What Jeff Sessions Confirmation Means For The 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO


H/T AmmoLand.

As Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be a strong advocate for gun owners and the Second Amendment.

USA –  -(  With the recent confirmation of Jeff Sessions to Attorney General, gun owners and pro second amendment supporters could be heard breathing an audible sigh of relief.

The 52-47 vote confirmed the Senator from Alabama as The United State’s 84th Attorney General. Jeff Sessions is a long time supporter of the second amendment, and this support has even earned him an A+ rating from the NRA. When you take a look at President Trump’s cabinet, Sessions was on of the first politicians to support Trump’s fun for President.

In fact, shortly after his confirmation Executive Director of the NRA Chris W. Cox stated, “The NRA and our five million members would like to congratulate Jeff Sessions on his confirmation as attorney general. He will make America a safer place by prosecuting violent criminals while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

Jeff Sessions support for gun owners and the second amendment does not stop with empty promises.

A constitutional lawyer with great respect for the law, his record that shows that he is not afraid to act on his beliefs. Sessions has repeatedly stated that the people who should be refused the right to bear arms are criminals breaking current laws. He believes that enforcing these laws, not imposing new laws that only restrict those who are not criminals is the way to move forward.

Some of Session’s notable contributions toward maintaining the sanctity of the Second Amendment are:

  • In 2005, he fought for the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act, which would protect gun manufacturers from the threat of being implicated in crimes committed using guns they had produced.
  • Sessions actively worked to try to prevent the nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, both of whom are actively against second amendment rights.
  • He is also opposed to and voted against the government being able to perform firearm confiscation in a state of emergency.
  • His belief in removing restraints on legal gun carriers by allowing national carry permits led him to vote for the National Right to Carry Amendment, which ultimately did not receive enough votes to pass.
  • He is also a strong supporter of Project Exile, which made violent gun crimes punishable with sentences to federal prisons. This project is credited with lowering crime rates in Virginia dramatically.

Possibly the most refreshing thing about Jeff Sessions is his understanding that making it harder for law abiding citizens to legally obtain firearms, no matter the type, does nothing to prevent criminals acquisition of firearms. According to Sessions, the only way an American Citizen should lose their Second Amendment rights to a firearm is through voluntary choice.

In his words, “People can forfeit their right to have a gun, and it can be a factor in receiving sentences and being prosecuted if you carry a gun, for example, during the commission of a crime. That can add penalty and convictions to you. I think that’s a legitimate and responsible restraint on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms”.

Those who do not support the second amendment should use this confirmation, and the upcoming confirmations for Solicitor General and the eagerly anticipated Supreme Court vacancy as a wake up call. The American people are tired of having their constitutional rights threatened, and they are appointing leadership that has already made moves to ensure the second amendment is safe.

The NRA is surely taking notes on those who voted against the confirmation of Sessions, and with only Democrat Joe Manchin III breaking party lines, there are many Democrats who will be receiving updated ratings.

It is exciting to think about a future in which criminals will be prosecuted in ways that do not also slander and criminalize those who are legal, law abiding gun owners.

Jeff Sessions’ strong record and his stated intentions are a breath of fresh air in a country where law abiding citizens have been criminalized for far too long.

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


CCW Weekend: How To Search For A Self Defense Lawyer

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller. 

This is something every gun owner needs to consider.

It could save you from financial ruin.

If you’re going to have a gun in the home, or carry in a gun holster for defense of yourself, then you had better be prepared for what happens AFTER the shot. Some people have fantasies in their head about how they shall nobly shooteth the bad man, be feted by the press, get a garland of roses, a victory parade and many other accolades.

If you think anything remotely close to that is going to happen, stop now.

First you call the police and tell them there’s been a shooting. Then, call a lawyer. If you don’t have a lawyer, you should at least be aware of whom might be called upon as a self-defense lawyer should you need one – though it’s not like you’re going to be able to find a “self-defense lawyer” in the yellow pages. The traffic laws of any given state are complicated enough; the subtleties of a shooting are much more complex.

How do you find one then?

There are a few different ways to get access to a self-defense lawyer if you don’t have one on retainer already. First is to purchase concealed carry or self-defense insurance that includes legal services as part of the coverage. Just like with car insurance, you call if you have an incident and need assistance.

Such services vary in how they work. Some products are essentially a legal subscription service, and your premiums buy you access to a network of lawyers on retainer for the “insurance” company. If you need services, you call the national hotline and they put you in touch with the nearest lawyer or office that they have on retainer. Other self-defense insurance products leave it to you to find a lawyer, but they will cover the costs should you need one.

However, if you don’t have CCW insurance, there are also some ways to find a self-defense attorney on your own, should you need one. Again, it isn’t as simple as cracking open the yellow pages and seeing what “self-defense lawyers” are listed because there won’t be any.

One way is look at the website of or call your state’s bar association. Bar associations will typically have directories where you can look up lawyers by location and by specialty, so you can find who is in your area and possibly who has the expertise you need in order to defend yourself in court.

Naturally, criminal defense is going to be the main area of expertise you’ll want to look for, but pay special attention to those attorneys that have experience in firearms law. These attorneys may have more knowledge about the laws pertaining to judicially excusable use of firearms than general criminal law practitioners.

Another top tip? Search for any self-defense cases in your area and especially those cases where the defense was successful. (Naturally!) See if the attorney’s name is mentioned. If so, then that may be the lawyer to hire. If you can’t find any in Google, try Lexis-Nexis or check to see if there are any law libraries in your area. Someone there may be able to point you in the right direction.

Another good resource is the NRA-ILA. The National Rifle Association keeps a database of attorneys that deal in self-defense cases and specifically in self-defense cases involving the use of firearms. The NRA happens to also offer self-defense insurance, in case you’re curious. They should be able to tell you who they are aware of in the area. They may not be aware of every self-defense lawyer in the vicinity, but they should know of a few that can help.

What you should look for specifically is experience and success, meaning a self-defense lawyer that has tried a self defense case and won. An attorney who has also successfully defended a client against a civil wrongful death case as well as a criminal self defense case is even better, as more than one person has been acquitted in criminal court only to face ruin in civil court for defending themselves.

As far as price…you don’t want to compromise your defense for the sake of a few dollars. Most attorneys are willing to work out a payment plan and it’s better to cut a check every month for the rest of your life than spend the rest of your life in a cell.

Here are some suggestions:

NRA Insurance

United States Concealed Carry Association

Second Call Defense

CCW Safe

Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network

Click here to get your Complete Guide To Gun Safety

Read more:


South Carolina Woman Killed When Shot Hits Her at Gun Range & Nobody Knows How It Happened


H/T Independent Journal Review.

Accidents happen because people get careless.

Was this a freak accident or was it intentional?

Is there more to the story than what we have been told?

<iframe scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen src=”″ width =”640″ height=”360″>

Sarah Bonner’s best friend Mattie Smith says she has no idea where the bullet came from that killed her friend at a South Carolina shooting range over the Christmas holiday.

The two were standing next to each other at the Skip J Gun Range in Anderson, taking shooting practice.

And then, a bullet hit the 24-year-old in the eye.

Smith told WSB-TV that the next thing she knew, Sarah was down:

“I don’t think we need to point fingers or anything of that sort. I was standing right there and I can’t even explain it.”

WSB-TV reports that Sarah Bonner spent three days on life support at a local hospital.

Her mother, who’s battling cancer and called Sarah her “life saver,” made the decision to take her off.

A GoFundMe account has been set up by Smith to help Sarah’s family pay for medical and funeral expenses.

Anderson County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Lieutenant Sheila Cole told Independent Journal Review that investigators don’t know what happened yet. She said investigators confiscated an undisclosed number of guns from people who were shooting at the range to run comparison tests:

“We took a round from the individual for examination and sent it to the ballistics lab to determine whose gun was responsible.”

Lieutenant Cole told Independent Journal Review that there can be no determination of charges until they find out whose gun shot the young woman. WSB-TV reports that the coroner’s office ruled the death an accident.

The tragic case brings up the question of how safe shooting ranges are.

There have been several cases of shooting range accidents recently:

  • A father killed his 14-year-old son accidentally last July at the High Noon Gun Range in Sarasota, Florida.
  • Two men and four children were hurt when buckshot ricocheted at an Ocala, Florida, range last March.
  • A nine-year-old girl accidentally killed her shooting instructor when the forceful recoil caused her to lose control of the weapon in Arizona.
  • A 21-year-old man died last August when he struck himself in the chest while reportedly trying to clear a jam.
  • A pellets from a gun struck a 10-year-old boy in the head at a range, killing him, in Iowa last summer.
  • A 14-year-old Bismarck girl was struck and killed at a rifle range last summer.
  • A man accidentally shot himself in the hand when he was unloading his gun at a range in West Virginia.
  • A Baltimore County, Maryland police officer grazed himself while drawing his weapon at a range in August.
  • In February, a 61-year-old man was killed during rifle practice on a private shooting range in Utah.
  • But as shocking as those incidents are, compared to other high risk pursuits, such as working on a farm for example, gun range accidents are “exceedingly rare,” according to firearms researcher and author John Lott:

    “Fortunately, accidental gun deaths in general are low, both for adults and for children. There were 591 deaths in 2011, the last year the Centers for Disease Control data are available. With over 300 million guns in the U.S. and around 45 percent of American households owning a gun, the accidental death rate is extremely low. Deaths at gun ranges, particularly when being supervised by an instructor, are close to zero.

    When an adult supervises a minor, there are generally no laws barring them from shooting firearms. Federal law that bans the possession of handguns for those under 18 years of age exempts shooting ranges

    Just about everything that we do is risky. In 2011, over 27,000 people died from falling and 3,556 died from drowning. Another 6,242 died from suffocation. If these types of deaths got the same news coverage that freakishly rare firearm deaths do, Americans would be afraid of leaving their homes.”

    Indeed, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reports that gun deaths have gone down in a big way:

    During the last decade, the number of unintentional firearm-related fatalities involving children 14 years of age and under has decreased by 28 percent and by 74 percent over the last 20 years. [emphasis added]


    Firearms are involved in fewer than 1 percent (0.5 percent) of all unintentional fatalities in the United States.

    So how dangerous are shooting ranges? The left-leaning website Think Progress calls ranges “safety-free zones,” mocking the way gun rights enthusiasts depict schools and other soft targets as “gun-free zones”:

    [A] lack of age restrictions isn’t the only way gun ranges are safety-free zones, and potentially the sites of preventable deaths. Inside gun ranges, individuals can also “rent” a gun without any of the precautions that happen before an individual buys a gun. They don’t have to pass a criminal background check.

    Kevin Starrett, the president of Oregon Firearms Federation and a shooting instructor, told Independent Journal Review that all risk is relative:

    “I certainly would prefer my kids to be at a range than to be getting their heads smashed playing football.

    As with anything there is the potential for accidents. I am pretty confident that there are far more skiing and boating accidents.”

    But he told Independent Journal Review that, like most gun enthusiasts, he never, never tolerates unsafe behavior anywhere near a gun:

    “I was in a Cabelas a few months ago and there was a salesman showing a customer a gun. The customer swept me and my son about 5 times in 10 seconds.

    I just walked over and told them they were behaving unsafely and to stop it. They both apologized and we walked away, Cabela’s Corporate heard about it too and also apologized. I think you find far less of that on ranges though. Of course it happens, but people get chewed out pretty quick when it does.”

    His gun club requires a safety orientation before anyone can shoot there.

    But, of course, there are rules for ranges. The National Rifle Association has range rules it requires its affiliates to adhere to:


    Note: While the actual range you select may not be the NRA Range in Fairfax, VA, its safety rules and regulations are a standard nationwide. It is a good idea to familiarize yourself with these rules, especially if you will be taking the NRA Range test.

    1. All Federal, state, and local firearm laws must be obeyed.

    2. All firearms not on the firing line must be holstered, or unloaded with their action open and the magazine removed, or unloaded and encased.

    3. All shooters must pass the NRA RANGE TEST, and complete and sign the NRA RANGE RELEASE, WAIVER, HOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNIFICATION AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AGREEMENT before using the NRA Range.

    4. Owners of Class III firearms must be in possession of any special permits or paperwork required by law.

    5. Food, beverages, and smoking are prohibited on the range. (Smoking is prohibited throughout the building.)

    6. No muzzleloading firearms may be fired on the NRA Range.

    7. All calibers of pistols may be fired.

    8. Rifles up to and including .460 Weatherby Magnum caliber may be fired.

    9. Shotgun slugs may be fired. No buckshot or birdshot may be fired unless authorized by the Range Officer for a specific course.

    10. Tracer, armor piercing, and steel core ammunition are prohibited.

    11. Commands issued by Range Officers and Range Personnel must be obeyed immediately and without question.

    12. When the command “Cease Fire” is given:

    Stop shooting IMMEDIATELY

    Remove your finger from the trigger

    Keep the gun pointed in a safe direction

    Wait for further instructions from the Range Officer

    13. No one other than NRA Range personnel may go forward of the firing line unless authorized or instructed to do so by the Range Officer.

    14. When the line is declared “CLEAR”:

    All firearms must be holstered; or unloaded and benched or grounded, with the muzzle pointed down range, with the action open, ejection port or cylinder up, and magazine removed.

    Everyone must step back from the firing line.

    No firearms may be handled while the line is “CLEAR”

    15. Only NRA approved paper targets may be used.

    16. Use the appropriate size target, placed at eye level, to ensure that your shots strike the backstop and not the floor, ceiling or target holder. Firing a shot on the NRA Range that results in the bullet striking anything other than the target and/or backstop, may result in a damage or repair fine and/or your removal from the range.

    17. Cross firing of targets is prohibited.

    18. All firing from the 50 yard line (i.e. from within the shooting booths) must be aimed fire.

    19. If you are going to draw from a holster and fire (unless authorized to do otherwise by the Range Officer), you MUST:

    Remove the shooting table from the shooting booth

    Stay within the shooting booth

    Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot

    20. Only belt holsters, placed on the same hip as the shooting hand, may be used on the NRA Range. Shoulder holsters and cross-draw holsters may not be used unless authorized by the Range Officer during designated training courses.

    21. You may collect your own brass that is on or behind the firing line. Brass from other shooters and all brass that falls in front of the firing line may not be collected unless authorized by the Range Officer.

    22. Competitions held on the NRA Range will be conducted in accordance with official NRA rules or by the rules of the sanctioning body of the match.

    23. Always wash your hands and face immediately after shooting and/or cleaning your firearm. Sinks are located directly opposite the range exit door.

    24. NRA Range Officers reserve the right to inspect any firearms or ammunition for safety considerations.


    Jason Brown of the National Rifle Association told Independent Journal Review that accidents on gun ranges always boil down to breaking one of the three basic rules of handling a firearm. They are sacrosanct when handling a gun anywhere:


    The rules are:

    ALWAYS Keep The Gun Pointed In A Safe Direction

    This is the primary rule of gun safety. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.

    ALWAYS Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Ready To Shoot

    When holding a gun, rest your finger alongside the frame and outside the trigger guard. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.

    ALWAYS Keep The Gun Unloaded Until Ready To Use

    If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.

    Brown tells Independent Journal Review that incidents like the tragedy in South Carolina are rare and infrequent but it probably happened due to fundamentally unsafe behavior:

    “If you follow those three rules of gun safety it creates a safer environment. When people neglect the rules of gun safety is makes everyone else nearby unsafe. When you hear about problems it’s because someone neglected the rules of gun safety.”

    He told IJR that shooting ranges are where newbies get their practical experience, so it is important to note how ranges and instructors oversee them. He urges gun owners to get instruction from an NRA certified instructor.

    I asked long time shooter and instructor Kevin Starrett if he’d ever been hurt at a gun range:

    “Yes. I was helping to build a cement pad on our pistol range and I smashed my thumb with a hammer. No medical attention was required. Seriously, [it’s] about as easy as it is to get hurt anywhere else. But I would rather be on a firing range than a golf course any time.”

    Despite his levity, he knows handling guns is serious business.

    Starrett told Independent Journal Review that while it is not yet known what happened to Sarah Bonner at that South Carolina shooting range he said, sadly, “I do think that it is rare enough to be a big news story when it happens.”


Defiant Anti-Gunners – The Same Old Playbook In Wake Of Trump Victory

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

We can expect Little Shannon Watts and her band of harpies will continue with their shrill voices spewing propaganda.

We can also expect San Fran Nan and her DemocRat stooges helping by lying about guns and making asses of themselves on the House and Senate floor.

The whole bunch of the anti gun loons are dancing to the tune of puppet masters Little Mikey Bloomberg and the Nazi Collaborator George Soros.

Fairfax, VA – -( It is very encouraging to think about the opportunities that await America’s gun owners under the new Trump administration. I am optimistic that we will be able to repair the faults of two Obama terms and advance our firearms freedom in the coming months and years. Your NRA is hard at work to ensure we do just that.

The clear takeaway from November’s historic election is that America is eager to change business as usual in Washington, D.C.   

But gun control advocates, most of whom avidly supported Hillary Clinton, have once again proven themselves to be out of touch and behind the curve by doggedly clinging to their old playbook and their old agenda, despite the electorate’s clear repudiation of their tactics and ideas.

One of the biggest signs that the hard anti-gun left won’t change course is the re-election of Nancy Pelosi as House Democratic leader.

As the Washington Post put it, “Pelosi easily toppled Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), a seven-term lawmaker who launched an upstart bid to lead House Democrats … in response to the party’s disappointing November election results and concerns that Democrats have become out of touch with working class voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.”

Pelosi is steeped in the anti-gun dogma of her hometown of San Francisco. Less than a month before the presidential election, she insisted on Twitter that House Republicans give their Democrat colleagues a “#gunvote.”  Last summer, she facilitated a partisan “sit-in” on the House Floor demanding that they take up legislation to ban firearm purchases by those on secret government lists and to ban private firearm transfers.  Pelosi even ludicrously declared at one point that the sit-in would continue “until hell freezes over.” Instead, it lasted about 16 hours and featured social media, pillows, donuts, pizza, and a catered buffet.

The political stunt accomplished nothing of substance, other than causing disruption to official government business and expense to U.S. taxpayers.

The “sit-in” demonstrated that Pelosi and other anti-gun Democrats consider themselves above the rules

The “sit-in” demonstrated that Pelosi and other anti-gun Democrats consider themselves above the rules

While a waste of time, the “sit-in” demonstrated that Pelosi and other anti-gun Democrats consider themselves above the rules. And not just the rules that they would impose upon ordinary Americans, but the rules Congress has imposed on itself to ensure a minimum level of decorum and order while it pursues the peoples’ business.

We can expect similar behavior from Pelosi’s anti-gun caucus whenever they do not get their way. We can also expect that Pelosi will push the coastal Democrats’ same old gun control agenda at every opportunity.

We saw evidence late last year that the gun ban ploy of messaging to exploit emotions before facts are known remains standard operating procedure. Ohio State University was the latest example, as a Somali refugee reportedly inspired by ISIS rammed his car into a group of people and then charged after bystanders with a knife.

Shannon Watts, Michael Bloomberg’s chief mouthpiece for Moms Demand Action, immediately took to social media and tweeted, “For school shooting victims it’s not too soon to discuss our nation’s lax gun laws – it’s too late. Ohio State University.”

Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, Clinton’s running mate, was soon to join Watts in pushing the anti-gun narrative, tweeting, “the senseless act of gun violence at Ohio State … .” After fellow Twitter users blasted Kaine for his out-of-touch political opportunism and inaccurate portrayal of events, he issued a follow-up message in which he admitted the “attacker used a vehicle and knife.”

What Watts and Kaine didn’t say was that no firearm was involved except the one used by a good guy on the scene, Ohio State police officer Alan Horujko. Officer’s Horujko’s quick intervention in neutralizing the attacker undoubtedly prevented further loss of innocent life, a fact that was appropriately recognized by Vice President Mike Pence. “Fast action by law enforcement saved many innocent lives today,” Pence wrote on his own Twitter account.  Notably, Vice President Pence didn’t publicly discuss the tragedy until the facts were known.

But innocent lives were not the concern of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which used the attack to encourage its followers to say “NO” to guns “in college campuses.” University officials had broadcast a message to “Run Hide Fight” during the attack, but anyone forced into that last option against the armed attacker would clearly have been at a disadvantage. And just as clearly, the Brady Campaign and their fellow gun control supporters want to keep it that way.

Against the clearest possible example of the lifesaving benefits of an armed good guy on the scene of an attempted massacre, Brady insisted that potential victims should continue to face would-be killers on unequal terms.

Shortly after the November election, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre congratulated pro-gun voters for giving Hillary Clinton a permanent political vacation. The 69-year-old Clinton was on the losing side of the biggest political upset in modern history; proved unpopular with voters across the spectrum; and was dogged throughout her campaign with questions about her hypocrisy and duplicity. But not even a month after the election, veteran reporter and Clinton chronicler Ron Fournier signaled the former secretary of state had “plans to keep her options open for 2020.”

As disappointed as gun control supporters were in 2016, they remain as firmly entrenched in their old ideology and agenda and as impervious to reality and rejection as ever.  It would be a mistake, however, to assume that they’re going away.

We cannot forget that our victories in 2016 were the result of an unprecedented effort by tens of millions of NRA members and supporters who knocked on doors, contributed funds, volunteered time, and continued to press for freedom at every opportunity.  These tireless efforts were truly historic.  But it wasn’t easy, and those arrayed against us mounted an unprecedented level of spending in elections at all levels of government.  We can be certain that they will continue to attack our freedoms wherever and whenever they have the opportunity.  It’s not in their nature to learn from their continued mistakes.

When reality clashes with the hard left’s ideology, they choose ideology every time. And nowhere is this more evident than in the case of gun control. That’s why anti-gun politicians will disrupt official government business to “protest” their own colleagues; and why a gun control organization will insist that college students must remain unarmed even as the victims of an apparent terrorist attack on campus are trying to recover from their injuries.

So we must be ever vigilant in the defense of our firearms freedom.  Because our opponents’ agenda remains what it has always been — to take that freedom away.

There are always going to be those who believe their views are superior to everyone else and that they must therefore dictate the conditions of everyone else’s lives. 

Because whatever else happens in America, there are always going to be those who believe their views are superior to everyone else and that they must therefore dictate the conditions of everyone else’s lives. Guns – or at least private gun ownership – have no place in the society they envision.

We have no reason to believe that Michael Bloomberg is going away anytime soon

We have no reason to believe that Michael Bloomberg is going away anytime soon

We have no reason to believe that Michael Bloomberg or George Soros are going away anytime soon. But even if they did, the next generation of anti-gun financiers are ready to replace them. Hollywood moguls, tech billionaires, globalists, and crass entertainers desperate to broadcast their own superior virtue will remain anti-gun fixtures, especially in the wake of an election in which the American people so thoroughly repudiated their views.

The anti-gun bills have been written and the media talking points to support them are already scripted. The “studies” to “prove” guns are incompatible with civil society and public health are underway. A generation is being raised in cities with virtually no exposure to the sporting traditions that have imbued hunters with a reverence for nature and the thrill of the chase.

And pacified adults on college campuses are told that when confronted with lethal aggression, run and hide if you can, and fight if you must, but you’ll have to improvise your defense with books, chairs, and fire extinguishers. Because somehow the bad guys always know how to use their guns for evil, yet you can never be trusted to use yours for good.

We proved once again that NRA remains the most powerful political force in America with our historic election-day victory.  With focus, drive, determination, and working together, we can prove the point once again in the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures, but only if we are resolute in understanding that our opponents will continue to press for advantage. 

The fight for freedom continues.

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. Visit:

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

A Simple Plan in 2017 for the Arms Trade Treaty: Return To Sender

1 Comment

H/T AmmoLand.

This Arms Trade Treaty should be rejected by President Trump and Congress.


Return To Sender Stamp istock

USA – -( then, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States on September 25, 2013, the Obama Administration waited until December 9, 2016, to transmit the treaty to the Senate.

The strength of the opposition to the treaty and the fact that the Administration only acted when it had less than six weeks left in office make clear that the ATT has no chance of receiving the advice and consent of the Senate.

Therefore, like a number of other treaties, it will await action by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) when the next Administration enters office.

The ATT is not in the interest of the United States. The process by which it was negotiated violated the Obama Administration’s own red lines, and it will be used by left-wing organizations in highly selective campaigns against U.S. arms sales to allies such as Israel.[1] It will do nothing to improve arms export controls in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world, and other nations are already using it as a pretext to demand tighter controls on firearms inside the United States.

The incoming Administration and the Senate should make it clear that the U.S. will not become a party to the ATT.

Read the complete article online or in the document below:

A Simple Plan in 2017 for the Arms Trade Treaty: Return to Sender by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd

Though then–Secretary of State John Kerry signed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States on September 25, 2013, the Obama Administration waited until December 9, 2016, to transmit the treaty to the Senate. The strength of the opposition to the treaty and the fact that the Administration only acted when it had less than six weeks left in office make clear that the ATT has no chance of receiving the advice and consent of the Senate. Therefore, like a number of other treaties, it will await action by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) when the next Administration enters office.

The ATT is not in the interest of the United States. The process by which it was negotiated violated the Obama Administration’s own red lines, and it will be used by left-wing organizations in highly selective campaigns against U.S. arms sales to allies such as Israel.[1] It will do nothing to improve arms export controls in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world, and other nations are already using it as a pretext to demand tighter controls on firearms inside the United States. The incoming Administration and the Senate should make it clear that the U.S. will not become a party to the ATT.

The ATT Deservedly Lacks Support in Congress

Led in 2013 and 2015 by Senators Jerry Moran (R–KS) and Jim Inhofe (R–OK), 58 Senators—only four of whom will leave office on January 20, 2017—signed letters opposing the ATT. Fifty-nine Senators voted on March 26, 2015, for a budget resolution banning funding to implement the ATT. A series of appropriations acts—most recently, Section 7062 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016—have also banned implementation funding, as does Section 1285 of the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act.

The House, led by Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA), has repeatedly opposed the treaty, and the Republican Party Platform adopted on July 19, 2016, explicitly rejects it. When the Administration transmitted the ATT, Senator Bob Corker (R–TN), the chairman of the SFRC, stated that “nothing has changed over the last four years to suggest the treaty is in our national interest, and it will remain dead in the water.”[2] The ATT has no chance of being voted out of the SFRC, much less of securing the advice and consent of the Senate.

Congress’ opposition is well founded. There is no basis for President Obama’s assertion that the treaty will “persuade other States to adopt national control systems for the international transfer of conventional arms that are closer to our own high standards.”[3] Nations that do not have the ability or the desire to adopt effective controls on their arms exports will not be enabled to improve or persuaded to act by a treaty.

Similarly, while the President claims that the treaty is “fully consistent with rights of U.S. citizens” and thereby implies that the ATT is not part of a gun control agenda, other nations that support the ATT proudly acknowledge that they do have such an agenda and that the ATT is part of it.

As the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Claudia Ruiz Massieu Salinas, stated at the Second Conference of States Parties to the ATT in August 2016,

Mexico welcomes the tenacious and sincere efforts of President Barack Obama to establish administrative measures to strengthen controls over the possession and sale of arms.[4]

Mexico has long argued that the ATT should apply to the sale or transfer of firearms inside the U.S., and it continues to support the ATT as a way to promote gun control in the U.S. The U.S. delegation could have objected to the Mexican statement, but chose not to do so.

What the U.S. Should Do

The incoming Administration should take three steps on the ATT.

  1. Withdraw Support for the ATT in the Senate. When President Jimmy Carter decided in 1980 that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made it unwise to seek to ratify the SALT II treaty at that time, he notified the Senate Majority Leader (the treaty having already been voted out of the SFRC) that his Administration sought a delay in the Senate’s consideration of the treaty.[5]

    Carter implied that the Executive Branch had the right to withdraw a treaty from the Senate, a right that he was choosing not to exercise. He clearly established that a president can notify the Senate that the Executive Branch does not support action on a treaty. The next Administration should draw on this precedent by notifying Senator Corker that it does not support action on the ATT and that, as a result, it requests the return of the treaty from the Senate.

  2. “Unsign” the ATT. The incoming Administration should then notify the Treaty Depository—the Secretary-General of the United Nations—that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the ATT and does not consider itself bound by the treaty.

    This is colloquially known as “unsigning” a treaty, but it is actually a form of renunciation intended to free a signatory nation from constraints barring engagement in acts that defeat the treaty’s object and purpose. In short, unless the U.S. “unsigns” the ATT, it will continue to be bound by the treaty, even though the ATT has not received the advice and consent of the Senate.

    It is commonly accepted that any nation has the right to “unsign” an unratified treaty.[6] Moreover, Article 24 of the ATT gives States Parties to the treaty the right to withdraw from it, that withdrawal to take effect 90 days after notice is given to the Depository. As the U.S. is only a treaty signatory, it is less rigidly bound to the ATT than are the nations that have ratified it. If a State Party can withdraw from the ATT, then the U.S. must be able to unsign it. In short, both accepted practice and Article 24 demonstrate that it is both possible and legal to unsign the ATT.

  3. Commit to Attending Future ATT CSPs as an Observer State. Finally, the next Administration should formally notify the ATT Secretariat that it plans to attend future Conferences of States Parties (CSP) to the ATT and other relevant meetings as an observer state, and that it is willing to pay a share of CSP and other meeting expenses proportionate to the size of its delegation.

    The U.S. should make this commitment because, though the ATT is a failure, it is not going to go away: Nothing in the U.N. system ever does. The U.S. therefore needs to keep an eye on it. However, the U.S. should not accept the outcome of the first CSP, which decided that CSP costs should in future be assessed on a modified U.N. assessment scale and thereby sought to require the U.S. to pay 22 percent of the expenses.

    The first CSP mandated weak penalties for States Parties that do not pay their dues, but it specified no penalties for observer states that do not pay. There is thus no basis for claims that if the U.S. does not pay 22 percent of the costs of future CSPs, it will be barred from attending as an observer state. States Parties should pay the core costs for the meetings they hold on the ATT: They implicitly accepted this obligation by ratifying the treaty. The U.S. should pay its fair share of CSP expenses, and no more.

Create A Mechanism for the Formal Return of Treaties

The Senate has no mechanism to completely end its consideration of a treaty. Currently, even if the Senate declines to give its advice and consent to a treaty, the treaty remains in the Senate, ready for a future administration to take up years or even decades later.

The Senate should develop a formal mechanism to return treaties to the Executive Branch. This mechanism should be triggered automatically if the SFRC or the Senate rejects a treaty after a hearing or debate, or at the discretion of the Chairman of the SFRC if he determines, on the basis of a vote held prior to a hearing, that there is insufficient support in the SFRC to proceed with a full hearing on the treaty.

A treaty returned to the Executive Branch via such a mechanism should be accompanied by a Senate request that the President “unsign” the treaty in question. While such a request cannot compel the Executive Branch to act, presidents should establish and follow a precedent of respecting such requests.

After the Senate has created this mechanism, the SFRC should use it to remove the ATT from Senate consideration, as a way of giving effect to the will of the Senate, and in response to the Administration’s withdrawal of support for the treaty and request for its return. The SFRC should speedily follow the same course with other pending treaties that are not in the national interest.

This would not prevent a future Administration from retransmitting the ATT or any other returned treaty, but it would force a new administration to draft a new transmittal package, and to spend time and political capital on the question, which would discourage the Administration from acting.


In February 2010, then–ATT Special Negotiator Donald Mahley delivered a speech on the ATT on behalf of then–Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher. According to Ambassador Mahley, “[N]ot getting a universal [ATT] agreement would make any agreement less than useless.”[7] That speech is still available on the State Department website.

China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and many other major arms exporters and importers are not party to the ATT and have stated that they will not become party to it. The ATT clearly is not universal, making it, according to the State Department’s own criterion, “less than useless.” In 2017, the U.S. should therefore follow a simple plan for the ATT: return to sender.


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



3 Gun Laws President Trump Could Change Within the Next Month


H/T The Motley Fool.

My Indiana driver’s license is valid nation wide and my Indiana License To Carry A handgun should be valid nationwide.

Sound suppressors aka Silencers need to be easier to purchase so they can help preserve people’s hearing.

Silencers for all and universal concealed carry are just two of the changes the new president could propose.

The NRA spent more than $36 million on advertising supporting its favored candidates during the 2016 elections — an all-time record. That support paid off big time when pro-gun Donald Trump won the top of his ticket and was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday. With Trump, along with firm Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, we could begin seeing loosened gun control laws in relatively short order.

What follows are just a few of the changes President Trump might propose.

Sea to shining sea reciprocity

On the campaign trail, Trump famously promised to expand reciprocity  for holders of concealed carry permits, such that a gun owner with a permit issued in one state would be entitled to carry a weapon in all other states.

That’s not how things work right now. If I have a concealed carry permit issued in Indiana, for example, it will be valid in 32 other states — but 17 states and the District of Columbia will not recognize it, and can arrest me for concealed carrying in those jurisdictions. A permit issued in California, despite the state having even stricter gun laws, is not valid in 26 other jurisdictions. Conversely, an Alaska-issued permit is valid in all but 12 jurisdictions.

According to Trump: “A concealed carry permit … should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state.” In a very short time, he could make that opinion law.

Reverse President Obama’s midnight executive actions

In the waning days of his administration, President Obama pushed through roughly two dozen executive actions designed to tighten gun control without the need for any laws being passed by Congress. Among other steps, Obama has directed the Centers for Disease Control to conduct research into gun violence, permitted doctors to ask patients whether they own guns, and required all firearms dealers to obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks on all buyers. The latter rule, issued just two weeks ago, requires anyone who sells a gun, even if only at a gun show or over the internet, to obtain a license and conduct background checks regardless of how many guns they sell. Failure to comply could earn a violator up to five years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000.

President Trump immediately promised to “unsign” this directive once he takes office.

You have the right to remain silent

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are pushing a new law called the “Hearing Protection Act,” aimed at reducing restrictions on the purchase of “silencers” for firearms. Currently, silencers are legal to purchase in 42 states. However, the purchase of a silencer entails the payment of a $200 federal tax, and requires a waiting period of up to 17 months to receive approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

The act, by the way, gets its name from the fact that guns are loud — your average 9mm pistol produces a retort measured at 160 decibels. Attaching a silencer drops this volume down to 125 decibels, which is less damaging to human ears, and also makes outdoor shooting ranges less of a public nuisance. (Click the link to get an idea of how loud gun reports can offend the ears of non-shooters.)

Opponents of the measure argue that permitting easy access to silencers will permit criminals to kill in silence. Proponents respond that silencers are only “rarely” used in crime — and in any case, 125 decibels, while easier on the ears than 160 decibels, is far from “silent.” 125 db may be quieter than a jackhammer (130 db) but it’s still significantly louder than a police siren (115 db).

What it means for investors

While all of these laws may have an effect on the gun industry, it’s this last one that might have the most visible effect on publicly traded gun businesses. American Outdoor Brands(NASDAQ:AOBC), the company formerly known as Smith & Wesson, sells handguns with specially threaded barrels to accept suppressors, for example, and could enjoy greater sales of such products if silencers become easier to buy. Rival Sturm, Ruger (NYSE:RGR) actually makes and sells suppressors.

Now consider that as of the last report, Americans owned 265 million guns — but fewer than 1 million silencers. That’s a huge market that American Outdoor Brands and Sturm, Ruger would love to sell into. Easing restrictions on silencer sales could have follow-on effects, too. Granting easier access to suppressors could reduce noise complaints at open-air shooting ranges, making it easier for such businesses to open, which would attract more customers, resulting in more ammunition being used, resulting in more ammunition being sold, resulting in more sales (and profits) for ammo makers such as Olin Corp (NYSE:OLN), Vista Outdoor(NYSE:VSTO), and Orbital ATK (NYSE:OA).

Long story short, any relaxation in America’s gun laws under a Trump Presidency would be good news for the gun industry — but easing restrictions on silencer sales could give the NRA the biggest bang for its campaign contribution bucks.

Fool contributor Rich Smith does not own shares of, nor is he short, any company named above. You can find him on Motley Fool CAPS, publicly pontificating under the handle TMFDitty, where he’s currently ranked No. 360 out of more than 75,000 rated members.


Multiple Anti-Gun Bills Filed in Texas for 2017

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

Attention Texans just a small sample of what is going on in Austin.

New Yorks’ Michael Bloomberg funded national gun control groups: Everytown for Gun Safety & Moms Demand Action are supporting the pre-filed bad bills.

New Yorks’ Michael Bloomberg funded national gun control groups: Everytown for Gun Safety & Moms Demand Action are supporting the pre-filed bad bills

texas-state-rifle-association-logo-tsraTexas – -( Today the 85th regular session of the 2017 Texas Legislature gavels into session. It begins the slow, plodding process of reviewing and creating Texas law.

While Texas is blessed with a strong Republican majority in its Legislature, all Texas gun owners remain at risk.

The pre-filing of legislation began in mid-November. Since that time, dozens of pro-Second Amendment bills have been filed and have been assigned bill numbers.

Pro Gun Bills, including but not limited to:

  • Senate Bill 16 by Sen. Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville) & Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston) eliminates original and renewal application fees for a License To Carry. The $140 fee for an original license is $140 and one of the highest in the country and has not changed since 1995, despite advances in technology and passage of laws streamlining the license application and issuing process.
  • Senate Bill 16 by Sen. Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville) & Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston) eliminates original and renewal application fees for a License To Carry. The $140 fee for an original license is $140 and one of the highest in the country and has not changed since 1995, despite advances in technology and passage of laws streamlining the license application and issuing process.
  • Senate Bill 133 by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe) establishes a Second Amendment sales tax holiday, exempting firearms and hunting supplies from the state sales tax during the last Saturday and Sunday in August before hunting season starts.
  • Senate Bill 263 by Rep. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) removes the minimum caliber requirement for the License To Carry proficiency exam. Currently, individuals seeking a handgun license are required to test with a .32 handgun or larger caliber.
  • Senate Bill 349 by Sen. Creighton clarifies the definition of “school-sponsored activity” in the Penal Code to avoid the establishment of roving gun-free zones in buildings or areas that are not owned by or under the control of an educational institution.
  • House Bill 56 by Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Van) would allow first responders with LTCs to carry in prohibited and posted locations while engaged in official duties.
  • House Bill 339 by Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) eliminates original and renewal LTC application fees (similar to SB 16).
  • House Bill 375 by Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford) would allow individuals who are not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm to carry without a license.
  • House Bill 403 by Rep. Drew Springer (R-Muenster) removes the minimum caliber requirement for the LTC proficiency exam (similar to SB 263).
  • House Bill 485 by Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Frisco) establishes a Second Amendment sales tax holiday (similar to SB 133).
  • House Bill 560 by Rep. Springer would eliminate “gun-free zones” for persons possessing valid LTCs.
  • House Bill 606 by Rep. Springer provides immunity to property or business owners who elect not to post their premises off-limits to LTCs with 30.06 and/or 30.07 signs.

Bad Gun Related Bills!

On the other side of the coin and advocated by the Michael Bloomberg supported national gun control group: Everytown for Gun Safety/Moms Demand Action (along with their state partners, Texas Gun Sense) support the pre-filed bad bills listed below, with more being filed every day.

All below are proposals to restrict your Second Amendment rights and many were defeated in past decades.

Don’t be fooled by attempts to re-package the language as “sensible public safety measures” or “common-sense solutions to gun violence” – most, if not all of these are straight out of Bloomberg’s anti-gun playbook.

Bills adding restrictions on Texas gun owners include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Senate Bill 221 by Sen. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) prohibits the transfer of a firearm to a person the actor knows to be listed in the terrorist screening database maintained by the FBI – a secret government list that neither the state nor any individual has access to.
  • Senate Bill 222 by Sen. Menendez designates June as “Gun Violence Awareness Month.” New York – home of gun bans, magazine restrictions and Everytown’s billionaire financier Bloomberg – is the only state to have adopted similar legislation, which gun control groups have used as a platform to promote themselves and their positions.
  • House Bill 111 by Rep. Joe Moody (D-El Paso) requires the Department of Public Safety to create a “firearms safety educational program” involving the development and publishing of secure gun storage pamphlets to be distributed through federal firearm licensed dealers (paid for out of LTC program funds.) This is already required under federal law and the firearms industry offers free gun lock and safety information distribution to law enforcement departments across the country.
  • House Bill 191 by Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) reduces the minimum size, lettering and possibly the language requirements for 30.06 signs that have been in effect for over 20 years, and require them to be made available for download on DPS’ website. The net effect would be less effective notice for LTCs and more locations being posted off-limits to license holders. (The same requirements would apply to 30.07 signs as well.)
  • House Bill 246 by Rep. Raphael Anchia (D-Dallas) returns “No Carry” signs to the days of the pictogram. The proliferation of such signs immediately after passage of Texas’ concealed carry law more than two decades ago was what lead to the creation of the more uniform, consistent and recognizable 30.06 signs in the first place.
  • House Bill 255 by Rep. Anchia expands prohibited locations in statute for LTCs to include recreational areas and venues such as indoor or outdoor arenas, stadiums, golf courses, automobile racetracks, amphitheaters, auditoriums, theaters, museums, zoos and civic or convention centers.
  • House Bill 259 by Rep. Anchia restricts the private transfer of firearms at gun shows – a favorite target of the gun control crowd – by requiring every transaction to be conducted through a licensed dealer involving extensive government paperwork and payment of an undetermined fee.
  • House Bill 282 by Rep. Anchia & House Bill 391 by Rep. Donna Howard (D-Austin) allow public institutions of higher education to “opt-out” of Texas’ campus carry statute, effectively gutting the law the Legislature adopted just last session.
  • House Bill 291 by Rep. Eric Johnson (D-Dallas) & House Bill 466 by Rep. Anchia, respectively, ban open carry by LTCs in the City of Dallas and allow municipalities with populations over 750,000 to “opt-out” of Texas’ open carry law.


The deadline for introduction of bills is March 10. As TSRA members, TSRA pledgea to keep you informed as the process moves forward and legislation affecting gun owners and sportsmen is filed and bills are assigned to various committees for hearings.

In the meantime, you can contact your state lawmakers and tell them where you stand on the common sense anti-gun bills listed above:

  • Click on the links to find contact information for your State Representative and State Senator.
  • Bills can be read and tracked at Texas Legislature Online.
  • Check out the flow chart explaining the legislative process on this page (red side-bar link)
  • More information can be found as updated at

Members, Please keep your contact information up-to-date so we can find you! Call or email the office to make changes. 512-615-4200. Let us know if you’re moving or are not receiving your magazine. We need to know where you are! Also, thank you for renewing and upgrading your membership. Contact TSRA!

“There are those among us who seek to take care of us in the name of “what’s right.” They are on all sides; part and parcel to all ideas.”

TSRA shares information.

We are vigilant. We get things done.
And as always,
Keep the faith.

Alice Tripp
Legislative Director
Texas State Rifle Association

About the Texas State Rifle Association:

Founded in 1919, the Texas State Rifle Association is the largest firearms and shooting sports organization in Texas with nearly 40,000 members. TSRA is also the largest, award-winning state affiliate of the National Rifle Association and is sanctioned by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. As a part of its public education efforts, the association produces a full-color bimonthly publication, TSRA Sportsman, which updates members on current news, hunter education programs, shooting sports competitions, and important issues effecting their Second Amendment rights. The TSRA also hosts an annual meeting every February that features exciting fund-raising auctions, informative speakers, exhibitors, and other events.

For membership or other information about the Texas State Rifle Association, visit or call 512.615.4200.

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


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: