman gave up and turned the camera off. The implication? Couric had proven once and for all that gun control opponents are incapable of producing a single argument against gun control.

But an audio-only tape of the interview, available here, proves that several of those being interviewed answered Couric immediately and at considerable length. Couric’s team simply deleted their answers, and inserted the “speechless” video footage in their place.

The articles linked above make clear that Couric and her director, Stephanie Soechtig, set out not to “document” anything, but to persuade viewers to adopt their anti-gun views. All of this reminds us that Couric is the same political activist that she has always been, first as a “journalist” that would bend the truth to propagandize audiences, and now as a “filmmaker” that will do the same.

According to CNN, Couric says she is “very proud of the film.” Her hubris notwithstanding, it remains to be seen if Couric’s legacy is forever tainted – as it should be – from her attempt to mislead the American public into believing a false narrative on gun control.



FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton to Attack Gun Owners Her “Very First Day” in Office

In what has become as reliable as clockwork, with the passing of another week comes another Hillary Clinton attack on gun owners. This time, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination explained to supporters her intent to make an assault on gun rights and NRA one of her top priorities. A video of her comments has been distributed by Breitbart.com and can be viewed by clicking here.

Addressing an April 25 MSNBC “townhall” hosted by left-wing commentator Rachel Maddow, Clinton stated,

I really support everything President Obama said he would do through regulation on guns but we’re going to start the very first day and tackle the gun lobby to try to reduce the outrageous number of people who are dying from gun violence in our country.

Later, the candidate spoke of her party’s chances of taking control of the Senate, stating,

The Democrats have decided they will be led by Chuck Schumer and Chuck Schumer has been one of the most effective legislators in taking on the gun lobby. He and I worked together to get the Brady bill passed way back in my husband’s administration. So I think that it’s the kind of issue you have to start early, you have to work on it every day and we need to make it a voting issue.

A visibly agitated Clinton concluded her remarks on the subject by noting,

I’m going to keep talking about it, and we are going to make it clear that this has to be a voting issue. If you care about this issue, vote against people who give in to the NRA and the gun lobby all the time.

These comments make clear that gun owners and NRA would be in Clinton’s crosshairs from the moment she assumes office. And thanks to Clinton’s recent candor, gun owners don’t have to guess at the types of restrictions Clinton has in mind for them. Clinton has supported a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms and endorsed an Australian-style confiscation scheme for carrying out her vision. Clinton has expressed her vehement opposition to the Right-to-Carry. Most disturbing, under Clinton’s false interpretation of the Constitution, the Second Amendment does not protect and individual right to keep and bear arms and allows gun bans.

Somewhat of a political pragmatist, Barack Obama waited until he secured a second term before launching most of his efforts to restrict firearm ownership. Hillary Clinton is continually making clear that under her reign gun owners would receive no such reprieve.

This is why NRA members, along with their families and friends, must get involved in our efforts to secure a victory for gun owners this fall. At the bare minimum, gun owners must ensure that they and their loved ones are registered to vote. For those that can contribute more to our fight for freedom, NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Division can connect you with volunteer opportunities anywhere in the country, and NRA has made it easier than ever to participate in our efforts. To register to vote or explore further opportunities to help, please visit NRA-ILA’s Election Center at https://www.nraila.org/about/election-center/.

News Politics