Advertisements
Home

Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect Popular Rifles, Shotguns from Antigun Politicians

3 Comments

H/T NRA-ILA.

We need to phone and email our Congressman to get on board with this bill by Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY).

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states – including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.

Anti-gunners’ focus on these so-called “assault weapons” was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns – by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime – were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned.  This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and they’ve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use.

Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, “three-gun” and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states’ legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged “ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.” That’s hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.

Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”

With states’ violating Americans’ rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act.  You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

IN THIS ARTICLE
Advertisements

5 Things Everyone Needs To Know About Suppressors

1 Comment

H/T NRA-ILA. 

Many people have misconceptions about silencers/suppressors they have been mislead by HollyWeird.

Then you have the loony left saying silencers/suppressors they claim gang bangers will use them.

That is a crock of crap as the bangers want to be able to hide their gun and a silencer/suppressor makes that very difficult to do. 

There is an old joke that the “official NRA handshake” is a person saying “What?” as he or she cups a hand behind one ear.

I never liked this joke, as it makes light of a serious issue. Decades ago many gun owners didn’t think it was a big deal that they didn’t wear earplugs or muffs when hunting and at the range. Many shooters who grew up in that culture now have hearing loss or problems with tinnitus (ringing in their ears). Massive public education—much of it from the NRA—taught us about the dangers of shooting without ear and eye protection.

Now we are reaching another milepost in the road to better hearing protection—an age where suppressed guns are polite firearms.I first saw this a decade ago when I had the chance to visit Sako’s plant in Finland and to shoot with a group of Finnish gun writers. Most of them showed up at the range with Sako 85s chambered in .308 Win. What impressed me was that they all had suppressors screwed onto their rifle’s barrels. When I commented on this, one of them said, “It would be very impolite to shoot a rifle without a silencer.” I had to admit he had a point. Using a silencer is polite; just imagine what our roadways would sound like if cars didn’t have mufflers.

Here in the United States, the consumer demand for suppressors (or silencers; the terms are synonyms) has been booming as more states legalize them. Now, Congress is considering legislation to remove hefty fees and mandates that the devices must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

These positive developments, however, are now being met by resistance from those who are opposed to your right to bear arms. These people want to stop this trend toward more polite firearms for ignorant reasons, or simply for politics.

Certainly, some anti-gun types will oppose any and all developments in firearm technology and rights, but many really just don’t know the facts about suppressors. Likely, the only place they’ve seen them have been in the movies and, in Hollywood productions, when someone screws on a silencer they are about to kill someone. That’s a pretty negative connotation. The truth that these people need to learn is that suppressors don’t make guns whisper quiet, but do make more polite guns.

Here are five things to tell those who don’t know or understand the facts:

The Technology is Old

A “suppressor” is simply a gunshot-muffling device. In 1902, Hiram Percy Maxim invented the gun muffler. He patented it in 1908 and called it the “Maxim Silencer.” More recently, the firearm industry uses the word “suppressor.” Today companies like Silencerco, Sig Sauer and Gemtech are making steady advances in improving the technology, but the basics remain the same.

Suppressed Guns are Not Whisper Quiet

Suppressors don’t completely remove the need for hearing protection, but they can help a great deal. When you fire a gun, a large volume of hot, high-pressure gas exits the muzzle along with the bullet. This gas shooting down gun barrel and exiting makes a lot of noise (“muzzle blast”). A suppressor contains some of those gasses for a fraction of a second and allows them to expand and cool more gradually by circulating them around internal baffles. This helps to lower the decibel level. (Silencerco has a great graphic on how suppressors work.)

A bullet moving faster than the speed of sound (supersonic) also creates a mini sonic boom, however, that suppressors will not take away. The Hollywood myth is that silencers or suppressors turn gunshots into this little pffft kind of noise as the firearm’s action works. That’s nonsense.

How Well Do Silencers Work?

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has determined that a decibel (dB) level greater than 140 can cause permanent hearing loss. Silencerco’s research has estimated that a silenced .22 LR rifle gives off about 116 dBs, a silenced 9mm pistol makes about 125 dBs, a jackhammer about 130 dBs and an unsuppressed .223 rifle about 165 dBs. So suppressors can lower the dB level below the detrimental 140 dB level. But OSHA also says that, over time, anything over 85 dBs can damage hearing. The point is, for the most part, even someone firing a suppressed firearm should still wear hearing protection.

Where are They Legal?

Thanks to lobbying from the NRA and others, a lot of states have legalized suppressors in recent legislative sessions. Currently, suppressors are legal for private ownership in 42 states—hunters can use them in 40 states. To see if they are legal in your state the American Suppressor Association has put together a map with resources and links.

If the Hearing Protection Act passes Congress, then buying and owning suppressors will get a lot easier.

How Do You Get A Suppressor?

Suppressors are regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, which falls under the purview of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). According to the American Suppressor Association, to legally purchase or possess a suppressor you must live in an area that allows them to be sold and must:

  • Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a suppressor from a dealer;
  • Be at least 18 years of age to purchase a suppressor from an individual on a Form 4 to Form 4 transfer (contingent on state laws);
  • Be at least 18 years of age to possess a suppressor as a beneficiary of a trust or as a member of a corporation (contingent on state laws);
  • Be a resident of the United States;
  • Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm;
  • Pass an ATF background check with a typical process time of four to nine months;
  • Pay a one-time $200 transfer tax; and
  • Reside in one of the 42 states that currently allows civilian ownership of suppressors.

Basically, if you live in one of the states that allows you to purchase a suppressor, you’ll need to fill out forms, pay the high fee and wait—a very long time. If your application is approved, they’ll send it back to you with stamp attached. You can then pick up your suppressor at the store you bought it from. You’ll need to keep a copy of this permit with you when using your suppressor.

Again, federal legislation (the Hearing Protection Act) now introduced in Congress would take away this burden and fee, so call your congressmen and ask them to support this important legislation.

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

2 Comments

H/T NRA-ILA.

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.

Hillary Clinton: “Reasonable” to Require Guns to be Unusable at Home

2 Comments

H/T NRA-ILA. 

Hillary is lying again about guns and Supreme Court decisions not a shock there.

 

 

Hillary Clinton is lying … again.

The candidate who claimed politicians “need both a public and a private position” on policy issues demonstrated that tendency Wednesday night in the final presidential debate in a desperate bid for damage control on a statement she made in a private meeting with wealthy donors.

That earlier statement was simple, uncomplicated, and utterly damning to anyone who believes in the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton told the very people who she depends on to fund her political ambitions: “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

As a Yale-educated attorney, Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she made that remark. But it doesn’t take a lawyer to understand the contempt it demonstrates for the right to keep and bear arms.

At the time Clinton made that statement in September 2015, the Supreme Court had decided only two cases under Second Amendment during the 21st Century.

The first was District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. That case concerned two aspects of D.C. law. One effectively banned the possession of handguns within private homes. The other effectively required all types of firearms to be kept in an unusable condition within a person’s own residence.

The Supreme Court held that both of the restrictions offended the Second Amendment. Along the way, it debunked the District’s argument that the Second Amendment protects only a “collective” right for states to maintain their own militias, rather than a right individuals can raise on their own behalf.

The very modest proposition to arise from Heller is that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep handguns and other commonly-possessed firearms in their homes in a usable state for self-defense.

Two years later, the Supreme Court expanded upon the Heller decision in a case involving a handgun ban in Chicago. There, the court invalidated the Chicago ban and confirmed that the protection of the Second Amendment applies not only to federal restrictions, like the ones in D.C., but those passed by state and local governments as well.

Hillary Clinton was well aware of this when she declared the Supreme Court “wrong” on the Second Amendment. Her audience understood the significance of her remarks as well, cheering and applauding her promise to “take on the NRA.”

Later, Clinton doubled down on her rhetoric, describing Heller as a “terrible” decision. And as of June, she was still unable to bring herself to acknowledge the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Clinton has more recently been forced to walk an increasingly awkward line as her campaign has reached beyond her donors and primary supporters to the broader America public. Distancing herself from her privately expressed opinion, Clinton has since publicly asserted that she is “not looking to repeal the Second Amendment” and is “not looking to take people’s guns away.”

Nevertheless, her own campaign website continues to call for a ban on “military-style assault weapons,” which is simply her unflattering term for AR-15s and the like, America’s most popular rifles. In other words, even as she’s insisting she doesn’t want to take away Americans’ guns, she’s promoting a ban on the very types of rifles Americans choose over all others.

That’s what ordinary people – the kind Clinton refers to as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” – call a lie.

Yet Clinton’s performance at Wednesday’s debate was perhaps her most mind-bending and dishonest attempt yet to distort her position on the Second Amendment.

When directly confronted with her statement that the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment,” Clinton created an entirely new storyline to explain the inexcusable.

An entirely new storyline. A routine Clinton tactic.

Clinton began her answer by disingenuously claiming to “support the Second Amendment.” She was, of course, unable to offer any evidence from her four decades in public life and government employment to support this comment. And, indeed, she then went on to recite a non-exhaustive litany of the gun controls she would pursue as president.

She continued:

You mentioned the Heller decision. And what I was saying that you referenced … was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.

Clinton’s answer was not only dishonest, it was inaccurate in almost all its particulars.

First, the District’s ban didn’t just require safe storage to prevent access by toddlers. It made possessing a loaded, usable firearm in the home – including for self-defense – a crime. The crime did not require proof of access by children or even proof that children were present in the home. Clinton’s answer also seemed suspiciously coincidental with a recent, dubious media blitz on firearm accidents among children.

D.C.’s requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and disabled, which Clinton now claims to endorse, was also far from “reasonable.” It made even lawfully-owned guns useless for what the Supreme Court identified as their “core” purpose under the Second Amendment: self-defense.

It’s simply incredible that Clinton can claim to “support” the Second Amendment, while at the same time insisting that the government should be able to make loading a gun a crime.

Finally, the Supreme Court has not “accepted many” forms of gun control. The Supreme Court has not upheldany form of gun control since Heller and McDonald were decided. It has yet, in fact, to hear another case on firearms regulation. And in the entirety of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decided only one case under the Second Amendment, holding the defendant had failed to prove his claim that a short-barreled shotgun should receive Second Amendment protection.

Yet even taken at face value, Clinton’s comments should be enough to put gun owners on notice of what sort of Second Amendment “support” they could expect from a Clinton presidency. A gun the government requires to be unloaded is as useless as a Second Amendment that does not protect individuals.

The bottom line – whether you consider her “private” or “public” position – is that Hillary Clinton’s own words clearly establish that she is no friend to gun owners and dismisses the Second Amendment as any obstacle to gun control.

Connecticut Judge Grants Immunity to Bushmaster in Case Seeking to Gut the PLCAA

Leave a comment

H/T  NRA-ILA.

It is refreshing to see a judge follow the law instead of rewriting that law.

On January 26, 2015, survivors of victims killed by a deranged man at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut sued the maker and distributor of the firearm he used in his crimes.

This afternoon, a judge issued a ruling in the case, Soto v. Bushmaster, that held the defendants were entitled to immunity from the suit.

The defendants in the case originally asked the court to dismiss the complaint under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which was enacted in 2005 to prohibit frivolous suits against firearm makers for criminal acts committed with their products by unaffiliated third parties. 

In April, the court in the Soto case issued a highly technical ruling that found the defendants had filed the wrong type of motion to invoke the protections of the PLCAA. The court at that time expressed no opinion on the merits of either the complaint or the defenses.

The defendants renewed their claim of immunity under the PLCAA, this time by filing “motions to strike” the plaintiffs’ claims.

In a lengthy decision on the merits, Connecticut Judge Barbara Bellis today granted those motions in their entirety.

Judge Bellis stated in her order: 

Congress, through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act … has broadly prohibited lawsuits “against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms … for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearm products … by others when the produced functioned as designed and intended.” … The present case seeks damages for harms … that were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon by [the perpetrator of the Newtown slayings]. Accordingly, this action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by the PLCAA.  

The plaintiffs in the case tried to avoid the obvious problems the PLCAA presented for their claims by citing one of the law’s exceptions for “negligent entrustment.” This requires a plaintiff to show that the seller of the product knew, or reasonably should have known, that selling the product to a particular recipient created an unreasonable risk of harm.

In the Newtown case, none of the defendants sold or supplied a firearm directly to the ultimate perpetrator. Instead, the firearm was sold to his mother, who passed the legally required background check. The perpetrator, however, subsequently killed her and stole the firearm he then used in his crimes. 

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs claimed the defendants were negligent for entrusting any member of the general public with the Bushmaster XM-15E2S (an AR-15 variant) used in the crime. Despite the fact the firearm was perfectly legal to sell and own under federal and Connecticut law at the time and that AR-15s are America’s most popular and fastest-selling rifles, the plaintiffs insisted that “civilians are unfit to operate AR-15s.”

Had this claim succeeded, it would have not only been the first time a court essentially banned an otherwise legal class of firearms, it would have essentially gutted the protections of the PLCAA by making courts, rather than legislatures, the ultimate arbiters of what firearms are legal to sell.

Fortunately, Judge Bellis understood this was exactly the sort of claim for which the PLCAA was enacted. It would be impossible for businesses to manufacture and sell firearms to the public if courts could decide, after that fact, that even legal gun were too dangerous for any member of the public to own. 

Judge Bellis also rejected other claims under a PLCAA exception that allows for a lawsuit when a manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and that violation led to the harms claimed in the suit. For these claims, the plaintiffs cited the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, but the court held they had not alleged the sorts of commercial relationships with the defendants necessary to establish a right of action under that law.

The court’s decision is a reminder of the critical importance of the PLCAA to preserving the Second Amendment in America. It should come as no surprise, then, that Hillary Clinton has promised to pursue repeal of the PLCAAif elected to the presidency.  

It should also come as no surprise that the plaintiffs have already expressed their intention to appeal today’s ruling. We will report on further developments as they occur.

Obama Releases Armed Drug Traffickers

Leave a comment

H/T NRA-ILA. 

Obama is releasing these thugs while DemocRats are trying to disarm honest citizens.

 

Earlier this year, we reported on how President Obama’s much-ballyhooed executive clemency program was releasing felons who had been convicted of using firearms in drug trafficking crimes. We noted then the jarring inconsistency of this program with Obama’s executive gun control measures, which targeted hobbyists and collectors making occasional gun sales, licensed dealers, and even Social Security recipients. 

But Obama is nothing if not hypocritical. Not only has he increased the scope of his pardons and commutations, but – according to an article in USA Today – he has shifted his strategy to reach more serious and violent offenders. “Before last month, 13% of inmates receiving clemency had used a firearm in the offense,” the article states. “For those granted presidential mercy last month, it was 22%.”

In other words, nearly one in four prisoners who will gain early release by presidential decree used a firearm to commit the offense for which the person was imprisoned.

Critics of Obama’s executive clemency program charge that he is not merely seeking to correct extraordinary injustices or reward exemplary rehabilitation on a case-by-case basis. Rather, they say, he is “instead substituting his own judgment for that of Congress and the courts” by applying the more lenient sentencing guidelines of modern times for the stricter one in effect during the 1980s and ‘90s, at the height of the crack epidemic. 

The USA Today article quotes a former pardon attorney who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as stating, “There are a number of cases where it’s a genuine re-sentencing. It’s unprecedented.” 

Obama is even granting early release to inmates considered “career offenders” and sentenced to life terms. 

As Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, put it: “He has effectively set himself up as a judge, reviewing thousands of cases where they’ve been prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and appealed beyond the district court level. And he’s undercut all that work by commuting their sentences.” 

Opinions can reasonably differ on the need for sentencing and criminal justice reform. What galls gun owners, however, is that retroactive leniency is being given to convicts who deliberately used guns to commit street crime, at the very same time members of the president’s party – particularly Hillary Clinton – are calling for retroactive condemnation of gun owners who have done nothing wrong. 

If Hillary Clinton and others had their way, mere possession of lawfully-acquired firearms and magazines sitting in the safes of millions of law-abiding Americans would transform those people into felons subject to years in prison.

Those gun owning Americans are among the people that Hillary Clinton referred to as “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” 

But in the case of crack dealers who ravaged America’s cities in the late 20th Century? Obama has appointed himself their redeemer. “Simply put,” he said, “their punishments didn’t fit the crime.”

Gun Purchases Continue to Soar

1 Comment

To paraphrase Sergeant Joe Friday would say “Just The Facts, Just The Facts.”

Facts that the anti-gun crowd willingly stay ignorant of. 

Maybe Americans aren’t taking to Hillary Clinton’s sour attitude toward guns. Maybe they’re arming themselves out of concern about terrorists and criminals of a more conventional stripe. And maybe they’re showing what they think of members of Congress who use terrorists’ crimes as the excuse to push for more gun control.

Source: NRA-ILA | Gun Purchases Continue to Soar

MAINE GOV. SIGNS BILL ABOLISHING PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR CONCEALED CARRY

1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Maine joins the list of states moving toward freedom for gun owners.

On July 8, Maine Governor Paul LaPage (R) signed Legislative Document 652 into law, thereby abolishing the requirement for a concealed carry permit in the state of Maine.

This means Maine joins Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Montana, Vermont and Wyoming in permitless carry.

According to the NRA-ILA, LD 652 had the support of the Maine State Police and leaves a concealed carry permitting system in place for those who want to use it for reciprocal purposes with other states.

Breitbart News previously reported that the legislation to abolish the permit requirement was sponsored by state senator Eric Brakey (R-Auburn). He succeeded by repeatedly reminding his legislative colleagues that the permitting system was cumbersome and even confusing for law-abiding citizens. He continually focused on how open carry without a permit was legal in Maine, but if someone put on a jacket that covered their gun, they were then required to have a permit. This put them in a position of having to wait on state approval before being able to carry a gun with which to defend their lives.

Brakey said, “When someone with a credible death threat against them has to wait for months before they can carry legally and defend themselves with their jacket on, that says it is not working.”

LaPage’s signature came just two days after New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan (D) buckled and vetoed similar legislation under pressure from Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control groups.

Fact: They Are After Your Guns and Here is the Proof

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

Obama and the left just do not the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We stopped one tyrant in 1776, it is time to stop a tyrant in 2014.

 

Obama guns fascist and his role models

 

2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

How many laws have to be passed before you believe they are after your guns? President Obama and the left have an aggressive gun control agenda – and it’s hiding plain sight.

Yet even in respected circles there are many who believe we only need to enact new legislation further restricting gun and ammunition ownership and our problems with crime and mental health will go away.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd and the mainstream media cheerleaders who act as gun control first-responders to mass murder by sociopaths have convinced far too many that criminals will stop acting criminally if only more and more laws can be enacted.

So you think gun control advocates are not trying to take away your right to keep and bear arms? That ultimately their goal isn’t to do away with the Second Amendment and disarm the citizens of the United States one way or another?

Are you one of these folks who say they support gun ownership, but only want “reasonable” gun laws restricting “military style” weapons and “gun-free” zones will protect students from school shootings like the tragedy that occurred at the Sandy Hook?

Do you feel sympathetic toward the President when he says a failure to enact tougher gun-control laws is his greatest disappointment in more than five years as president?

Then I have one more question: What are you, new?

Do you have any idea the vast amount of gun control laws and restrictions that have been put upon law-abiding gun owners in this country? It would shock the most learned of Second Amendment advocates to ingest the sheer volume of anti-gun legislation passed and proposed. It clearly exposes an obsessive and war-like drive to disarm the nation’s citizenry of firearms.

Yet our President plays possom, saying in a recent interview; “Right now, it’s not even possible to get the mildest restrictions through Congress and we should be ashamed.”

Listed below are 8 of the Federal bans, regulations and restrictions sought by liberal lawmakers, courtesy Chuck Cunningham, Director of State and Local Affairs – National Rifle Association:

1. In 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposed an “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban that would have banned all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

NRA-ILA fact sheet: S. 150: The Biggest Proposed Gun Ban in American History.

2. This year, Feinstein asked President Obama to order the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to tighten restrictions on the importation of semi-automatic firearms and their parts.

Grassroots Alert article: Feinstein Wants Obama to Pull a Clinton on Firearm Importation.

3. Last year, legislation was introduced to impose “universal” background checks, which would have amounted to registering all firearm sales and paved the way for registering all firearms possessed.

NRA-ILA fact sheet: Private Sales Restrictions and Gun Registration.

4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has attempted to ban the importation of certain shotguns.

Grassroots Alert article: NRA Files Comments Opposing Shotgun Importation Ban

Grassroots Alert article: BATFE Modifies Shotgun Import Ban Study, Still Gets it Wrong

5. BATFE also considered whether to restrict solid hunting bullets as “armor piercing ammunition.”
Grassroots Alert article: BATFE Taking Comments on Sporting Purposes Exemption to Armor-Piercing Ammunition Law.

6. This year, BATFE restricted 5.45x39mm 7N6 as “armor piercing ammunition.”

Grassroots Alert article: BATFE Publicly Confirms Administration’s Ammunition Import Ban.

7. This year, BATFE has proposed to excessively expand the categories of persons prohibited under federal law from acquiring or possessing firearms on mental health grounds.

Grassroots Alert article: NRA Opposes Administration’s Plan to Broaden Reach of Mental Health-Related Gun Bans.

8. Last year, the Obama Administration signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Washington Times.com. NRA opposed the treaty.

It’s not a steady drip or the dreaded slippery slope – this is a constant onslaught of legislation and public relations toward gun confiscation. The resources are mounting and if you think I’m kidding about the obsessive nature of the promoters, here’s what Mike Bloomberg the billionaire ex-mayor in an interview with The New York Times had to say about his gun-control efforts.

“I have earned my place in heaven.”

Bloomberg himself has armed guards of course, as do leftist members of Congress and leftist entertainers, but he may actually believe he’s curried favor with Saint Peter by blowing $50 million on politicians who support gun control. Do you think someone who says they’ve bought a backstage pass into heaven can be reasoned with?

Barack Obama’s platitudes and Bloomberg’s Sainthood aside, here’s a list of Laws affecting legal gun ownership passed in 2013:

Colorado

Magazine Capacity

House Bill 1224 bans the sale, transfer or possession of a magazine capable of holding more than fifteen rounds of ammunition and any magazine larger than fifteen rounds that is manufactured in Colorado on or after the effective date must include a serial number and date of assembly. HB 1224 was signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper on March 20.

 

Gun Tax

House Bill 1228 imposes an undetermined fee (gun tax) for undergoing a background check through the Colorado Bureau of Investigation InstaCheck system. HB 1228 was signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper on March 20.

 

Universal Background Check

House Bill 1229 imposes “universal background check.” HB 1229 was signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper on March 20.

(For above bills)

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/3/colorado-governor-could-sign-anti-gun-bills-any-day,-contact-him-now.aspx?s=house+bill+1229&st=&ps=

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/colorado-2013-session-adjourns-after-historic-assault-on-your-constitutional-rights.aspx?s=&st=10470&ps=

 

Ban of online firearm training for concealed carry permit holders

Senate Bill 195 bans all-online firearm training for concealed carry permits.

SB 195 was signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper on May 24.

 

Connecticut

Magazine Capacity

Senate Bill 1094 expands Connecticut’s current ban on some semi-automatic rifles to include .22 caliber rifles with one or more certain cosmetic features. SB 1094 was signed into law by Governor Daniel Malloy on June 18.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2011/3/connecticut-%E2%80%9Clarge-capacity%E2%80%9D-magazine.aspx?s=senate+bill+1094&st=&ps=

 

Omnibus Bill

Senate Bill 1160, omnibus anti-gun legislation, was signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy on April 4.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/4/connecticut-governor-malloy-and-connecticut-general-assembly-approve-an-irresponsible-and-dangerous-measure-that-will-victimize-responsible-gun-owners.aspx?s=senate+bill+1160&st=&ps=

 

Delaware

Background Checks

House Bill 35 which imposes “universal” background checks was signed into law by Governor Jack Markell on May 8.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/1/delaware-governor-jack-markell-unveils-gun-control-plan-to-leave-you-defenseless.aspx?s=&st=10472&ps=

 

Lost or Stolen

Senate Bill 16 imposes lost and stolen reporting requirements. SB 16 was signed into law by Governor Jack Markell on June 12.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/6/delaware-governor-jack-markell-signs-into-law-measure-attacking-lawabiding-gun-owners.aspx?s=&st=10472&ps=

 

Hawaii

NICS Background Check

Senate Bill 69 requires fingerprinting and processing through NICS in addition to the already existing registration requirement on all firearms brought into the state. SB 69 was signed into law by Governor Neil Abercrombie on July 9.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/hawaii-contact-the-governor-today-and-request-his-veto-of-senate-bill-69.aspx?s=&st=10475&ps=

 

Maryland

Firearm Safety Act

Senate Bill 281 bans the transport, sale, purchase, transfer or possession of commonly owned semi-automatic centerfire rifles that have a detachable magazine and two additional characteristic restricts magazine capacity to no more than ten rounds and requires a state permit-to-purchase, rent or otherwise be in possession of a handgun. SB 281 was signed into law by Governor Martin O’Malley on May 16.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/9/maryland-update-on-legislative-hearing-in-annapolis-to-review-proposed-msp-regulations-to-implement-sb-281.aspx?s=&st=10484&ps=

 

New York

Firearm Safety Act

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/4/new-york-safe-act-registration-deadline-is-tomorrow-april-15.aspx?s=&st=10496&ps=

Ban of Commonly Owned Semiautomatic Firearms/Magazine Capacity/Firearms Registration/Ammunition Restrictions/Mental Health Senate Bill 2230 bans commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines, firearm registration and restrictions on ammunition purchases and requires mental health practitioners to report if someone is a threat to himself or others (without requiring an adjudication) and such person must surrender their gun. SB 2230 was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on January 15.

 

Utah

House Bill 43 requires organizations like the NRA who engage in political speech to immediately disclose the names of virtually all of its donors, including those who pay membership dues. HB 43 was signed into law by Governor Gary Herbert on April 1.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/3/utah-ominous-campaign-disclosure-bill-now-before-governor.aspx?s=&st=10508&ps=

 

What no one wants to think about is what may happen if President Obama does with his gun control agenda what he’s doing with immigration policy: Selectively enforcing immigration law, ignoring the Separation of Powers, writing and re-writing legislation and issuing Executive Orders when Congress won’t act.

The mid-term elections are not exactly looking rosy for Barack Obama and if the pundits and polls are correct (aren’t they always?); the Senate and House will have a healthy bunch of Republicans running Congress. The President may only have until then to get the above proposals through and what if Congress won’t act, as he says so often? Will his pen and phone get to work on gun confiscation?

Here’s a hint: “Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say ‘we are not afraid,’ and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools.”
– Barack Obama

Will the President pursue the last option left to a “disappointed” tyrant? Is it possible that Barack Obama would actually use Executive power to fulfill his obvious disdain for the Second Amendment?

Ponder that as tens of thousands of children from Central and Latin America, escorted by who knows who are being allowed to cross our southern border illegally. It’s criminal on every level – especially the willful neglect of the President’s Constitutional responsibility regarding the nation’s border.

Gun control is now a big-time priority for President Obama and the radical liberals who control cities, Governorships and state legislatures around the nation. There’s plenty of legislation coming down the pike here in 2014 – anyone doubting the left’s real anti-gun agenda needs to carry copies of the following around with them, share them and be constantly reminded of what’s really going on here:

California (8/31/14)

Senate Bill 53 would require the purchasers of ammunition to register with the state Department of Justice prior to purchasing any ammunition.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/california-assembly-to-vote-on-anti-gun-bill-any-day.aspx?s=&st=10469&ps=

 

Senate Bill 199 bans the sale/transfer of used and antique BB devices and imitation firearms that are not colored as specified.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/california-time-to-put-pressure-on-the-legislature-again.aspx?s=&st=10469&ps=

 

Senate Bill 808 imposes restrictions and fees on the ability to make, or even assemble, a personal firearm, along with requiring serialization and registration of that personal firearm and requires all firearms made and assembled prior to enactment to have serial numbers and be registered.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/california-time-to-put-pressure-on-the-legislature-again.aspx?s=&st=10469&ps=

 

Assembly Bill 1014 would allow any person to seek a “gun violence restraining order” against another person.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/california-time-to-put-pressure-on-the-legislature-again.aspx?s=&st=10469&ps=

 

Assembly Bill 1609 would impose unnecessary limitations on the transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring that all transfers be completed through a CA gun dealer, regardless of the circumstances.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/california-time-to-put-pressure-on-the-legislature-again.aspx?s=&st=10469&ps=

 

Assembly Bill 1964 would remove existing exemptions for all single-shot pistols, other than those with a break top or bolt action, from California’s roster of “not safe” handguns.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/california-time-to-put-pressure-on-the-legislature-again.aspx?s=&st=10469&ps=

 

Assembly Bill 2305 would expand CA law by imposing criminal liability if an individual unknowingly carries a firearm on or about his or her person.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/4/california-legislative-update-for-the-week-of-april-7.aspx?s=&st=10469&ps=

 

Assembly Bill 2310 would reenact provisions authorizing a city prosecutor or city attorney in specified counties to file an action for unlawful detainer to abate a nuisance caused by an illegal conduct involving firearms or ammunition.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/california-time-to-put-pressure-on-the-legislature-again.aspx?s=&st=10469&ps=

 

Delaware (6/30/14)

Undetectable Firearms

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/delaware-senate-committee-to-hear-gun-ban-legislation-next-week.aspx?s=&st=10472&ps=

 

Illinois (1/13/15)

Senate Bill 1002 bans the possession, purchase, manufacture, sale or delivery of all ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition or that can be converted to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/illinois-anti-self-defense-amendment-to-be-considered-in-senate-as-early-as-tomorrow.aspx?s=Senate+Bill+1002&st=&ps=

 

Senate Bill 1342 (House Amendment 2) creates and imposes mandatory minimum felony penalties for individuals who carry or possess a firearm on any public street, alley or public lands.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/10/illinois-house-amendment-to-create-mandatory-jail-time-for-victimless-crimes-to-be-considered-as-early-as-tomorrow.aspx?s=SB+1342&st=&ps=

 

Senate Bill 3659, the public safety act, seeks to ban the possession, delivery, sale and purchase of many semi-automatic firearms and accessories.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/5/illinois-anti-gunner-wish-list-legislation-introduced.aspx?s=Senate+Bill+3659&st=&ps=

 

House Bill 815 imposes restrictions on magazine capacity and shooting ranges.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/1/illinois-state-senate-leadership-postpones-floor-votes-on-gun-and-magazine-bans,-registration-schemes-and-shooting-range-

restrictions.aspx?s=House+Bill+815&st=&ps=House Bill 1263 bans many commonly owned firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/1/illinois-state-senate-leadership-postpones-floor-votes-on-gun-and-magazine-bans,-registration-schemes-and-shooting-range-

restrictions.aspx?s=House+Bill+1263&st=&ps=

 

House Bill 2265 imposes mandatory minimum felony penalties ranging from three to ten years in prison for those who carry a firearm without a Concealed Carry License (CCL) or possess a firearm without a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/10/illinois-bill-to-create-mandatory-jail-time-for-victimless-crimes-to-be-heard-as-early-as-october-22.aspx?s=House+Bill+2265&st=&ps=

House Bill 3646 provides that any owner of an establishment that serves alcohol on its premises who maintains a retail liquor license and allows for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on its premises as an on premise consumption retailer, (deletes if more than 50% of the establishment’s gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol) who knowingly fails to prohibit concealed firearms on its premises or who knowingly makes a false statement or record to avoid the prohibition of concealed firearms on its premises shall be guilty of a business offense with a fine up to $5,000.

 

House Bill 3669 provides that a licensee who knowingly carries a firearm on or into a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private pre-school, elementary or secondary school, college, or university is guilty of a Class 4 felony for a first offense and a Class 3 felony for a second or subsequent offense.

 

House Bill 3714 imposes a two percent surcharge (tax) on firearm ammunition.

 

House Bill 4517 provides that a concealed carry licensee shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into any building, real property and parking area under the control of a restaurant.

 

House Bill 4574 provides that the Department of State Police shall suspend for five years the FOID card of a person who has been convicted of a third violation of the provision of the Criminal Code of 2012 that makes it an offense for a person who possesses or acquires a firearm and thereafter loses the firearm, or if the firearm is stolen from the person, to fail to report the loss or theft to the local law enforcement agency within 72 hours after obtaining knowledge of the loss or theft.

 

House Bill 4715 provides that every person must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/2/illinois-proposed-firearms-registration-act-bill-being-closely-watched-by-nra-ila.aspx?s=House+Bill+4715&st=&ps=

 

House Bill 4754 creates the offense of unlawful use of a three-dimensional printer to create a firearm.

 

House Bill 4779 provides that a person shall not carry a concealed firearm onto private real property of any type without prior permission from the property owner. It also provides that a real property owner shall indicate permission to carry concealed firearms onto the property by clearly and conspicuously posting a sign at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property under his or her control, except this posting is not required if the property is a private residence.

 

House Bill 5490, mandatory lost and stolen reporting legislation.

 

Maryland

Ongoing Litigation into 2014 Concerning SB281 signed by Governor O’Mally on May 16, 2013

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/10/maryland-update-on-pending-litigation.aspx?s=&st=10484&ps=

 

Massachusetts (1/6/15)

Senate Bill 1126 establishes a Firearms Violence Prevention Trust Fund.

 

House Bill 47 bans any magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds, establishes a seven round magazine limit, limits the purchase one firearm a month and mandates a background check and a fee (gun tax) for the private transfer of firearms including family and friends.

 

House Bill 3250, microstamping legislation.

 

House Bill 3253 increasing the tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition.

 

House Bill 4121 would give police chiefs discretion in licensing owners for shotguns and rifles, ban the private sale of firearms without a licensed gun dealer and require gun owners to provide a list of all firearms they currently own to the state with each renewal of their license, among many other things. Additionally, it would grant authority to the state Attorney General to remove certain firearms from the approved “firearms roster.”

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/massachusetts-act-now-as-joint-committee-on-public-safety-and-homeland-security-tries-to-sneak-vote-on-egregious-anti-gun-

bill-tomorrow.aspx?s=&st=10485&ps=

 

Michigan (12/31/14)

House Bill 4774 an act that would regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possession and carrying of certain firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/5/michigan-anti-gun-extremists-push-for-long-gun-licensing-and-registration.aspx?s=&st=10486&ps=

 

New Jersey (1/12/15)

Assembly Bill 2006 / Senate Bill 993

 

Magazine and Gun Ban Legislation

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/5/new-jersey-magazine-and-gun-ban-legislation-passes-and-goes-to-governor.aspx?s=&st=10494&ps=

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A2500/2006_R2.HTM

 

Senate Bill 684 revises the definition of destructive device to include certain weapons of 50 Caliber or greater.

 

Senate Bill 1137 prohibits sale and possession of undetectable firearms manufactured using 3D printing technology.

 

Assembly Bill 253 disqualifies persons named on federal Terrorist Watchlist from obtaining firearms identification card or permit to purchase handgun.

 

Assembly Bill 672 establishes a ballistics identifier program for certain firearms.

 

Assembly Bill 673 requires firearms to be unloaded and securely locked or stored in within the home.

 

Assembly Bill 674 requires seizure of firearms when mental health professional determines patient poses threat of harm to self or others.

 

Assembly Bill 851 requires firearms endorsement on driver’s license or non-driver identification card.

 

Assembly Bill 2028 / Senate Bill 154 revises statutes concerning firearms purchaser identification cards and handgun purchase permits; makes handgun purchase permit valid for four years.

 

Assembly Bill 2777 amends state statutes with to allow for reasonable deviations with transporting firearms. We suggested a one-word amendment that would make the bill a pro-
gun bill and an improvement over current law, but as written, the bill is actually worse that current law.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/5/new-jersey-senate-passes-two-gun-control-bills.aspx?s=&st=10494&ps=

 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 92 urges the President and Congress to enact stronger firearms laws.

 

New York (1/7/15)

 

Senate Bill 68A / Assembly Bill 2023 requires semi-automatic pistols manufactured or sold a gun dealer in New York to be capable of microstamping ammunition.

 

Senate Bill 572A prohibits purchasing more than one firearm during any thirty-day period.

 

Senate Bill 575 imposes “universal background checks” for the sale of firearms.

 

Senate Bill 2028 bans the sale, use and possession of .50 caliber or larger firearms.

 

Assembly Bill 3186A requires the reporting of lost or stolen firearms to local police authorities within 72 hours.

 

Assembly Bill 3221 requires the “safe storage” of firearms.

 

Assembly Bill 3244-A would require all current semi-automatic pistols in production and all newly designed semi-automatic pistols delivered to any licensed firearms dealer in New York to mechanically stamp an alpha-numeric or geometric code that would imprint the make, model or serial number onto the cartridge case when the gun in discharged. Assembly Bill 3908A requires owners of firearms to obtain liability insurance.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/new-york-assembly-committee-to-hear-two-anti-gun-bills-tomorrow.aspx?s=&st=10496&ps=

 

Assembly Bill 3941-A – “Children’s Weapon Accident Prevention Act” seeks to force its way into gun owners’ homes by criminally penalizing those who store their weapons in a way other than what this bill deems appropriate.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/new-york-assembly-committee-to-hear-two-anti-gun-bills-tomorrow.aspx?s=&st=10496&ps=

 

Assembly Bill 5012 imposes a ten-day waiting period for all firearm purchases.

 

Ohio (12/31/14)

Senate Bill 18 prohibits a person from knowingly acquiring, possessing, carrying or using an “assault weapon” and to require the state Attorney General to prepare for the establishment of a firearm and ammunition transactions database.

 

House Bill 31 establishes the crime of criminally negligent storage of a firearm.

 

Pennsylvania (11/30/14)

 

Senate Bill 191 imposes a one-gun-a-month restriction.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/2/pennsylvania-legislators-ignore-logic-and-lead-with-emotion-to-introduce-restrictive-measures.aspx?s=&st=10502&ps=

 

Senate Bill 435 bans “assault weapons” and “high capacity” ammunition magazines over ten rounds.

 

House Bill 239 requires all firearms to be registered with the Pennsylvania State Police.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/2/pennsylvania-legislators-ignore-logic-and-lead-with-emotion-to-introduce-restrictive-measures.aspx?s=&st=10502&ps=

 

House Bill 335 provides for licenses and for sale or transfer of firearms by adding that the application for a license to carry a firearm shall affirm that the applicant has never received mental health treatment on an inpatient or outpatient basis. A seller shall similarly ask if the purchaser has ever received mental health treatment on an inpatient or outpatient basis.

 

House Bill 517 prohibits the possession, use, control, sale, transfer or manufacture of an “assault weapon.”

 

House Bill 518 prohibits individuals from using force for the protection of property, an individual or one’s own well-being, if the person is either able to retreat or instructed by peace officers or public safety dispatchers not to pursue the suspect.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/2/pennsylvania-legislators-ignore-logic-and-lead-with-emotion-to-introduce-restrictive-measures.aspx?s=&st=10502&ps=

 

Rhode Island (6/23)

Senate Bill 2318 / House Bill 7838 imposes a ten percent “supplemental tax” on firearms and ammunition.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/5/rhode-island-senate-committee-schedules-anti-gun-bill-this-thursday.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

Senate Bill 2632 would impose burdensome restrictions on semi-automatic “assault weapons” and limit magazine capacity to ten rounds.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/4/rhode-island-senate-and-house-committees-stall-multiple-anti-gun-bills.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 5990 / Senate Bill 859 imposes restrictions on the manufacture, transfer and possession of certain semi-automatic “assault weapons” and ban magazines containing more than ten rounds.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/rhode-island-marathon-gun-control-hearing-goes-into-the-early-morning-hours.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 5993 / Senate Bill 865 abolishes all “shall issue” carry permits and grant the Attorney General sole issuing authority.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/rhode-island-marathon-gun-control-hearing-goes-into-the-early-morning-hours.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 6160 removes the town clerk and sergeant from the list of licensing officers for concealed carry permits.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/6/rhode-island-concealed-carry-attack-stalls-in-committee-but-this-bill-is-still-alive.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 7310 prohibits persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/2/rhode-island-ocean-state-assault-on-the-second-amendment-lawmakers-in-providence-unleash-long-list-of-anti-gun-bills.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 7583 bans the manufacture, sale, possession and transfer of semi-automatic “assault weapons.”

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/3/rhode-island-anti-gun-legislation-stalled-in-house-committee.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 7584 bans semi-automatic “assault weapons” and magazines exceeding ten rounds.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/3/rhode-island-anti-gun-legislation-stalled-in-house-committee.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 7585 creates a ten-round magazine limit and prohibit the possession of magazines exceeding ten rounds, making it punishable as a felony.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/3/rhode-island-anti-gun-legislation-stalled-in-house-committee.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 7587 changes the local law enforcement issued permits from “shall” issue to “may” issue, meaning local officials could virtually end concealed carry in the state.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/4/rhode-island-anti-gun-lawmakers-turn-their-attack-on-concealed-carry-process.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

 

House Bill 7838 requires the use of non-toxic ammunition for hunting whenever such ammunition is available. (lead ammo bill)

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/4/rhode-island-senate-and-house-committees-stall-multiple-anti-gun-bills.aspx?s=&st=10503&ps=

Still think this is about keeping anti-tank bazookas out of the hands of the public? Think again.

They’re after your guns, and all your rights. After all – isn’t the 2nd Amendment what stands between you and everything in the Bill of Rights? America without the 2nd Amendment is closer to the truth than you think – piece by piece our Right to Bear Arms is being dismantled and you are asleep at the wheel.
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/06/fact-guns-proof/#IE4ywpu7aAutCauC.99

 

82 Anti-Gun House Democrats Urge Obama to Expand Gun Import Ban

Leave a comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

The Congreemen are in violation of their oaths to uphold protect and  The Constitution Of The United States

They are caving in to domestic threats to undermine The Constitution.

Here is the oath they take.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God..

 

This story is via the NRA-ILA,

On Wednesday, 82 members of the United States House of Representatives sent President Barack Obama a letter asking him to have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) expand its ban on the importation of semi-automatic firearms and parts for such firearms (see related story).

As reported by the Washington Times on Thursday, “The letter asks that the administration ban the import of high-capacity weapons (sic), as well the frame or receiver of military-style weapons and the practice of importing the guns in parts and then assembling them in the country, among other items.”

While obviously a desperate attempt to cast attention away from the administration’s many problems, the request for an expanded firearm importation ban should not be taken lightly. Severe, politically-driven firearm importation restrictions have been imposed several times over the last 25 years without the consent of Congress, and President Obama has said that he intends to impose gun control with or without Congress’ consent during the remainder of his time in office.

In this instance, Obama’s authority to restrict firearm importation rests in Title 18, Section 925(d)(3) of the U.S. Code, a provision enacted by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Amended by the NRA-supported Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 to require, rather than merely allow, the administration to approve the importation of firearms, that provision states that “the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition . . . is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes . . . .”

For the record, the NRA doesn’t believe that the importation of firearms should be limited to those that have a relation to sports. The right to arms has always been about having arms for defensive purposes, and in 2008, inDistrict of Columbia, v. Heller, the Supreme Court agreed. The Heller opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” which includes “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

However, the BATFE doesn’t even interpret the law’s so-called “sporting purposes” test correctly. On several occasions over the last 25 years, it has deliberately changed its reading of the law, for political reasons, to prohibit the importation of semi-automatic firearms gun control supporters wanted banned.

In 1989, the BATFE (then BATF) concocted the theory that “sporting purposes” did not include practical-skills-based rifle competitions, which are dominated by semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifles.  It admitted that the National Rifle Trophy Matches and NRA National Rifle Championships are sporting, but ignored the fact that semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifles dominate those events too.  Further, it entirely ignored the law’s provision for firearms that are “readily adaptable” to a sporting purpose.  It then banned the importation of 43 makes and models of semi-automatic rifles that it had previously approved for importation, including the exceptional Galil, HK-91/93/94 series, Fabrique Nationale FN and FNC, Steyr A.U.G, Valmet and, of course, the Kalashnikov series.

For years, the BATFE used Handgun Factoring Criteria which allow for the importation of handguns that get enough points on the basis of their size, caliber, safety features, sights and other physical attributes. In 1993, however, the agency ignored its own criteria and banned the importation of “assault pistols” that met the criteria, and that BATFE had previously approved.

In 1998, the BATFE expanded its 1989 ban by prohibiting any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, on the grounds that Sen. Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban included a provision prohibiting the importation of newly-made such magazines. The BATFE simply ignored the fact that magazine capacity had nothing to do with whether firearms themselves were defined as “assault weapons” in Feinstein’s law.

Get 82 anti-gun members of Congress to sign onto something and you can bet there will be at least one lie or preposterous exaggeration, and this letter is no exception to that rule. The letter asks for a ban on the importation of AK-47-style pistols, claiming that they are the “top weapons of choice for international gun smugglers.”  Yet it contradictorily identifies them as a “new breed of pistol” that has been “newly developed.” Maybe that’s what the letter’s authors, Rep, John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) had in mind when they referred to their letter as “a no-brainer.”

The letter focuses on Kalashnikov-style firearms because they are so obviously a type of firearm that the Second Amendment protects under the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. In Heller, the Court said that the amendment protects the right to have firearms that are useful for defensive purposes and that are “in common use.”  Millions of Kalashnikov-series rifles have been bought in America during the last quarter-century, making them among the most common of our time, and they are obviously among the rifles that are most useful for defensive purposes.

This latest request, however out of step with the prevailing sense of Congress, demonstrates a firearm importation law in severe need of revision, particularly when considered in the light of BATFE’s illegitimate, agenda-driven misinterpretations of that law in the past.

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: