Crackpot Senator Calls Nation’s Oldest Civil Rights Group “Extreme.”

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Senator Feinstein there are extremist they are in both Houses Of Congress and they have the letter “D” behind their names.

It is not the National Rifle Association and their members. 

During yesterday’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court justice nominee Neil Gorsuch, California Senator Dianne Feinstein took dead aim at the National Rifle Association, branding the nation’s oldest civil rights group (founded in 1871) as an ‘extreme organization.”

Feinstein’s NRA comment came after she voiced her expectations that the Supreme Court will have final say on air and water pollution and just before she addressed employers who “[discriminate] against workers.”

CSPAN 2 aired Feinstein’s comments: “It is the Supreme Court that will have final word … [on] whether the NRA and other extreme organizations will be able to block common sense gun regulations, including those that keep military-style assault weapons off our streets.”

Many things are at play in Feinstein’s statement, including the ongoing Democrat animosity toward the fact that the Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) pose a great hindrance to the future of gun control in this country. Moreover, Feinstein’s statement betrays her continued support of an “assault weapons” ban, such as the one that Democrats enacted during the Clinton administration or the one Feinstein herself unsuccessfully pushed after the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“Assault weapons” are of course a politically-manufactured term created by gun control fanatic Josh Sugarmann to describe any firearm that looks remotely like a military firearm, regardless of their actual function or capability.

Semi-automatic weapons (self-loading firearms that fire one shot per trigger pull) have been in common use in the United States for more than a century, having first been produced in large commercial quantities in the late 1800s. The semi-automatic action has been the most popular kind of firearm action for handguns for decades, and remains the most popular action type for rifles. Semi-automatics may soon become the most popular form of action for shotguns as well.

Feinstein and her dishonest ilk use the term “military-style assault weapons” in an intentional attempt to confuse the public.

“Assault weapon” is supposed to confuse the public into thinking that selective-fire military firearms are easily sold to the general public, which is an outright falsehood.

Selective-fire weapons such as assault rifles, submachine guns, and machine guns have been tightly restricted by the National Firearms Act since 1934, and while there are more than 240,000 registered “NFA” guns in civilian hands in the United States, they are almost never used in crime, with only two documented occurrences known. Further, the manufacture of new NFA firearms for the general public  was outlawed 31 years ago, when the Hughes Amendment passed as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986.

Yes, you read that correctly: real military firearms capable of firing more than one shot per trigger pull have been banned for more than three decades.

The National Rifle Association is the largest and oldest Second Amendment rights advocacy group in the United States, and is also the largest training provider, with more than 100,000 certified trainers. They are hardly out of the mainstream.

Feinstein, however, represents a view that would crush the core right of American citizens to be armed for their own defense against both criminals and the tyrants which most concerned the Founding Fathers, a corrupt and all-powerful government she champions.

There are extremists in Washington. Dianne Feinstien, with her warped view of the natural right of all human beings to armed self defense, is one of them.


“Trump Slump” Proved False By Strong Background Check Numbers

1 Comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

The number’s shoot holes(pun intended)in the gun sales slump narratives. 

Rumors of the “Trump Slump” in gun sales have been exaggerated. Recent reports point to three consecutive months of declining NICS background checks (a proxy for gun sales, though not all background checks are connected to a purchase and a single purchase may include multiple firearms) as evidence that President Trump’s election marks the end in a period that saw background checks monthly records broken regularly.

After eight years of an administration led by the “greatest gun salesman in history,” the shift away from an anti-gun agenda has likely eased the drive to buy guns, right?

Not necessarily. 

First, a record-setting number of background checks were completed on Black Friday 2016 – after Trump won the election. 

Perhaps more importantly, February 2017 NICS data contradicts the “Trump Slump” claims.

Examining the number of background checks completed in just the month of February for the last 18 years reveals that February 2017 was, in fact, the 3rd busiest February ever. Yes, the number of background checks in February 2017 is lower than it was in February 2016 – which happened to be the fourth busiest month of all time for NICS background checks.

Comparing current data to the record high points doesn’t prove that sales have plummeted; it does indicate that the number of background checks performed – and so the number of permit applications and/or firearms purchases – is still at near-record levels. February 2017, one of the months cited as proof of the “Trump Slump” was actually one of the 15 busiest months ever for background checks. 

December 2016 – after Trump and his party won the White House and Congress – was the 3rd busiest month ever. The “Trump Slump” allegation also points to a 17% drop in the number of checks performed in December 2016 from those performed in December 2015.

The narrative doesn’t mention that December 2015 featured the most background checks processed in a single month. Ever. 

While “Trump Slump” is a convenient phrase for a headline, it simply does not apply to background checks or gun sales.  

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Read more:

“Modernized” Undetectable Firearms Bill Would Outlaw Glocks, Many Rifles


H/T AmmoLand.

Senator Bill Nelson(D-Fl) is a fear mongering fool.

There is no such animal as an undetectable firearm.

Even with this 3D plastic guns you need a barrel,trigger assembly,a magazine and bullets all of which are mental.

Senator Nelson from Florida has filed a restrictive bill that would stifle innovation and experimentation, without significantly impacting terrorists or criminals. Interestingly, a complete exemption would be included for the U.S. government and agencies. The bill is titled the “Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act of 2017“.

Nelson mis-characterizes the state of the art with this falsehood:

“Thanks to advances in technology, anyone with a 3-D printer can simply print a fully-functioning firearm that can be snuck through a metal detector without being noticed,” Nelson said. “These guns pose a real threat to our safety and we need to be doing everything we can to keep them off the streets and out of the hands of those who wish to do harm.”

I would like to see Senator Nelson back up his claim with a demonstration.  Even the plastic replica found at the Reno airport, was detected because of the metal in the *ammunition*.  Even Defense Distributed used a metal firing pin in the design of its “Liberator” pistol.  Senator Nelson cited the non-firing replica from Reno in his announcement.

Both lawmakers cite an August incident where TSA Agents at the Reno-Tahoe International Airport found and confiscated a plastic gun from a passenger’s carry-on bag during screening. The gun, assembled using a 3-D printer, was found loaded with five live .22 caliber bullets.

The plastic copy was known to be a non-firing replica by August 9th.   From

One of 68 firearms discovered in carry-on bags nationally the week ending August 4, 2016, the TSA says it was a realistic replica, loaded with live ammunition.

The TSA says the passenger was offered the option of checking the item in carry-on baggage, but chose to leave it behind. The passenger was not arrested or cited, and continued to his flight with no impact to airport operations.

Nelson and Schumer’s statement was made in March of 2017.

Currently, the first part of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 is this:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm— (A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar;

The Nelson bill would change that paragraph to this, bold added for emphasis:

 (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm— (A) that, after removal of all parts other than a major component, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar;

If you remove *all parts* other than a major component, only a major component is left to detect.  Words mean things in the law, and the phrase in bold is not equivalent to “all parts other than all major components”, even though the difference is only two letters.

Such a requirement would outlaw all composite frames on the market today.  Glock frames and most Glock type frames would be outlawed.  Virtually all composite AR type lower receivers would be outlawed.  The law could be a sneak attack or simply a result of ignorance on the part of Senator Nelson and the other famously anti-Second Amendment co-sponsors.

It will be interesting to see if Senator Nelson uses images of the non-firing replica from Reno to bolster his bill.

It seems unlikely that Nelson’s bill will find much support in a Trump administration with a Republican Congress.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Illinois Bill Would Authorize Gun Confiscation Without Owner’s Input



If this law passes someone can say you are a danger to yourself or others and you can lose your guns.

This is one of many reasons liberalism is a threat to the Second Amendment and freedom.

Illinois Senator Julie A. Morrison (D-29) is pushing a bill that allows judges to confiscate guns without input from the firearm owner.

This is part of the continuing effort to fight gun crime that gun control has failed to stop in Chicago and the rest of the state.

SB 1291 would create a “Lethal Order of Protection” whereby the firearms of Illinois residents could be confiscated if a family member or “law officer” files a petition stating the gun owner “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having … [a firearm] in his or her custody or control.”

SB 1291’s summary states:

[The bill] provides that the petition shall also describe the type, and location of any firearm or firearms presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the respondent. Provides that the petitioner may be a family member of the respondent or a law enforcement officer, who files a petition alleging that the respondent poses a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. Establishes factors that the court must consider before issuing a lethal violence order of protection. Provides for the issuance of ex parte orders and one year orders.

The inclusion of “ex parte” orders means an order to take the guns of an Illinois resident could be issued without that resident’s presence during the process in which the order was issued.

The NRA-ILA states, “An ex parte order would be issued by a judge based solely on a brief, unsubstantiated affidavit made by a petitioner and absent any input made by the individual on which the order is targeted.”

Once an order is issued, the firearm owner must “(1) refrain from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving additional firearms for the duration of the order; and (2) turn over to the local law enforcement agency any firearm, Firearm Owner’s Identification Card, or concealed carry license in his or her possession.”

Belt-tightening in Connecticut: the Cost of Gun Control

Leave a comment


DemocRats will never learn and their states will continue to lose tax revenue due to their leftist laws.

Businesses will leave the states with oppressive tax laws and go to business friendly states with lower taxes.  .

A recent study released by the Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) examined the economic impact of the gun industry and gun control laws on state jobs and revenue in the Constitution State.

The firearms industry has a long history in Connecticut, including companies with roots that date back to before the Civil War. According to the NSSF, though, in 2016 Connecticut had 4,900 people employed in the firearms industry and related fields, a drop of almost 40% from 2013.

Tax revenues paid by the industry also dropped substantially, from $134 million to $85 million during the period. Similarly, the industry’s total impact on the state’s economy was down by nearly $700 million. One firearm manufacturer, PTR Industries of Bristol, Connecticut, in announcing its move out of the state, pointed to new gun laws, adding that “we feel that our industry as a whole will continue to be threatened so long as it remains in a state where its elected leaders have no regard for the rights of those who produce and manufacture its wealth.”

These are jobs and revenues that the state can ill-afford to lose. As noted in an earlier alert, Connecticut is in the midst of a fiscal crisis, facing a two-year, $3.6 billion budget deficit. The state is already treading water on jobs: one commentator estimates that the employment level in Connecticut in 2016 was below the level of jobs that existed 27 years earlier, in 1989. Employment in Connecticut’s manufacturing sector, in particular, has decreased drastically over the last 25 years.

There’s no mystery as to why firearms industries are abandoning Connecticut and other jurisdictions that disregard constitutional freedoms and the economic contributions made by gun-rights supporters. Gun companies don’t feel welcome in states with anti-gun agendas and extreme laws restricting or prohibiting their products. After Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy imposed sweeping gun control reforms in 2013, a Newington gun store and shooting range operator observed that “Nobody in the gun business wants to be associated with Connecticut. My family has been in business in Connecticut since 1919, and I can’t wait to get … out of this state…There are a lot of states in the union that love what I do.”

This unfavorable business climate comes with a price tag. Analyzing what it calls “the Malloy Economy,” the NSSF concluded that if gun industry contributions to state tax revenues over the last three years been equal to those made in 2013, Connecticut “would have another $140 million in its coffers.”

Connecticut is far from an isolated case. Following the imposition of new gun control laws in Colorado in 2013 – measures promoted by Governor John Hickenlooper – Magpul Industries relocated its manufacturing operations from Erie, Colorado to more gun-friendly Wyoming. The move cost Colorado at least $85 million in lost revenues.

Instead of seeking to retain and attract firearm businesses and jobs, as other states have done, Connecticut has opted to make itself even less appealing to gun companies and gun owners. As we’ve reported previously, the governor’s new two-year budget proposes exorbitant increases in the fees for pistol permits and background checks. These proposals are projected to bring in an estimated $11.6 million per year, a small fraction of the millions that the firearms industry and related fields would have generated had things remained unchanged since 2013.

Unfortunately for the residents of the state (and the gun owners who will be shouldering these increased fees and costs), Governor Malloy looks committed to his anti-gun agenda, regardless of its very real impact on his state’s economy.

NRA Ad: ‘America has Stopped Looking to The New York Times for the Truth’


H/T Breitbarts Big Journalism.

I gave up on looking to any newspaper for the truth years ago.

I  stopped listening to the news talking heads on television for the truth also.

An NRA ad released February 28 recounts myriad times the New York Times avoided reporting the “truth” during national embarrassments overseen by Democrats and suggests that America has now stopped seeking “truth” from the NYT.

The ad begins with the caption, “The New York Times placed an ad during the Oscars to tell us that truth is more important now.” The NRA followed this statement by asking, “But why now?” and then listed numerous deadly and embarrassing events that occurred during the Obama administration but failed to meet the NYT’s threshold for truth in reporting.

For example, the NRA ad points to the lack of truthful coverage of Tea Party events that sprung into existence in response to government overreach during Obama’s first two years in office. The ad points to the NYT’s lack of “truth” in covering the poor jobs numbers under the Obama administration, the dangers posed by porous borders under Obama, the forecast of spikes in healthcare costs due to Obamacare, and gun control’s impotence against determined attackers in Paris and other European countries.

The NRA quotes Obama saying, “If you like your doctor or your healthcare plan, you can keep it” as well as his warning of consequences if a “red line” were crossed in Syria. Neither statement turned out to be true, and where was the NYT?

The NRA ad also points to Benghazi, the ISIS-sponsored execution of Christians and American reporters, and the nearly 800 homicides and roughly 4,400 overall shooting victims in Chicago in 2016. The NRA asserts, “The truth is that the truth didn’t matter to The New York Times then as much as now–because as long as liberals were ‘progressing,’ the truth was depressing.”

But the “truth” was never really unknown. Rather, it was simply unreported by the NYT and other outlets that wanted to shield Democrats from scrutiny and/or blame.

So the NRA concludes, “America has stopped looking to The New York Times for truth, now more than ever.”

DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) Hides from his Radical Anti-gun Record



Keith Ellison like all DemocRats want honest citizens disarmed.

Ellison want us unarmed so his fellow followers of the Pedophile Mohammed can rape and plunder in America like the are doing in Europe.

With the Democratic National Committee’s officers election set for Saturday, earlier this week CNN hosted a debate featuring the candidates vying to be the next DNC chair. During the debate, CNN’s Dana Bash confronted Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) with the severe anti-gun comments the representative made during an appearance on the March 21, 2014 episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. In responding to the question, Ellison attempted to deceive viewers by denying his earlier statements and obfuscating his record on gun rights.

Bash asked the congressman:

In 2014, you told Bill Maher that you wished the Democratic Party would come out against the Second Amendment. How do you reach out to Americans who support gun rights when you don’t support the Second Amendment? 

Ellison responded, in part:

First of all, let me tell you I remember that show very well, and that is not what I said at all. What I talked about is my grandfather’s shotgun, the fact that I am a turkey hunter, and I didn’t say that. That was not an accurate statement.

To her credit, Bash followed up Ellison’s evasive response by reading Ellison a transcript of the statement at issue. An intransigent Ellison retorted, “I wish you’d play the tape because if you did you’d see that it did not go that way,” and later claimed that he was taken out of context.

It is unfortunate that CNN did not provide viewers with the tape of Ellison’s appearance on Maher’s program, as it makes his opposition to the Second Amendment abundantly clear. A video of Ellison’s statements can be seen here, and includes the following exchange: 

Maher: Then why doesn’t your party come out against the Second Amendment? It’s the problem.

Ellison: I sure wish they would. I sure wish we would.

Maher: Really? Because I never hear anybody in the Democratic party say that. But they say, ‘I am also a strong supporter.’

Ellison: You’ve got to check out the progressive caucus. We have come out very strong for common-sense gun safety rules.

In addition to pointing out Ellison’s extreme comments on HBO, in December, NRA-ILA issued a Grassroots Alert item detailing the congressman’s lengthy history of supporting severe gun controls. Those interested in a thorough accounting of Ellison’s record on Second Amendment issues are encouraged to read that item here.

In short, Ellison has opposed gun rights and supported gun control legislation dating back to his time in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003-2007. As a state representative, Ellison opposed Minnesota’s Right-to-Carry statute, and once enacted, sought to encumber this right with numerous restrictions.

Since joining the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007, Ellison has supported bills that would ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, ban popular types of ammunition, criminalize the private transfer of firearms, require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and expand the categories of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms. A gun control ideologue, Ellison has supported unconstitutional so-called “no-fly, no buy” legislation, despite acknowledging elsewhere the severe problems associated with the government’s use of secret watch lists.

With such a protracted history of opposition to the Second Amendment, Ellison’s flimsy debate protestations are unlikely convince anyone but his most die-hard supporters.

Having suffered a historic defeat at the hands of Donald Trump, the Democratic Party is searching for a way out of the political wilderness, with even the DNC acknowledging the need to “rebuild” the party. Saturday’s DNC chair election will be an important indicator of how the party intends to address its electoral woes on this front.

In other eras, the Democratic Party wisely deemphasized gun control, and acknowledging that they have a problem is an important first step. Radical anti-Second Amendment politicians like Ellison are part of that problem.  Stay tuned.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: