Leave a comment

This is from the Second Amendment Foundation. 

These type victories will stop if Hillary Clinton becomes president.

BELLEVUE, WA – A three-judge panel for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 2-1 ruling that “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.

SAF was joined in the case by the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. SAF was represented by noted California civil rights attorney Don Kilmer, and the case was supported by an important amicus brief filed by Virginia attorney Alan Gura for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Gura won both the Heller and McDonald Second Amendment rulings before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is an important decision,” said SAF founder and CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “It remands the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling as it pertains to the Second Amendment.”

The lawsuit was against an Alameda County ordinance that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of a residential zone. Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain noted that, “the Ordinance burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that it therefore must be subjected to heightened scrutiny—something beyond mere rational basis review.”

“Both SAF and CCRKBA can be proud of this victory,” Gottlieb stated. “We agree with Judge O’Scannlain’s explanation that ‘the county had failed to justify the burden it has placed on the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns. The Second Amendment,’ as the judge wrote, ‘requires something more rigorous than the unsubstantiated assertions offered to the district court.’”

Quoting the Supreme Court ruling in SAF’s 2010 landmark McDonald case, Judge O’Scannlain reiterated, “The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.’”


Armed Citizen Shoots Pair Of Robbers, Hampton Roads, Va

1 Comment

This is from AmmoLand.

Two criminals enter a business and one ends up room temperature and one headed to jail.

You have to love happy endings.

WAVY, Hampton Roads, Va. 01/29/16, WTKR, Hampton Roads, Va. 01/29/16

Armed Citizen Shoots Pair Of Robbers, Hampton Roads, Va
Armed Citizen Shoots Pair Of Robbers, Hampton Roads, Va

USA –  -( Somewhere, everyday in the USA, 2100+ people use a gun for self defense, to stop a crime or save the lives of themselves or their family.

“We believe that the American public deserve to understand that on the average, guns save 2,191 lives and are used to thwart crimes every day,” says Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation

Most times you won’t see these tales on the news as it does not fit the main stream media’s story line of “Guns and Gun Owners are Bad“.

This is just one of those stories;

A pair of men entered a gift card establishment in Hampton, Va. and attempted to rob the store. An employee responded to the threat by retrieving a gun and shooting both thieves, killing one and prompting the other to flee.

Police captured the wounded thief a short distance from the store. The armed citizen is not expected to face any charges. (WAVY, Hampton Roads, Va. 01/29/16, WTKR, Hampton Roads, Va. 01/29/16)

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



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

Islamic invasion pulls trigger: Europe now scrambles for guns

1 Comment

This is from World Net Daily.

America the invasion of these goat humping savages are coming here.

Are you ready?

Austrians are arming themselves at record rates in an effort to defend their households against feared attacks from Muslim invaders.

Tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” have poured into Austria from Hungary and Slovenia in recent months on their way to Germany and Sweden, two wealthy European countries that have laid out the welcome mat for migrants. More than a million will end up in Germany alone by the end of this year, according to estimates from the German government.

Obtaining a working firearm and ammunition in Germany, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands is practically impossible for the average citizen. Germany, for instance, requires a psychological evaluation, the purchase of liability insurance and verifiable compliance with strict firearms storage and safety rules. And self-defense is not even a valid reason to purchase a gun in these countries.

The laws in Austria, while still strict, are a bit less overbearing.

A Czech TV report confirms that long guns – shotguns and rifles – have been flying off the shelves in Austria, and Austrians who haven’t already purchased a gun may not have a chance to get one for some time. They’re all sold out.

And those arming themselves are primarily women.

“If anyone wants to buy a long gun in Austria right now, too bad for them,” the Czech newscaster says. “All of them are currently sold out.”

He cites the Austrian news outlet Trioler Tageszeitung as the source of his report.

“We cannot complain about lack of demand,” Stephen Mayer, a gun merchant, told Trioler Tageszeitung.

He claims the stock has been sold out for the last three weeks and that demand is being fueled by fears generated by social changes.

“People want to protect themselves,” Mayer said. “Nonetheless, the most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women.”

They are also buying pepper sprays, which Mayer said are in big demand among those who can’t get a gun.

Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said he recently returned from a gun rights event in Europe, where he sensed a change in attitude toward firearms.

“I just returned from a gun rights meeting in Belgium, and I can attest that all over Europe people now want the means to defend themselves,” Gottlieb told WND. “Self-defense is no longer a dirty word. In countries like Austria, where it is still legal to own a firearm, gun sales are at record levels. I can tell you first-hand that people in Europe now wish they had a Second Amendment.”

More potential new customers are entering the market than ever before, according to the Czech report.

Watch clip of Czech TV report on Austrians rushing to arm themselves


Until the refugees started flooding Europe, it was mostly hunters and sport shooters who purchased firearms. Now, people are seeking weapons for self-defense because they are worried about their personal safety. Most have never used a gun before.

So-called “projectile weapons” are available in Austria under two classifications, C and D, which are rifles and shotguns. Every adult Austrian is legally able to apply for a weapons permit but must disclose to the government their reason for wanting to own a gun.

The Czech station cited an interview with a sociologist and an Austrian journalist, both of whom said the weapons purchases were based on unfounded fears about foreign migrants.

‘Something is very wrong here’

The Viennese sociologist, identified only as Mr. Gertler, said no such fears about migrants should ever be published by any Austrian news outlet.

A journalist named Wittinger said “something is very wrong here” if Austrians are buying guns to protect themselves against migrants.

“Shotguns will not, after all, solve any immediate problems, quite the contrary,” he said.

The Czech TV station then reported that Islamists are promising: “We will cut the heads off unbelieving dogs even in Europe.”

“Look forward to it, it’s coming soon!” the Czech newscaster said.

ISIS-trained jihadists are now returning as European citizens or they are trying to infiltrate as migrants. In one propaganda video an ISIS operative informs his comrades back home in Germany to slit the throats of unbelievers in Germany, Czech TV reports.

“Overall, the ministry of interior stated that Germany is in the cross-hairs of Islamic terrorists but that he does not have any indications of specific threats,” he said.

Bracing for another Islamic invasion

The Czech site reflects awareness of a major event in Western history, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.

“Polish King John Sobieski defeated the Muslim invaders at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Another Muslim invasion is underway and Austrians are alarmed, hence their run on gun stores,” Pratt told WND. “Women are right to be concerned in view of the Muslim view of women that they are good for raping and little else.”

The Czech TV report cited the Arab Spring as the root cause for the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe.

“More and more, the whole thing is turning into the situation that we will experience the much-touted Arab spring from very close up – right here at home,” the reporter said. “What’s more, many European are alienating large part of their own populace with unfortunate social and multicultural politics, merciless removal of children, unfair seizures and trading on traditional European values and with policies which are usually less friendly toward conservative and traditional native inhabitants and leans toward that portion of inhabitants who have little trouble with globalization and nonchalant liberalization, removal of traditions and Islamization. Yet we will not be able to rely on it, that portion of (population) once the Arab Spring comes here. And that will probably be, as they say, closing the barn after the cows are gone.”

Federal Court Ruling Opens Door To Gun Rights Restoration For Certain Misdemeanors

1 Comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

As long as the are non-violent misdemeanors I see no problem with their second amendment being restored.


The following is a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation.

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has quietly won a significant federal court victory in a Pennsylvania case in which the judge has ruled that a man convicted of a serious misdemeanor crime several years ago, but who has demonstrated that he “would present no more threat to the community” than an average law-abiding citizen, may not lose his Second Amendment rights under a federal gun control statute known as 922(g)(1).

The ruling, by Judge James Knoll Gardner for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, says that application of that statute to the plaintiff, Daniel Binderup, “violates the Second Amendment.”

“This case could provide a building block upon which similar cases in which people are convicted of non-violent misdemeanors might be challenged because they have lost their right to keep and bear arms as a result,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“Under existing federal law, many people convicted of state-level misdemeanors have lost their Second Amendment rights, essentially because they’ve been lumped together with convicted felons.

“One should not lose his or her constitutional rights for certain non-violent indiscretions that occur once in a lifetime,” he added.

Following his guilty plea in 1998, Binderup lost his Second Amendment rights and disposed of all of his firearms legally.

In November 2013, he filed a complaint against Attorney General Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. SAF provided legal support through attorneys Alan Gura and Douglas T. Gould.

Gun-rights group persuading dozens of towns to repeal firearms regs in legal blitz

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

This is how we get the repressive gun laws repealed do it on the state and local level.

Then when the Obama Regime leaves office, we move on to the federal level.


A Washington state-based gun rights group is steadily persuading cities and towns across the country to repeal local firearms regulations and give that power back to the states.

The organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, is working to invalidate city ordinances by arguing that they’re in conflict with looser state regulations. So far, it seems to be working. The group says it’s been able to overturn more than 100 gun-related ordinances this way, most recently in Utah.

“We’re going state by state, going through every single ordinance of every city and county in every state and finding where the cities and counties have ordinances enacted that are in conflict with state law,” Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the SAF, told

Usually this means repealing local ordinances that run afoul of state law which, in turn, gives almost all gun-regulating power to the state. These cities and local communities still have the authority to outlaw someone shooting a gun but not necessarily possessing or carrying them.

“It’s pretty clever,” Florida State University College of Law Professor Franita Tolson told “If you can’t change it on a federal level, you attack it on a local level.”

So far, Gottlieb’s group has helped overturn gun rules in nine states, including Illinois, California, North Carolina, New Mexico and Nevada. SAF’s Legal Preemption Project latest target is Utah.

The organization recently mailed letters to 49 municipalities in Utah — one of the most gun-friendly states in the country. Three years ago, Utah became the first state in the nation to recognize an official state gun — the M1911 semi-automatic pistol.

That doesn’t matter to SAF.

With the precision of a marksman, the group, which has been called the legal arm of the gun-rights movement, has already gotten several cities in Utah to change their codes.

West Point, a small community located about 30 minutes north of Salt Lake City, swapped out their current law banning guns in the city cemetery earlier this week and replaced it with one that prohibits firing a gun in the graveyard.

Twenty miles south of Salt Lake in the city of Draper, a ban on guns in the amphitheater and local parks was also lifted. An ordinance prohibiting anyone from firing a gun at those locations was put in its place.

“By and large most of the jurisdictions have amended their ordinances,” Gottlieb said. “We have a reputation and a track record. We do file lawsuits and we do win.”

Currently, SAF has more than two dozen active lawsuits around the country.

In May, the group sued the city of Tallahassee, its mayor John Marks and City Commissioners Nancy Miller, Andrew Gillum and Gil Ziffer.

The lawsuit claims that under the city’s ordinance, which criminalizes the discharge of firearms and airguns, there is no provision that carves out an exception for the lawful use of a firearm in self-defense.

“Tallahassee has way over-stepped its authority under state preemption,” Gottlieb said when filing the suit. “The Florida Legislature has exclusive domain over firearms regulation. When the law was passed, it nullified all existing, and future, city and county firearm ordinances and regulations.”

“This is not the first time we have had to take a city to court for violating a state preemption law,” Gottlieb added. “Why municipal governments still don’t understand the concept of preemption is a mystery to us.”

Tolson, who teaches in Tallahassee, says fighting it out in court isn’t the smartest option for some. “If you are a small municipality, it may not be worth it for you to fight,” she said. “Why fight if you think you’ll lose?”

David Kopel, an adjunct professor of law at New York University, agrees. He told cash-strapped cities and towns don’t have the budget to fight groups like SAF and would have to explain to their residents why so much of their taxpayer money was being used for a legal battle.

As it racks up wins, the foundation is moving on to bigger targets.

SAF sued the city of Seattle over a regulatory ban on guns in city park facilities, and was also instrumental in the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged Chicago’s handgun ban. In that case, the Windy City’s 28-year-old ban on handgun ownership was ruled unconstitutional.

With a full-time staff of one lawyer, SAF harvests much of its research from law school students on internships.

“We run lean and mean,” Gottlieb said.

Lawsuit Filed Against Eric Holder, ATF Director After ‘Overreaching’ Law Prevents D.C. Residents From Buying Handgun in Texas

1 Comment

This is from The Blaze.

I hope these men are successful with their lawsuit.

However, I do not actually see them winning as they have the deck stacked against them.


When Washington, D.C. residents Ambeau and Andrew Hanson tried to buy a handgun from the Texas gun shop owned by Fredric Russell Mance, Jr., Mance wouldn’t sell because of a federal law preventing interstate handgun sales — a ban that does not apply to rifles and shotguns.

Lawsuit Filed Against Eric Holder, ATF Director After ‘Overreaching’ Law Prevents D.C. Residents From Buying Handgun in Texas

Mance wanted to make the sale, and the Hansons wanted to buy at a lower price than what they could get in the District of Columbia, where there is only one federally licensed firearms dealer – which means higher prices, according to federal lawsuit filed in Fort Worth, Texas, by a gun-rights group.

The lawsuit names Attorney General Eric Holder and the B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are the co-defendants. Mance and the two D.C. residents are also part of the suit.

The Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or CCRKBA, is also a plaintiff. The lawsuit is funded by its affiliate, the Second Amendment Foundation.

“It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said in a statement. “If a law-abiding citizen can clear a background check and legally purchase a handgun in his own state, he would pass the same background check just across the border in another state.”

“Federal law allows for interstate long gun sales, as long as the dealer follows the law, so what’s the logic of the federal government banning interstate handgun sales?” Gottlieb added. “Some states allow for, or even welcome, interstate handgun sales, so what’s the federal government doing?”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, claims that the law prohibiting someone who lives in one state from purchasing a handgun in another state inhibits competition and stops a national handgun market. The result is harmful to consumers, the plaintiffs say.

“Americans are free to purchase rifles and shotguns across state lines, so long as those transactions comply with the laws of the seller’s and purchaser’s states,” the 11-page lawsuit states, according to Courthouse News. “But under federal law, no American may lawfully purchase a handgun outside his or her state of residence. This prohibition plainly reduces competition, raises prices, and limits consumers’ choices in the handgun market.”

That competitive market is available for handguns, the lawsuit says.

Federal law with respect to interstate rifle and shotgun sales provides a ready example of a more carefully tailored alternative, prohibiting sales that violate state law—and permitting those that do not,” the complaint states. “There is no need to criminalize the entire interstate handgun market.”

(H/T: Courthouse News)

Open Letter to Michael Bloomberg – You’ll Never Win


This is from Guns Save Lives.

How long will Little Mikey Bloomberg keep pounding money down the rabbit hole of gun control? 


minuteman1Dear Mr. Bloomberg,

I understand that as a multi-billionaire you have to find non-traditional ways to pass your time. I’m sure rolling around in mounds of $100 bills just doesn’t bring the same enjoyment that it used to. I guess that it’s hard to find pleasure in the little things such as playing a round of golf, spending time with your family, or enjoying yourprivate tropical estate. I guess it’s only natural that you would take up pet projects to occupy your time. Many multi-billionaires end up doing the very same thing later in life. However, I’m here to tell you, in your effort to disarm Americans – You’ll never win.

There are an estimated 300,000,000+ guns in the United States. This number is growing at a faster rate than ever over the last several years. Efforts to ban or regulate guns only spur higher sales of the very guns you are seeking to regulate.

Over the last several years you have had to form THREE different anti-gun groups in order to generate media attention for your cause. You tout email list signups and Facebook “Likes” as “members”. Despite these questionable “membership” numbers, you still haven’t gotten anywhere close to the NRA’s 5 million+ DUES PAYING members or even the DUES PAYING members of Gun Owners of America (300,000+) or the Second Amendment Foundation (nearly 1,000,000).

Outside of yourself and other uber rich donors, how many people send you annual checks of their hard earned money to support your gun control efforts? Few to none? That’s what I thought. It’s one thing to sign up for a mailing list or like a Facebook page, but it’s another to actually show up for protests or get out your checkbook once a year. This is why your protests regularly have dozens or maybe, maybe hundreds of people while ours have thousands, or even tens of thousands.

Your “members” join your organizations because they think it’s a cool, or trendy thing to do, like changing your social media profile picture in support of the flavor of the month causes we see come and go so often. We take action because we know it’s the right thing to do for our country.

Your efforts to squash a grassroots effort to recall three state senators in Colorado are largely credited as being the very reason that the recall succeeded (in case you haven’t noticed, many people take offense when billionaires try to buy local elections).

You were around in 1994 Mr. Bloomberg, right? You remember what happened in the national elections following the passage of the federal “assault weapons” ban don’t you?

You can keep throwing money at this issue all you want. You can keep touting your inflated membership numbers. You can form new organizations to try to reinvent your efforts as much as you want. We will still be here, more resilient than ever. We will continue to dedicate our time, money and votes to protecting our rights. You’ll never win.

New York Officials Agree Not to Enforce 7 Round Magazine Limit – For Now

Leave a comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

A small glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for New York gun owners.



The following press release comes from the Second Amendment Foundation.

BELLEVUE, WA – New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and State Police Superintendent Joseph D’Amico have agreed, in a stipulated order, to not enforce a section of the state’s controversial SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act while an appeal is underway in one of the legal challenges to that statute, amounting to a small but important victory for the Second Amendment Foundation in a challenge to the constitutionality of a provision in the law.

At issue is the arbitrary seven-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the SAFE Act under Section 265.37 of that law. At trial in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Cuomo, Judge William M. Skretny ruled that the section dealing with the magazine limit is unconstitutional. He upheld other provisions in the Act.

SAF is joined in its separate action by SCOPE, Inc., Long Island Firearms LLC and seven individual citizens, Matthew Caron, Matthew Gudger, Jeffrey Murray, MD., Gary Wehner, John Amidon, Nunzio Calce and James Middleton.

“We’re delighted with the agreement that there will be no enforcement of the magazine limit anywhere in the Empire State while the State Rifle and Pistol Association’s appeal is pending,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Where the challenge may have only affected New York’s western district, now the stay is statewide.

We are hopeful that our good friends at the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association will prevail,” he continued, “and for the time being, our motion is a small win for gun owners from Long Island to Lake Erie.”

SAF and its co-plaintiffs are represented by New York attorney David Jensen, PLLC.

A tiny sliver of decent news for New York gun owners in an otherwise dismal outlook for Second Amendment rights in the Empire State.

SAF & Calguns Score Ninth Circuit Victory In Richards Carry Case

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

The rulings from The Ninth Circus (Circuit)Court Of Appeals has

been all over the board.

They rule for Second Amendment  Rights then the court votes against the Second Amendment 

It is getting very confusing.


BELLEVUE, WA –-( The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto, challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto.

“Today’s ruling reinforces the Second Amendment’s application to state and local governments, and will help clear the way for more California citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“California officials have been put on notice that they can no longer treat the Second Amendment as a heavily-regulated government privilege.”

The case was originally filed in 2009 as Sykes v. McGinness, and challenged not only Yolo County’s policies, but Sacramento County’s then-restrictive practices as well. SAF, Calguns and two private citizens, Adam Richards and Brett Stewart, continued pursuing the case against Yolo County after Sacramento County agreed to relax its policy. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Alan Gura and Don Kilmer.

“We are confident that the win today will stand the test of time,” said Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman.

The Richards case was argued at the same time, and to the same panel, that earlier decided Peruta v. County of San Diego, a similar case challenging overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but apparently the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision moves our Carry License Compliance Initiative forward,” explained CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs. “We’re already preparing the next phase of litigation to ensure that all law-abiding Californians can exercise their right to bear arms.”

Gottlieb noted that the battle over right-to-carry laws is far from over, but today’s Ninth Circuit decision reaffirms that court’s earlier ruling in the Peruta case and “moves the ball another step forward.”

“We will pursue Second Amendment affirmation wherever and whenever such cases are possible as SAF fights to win back gun rights one lawsuit at a time,” Gottlieb stated.

(California carry license applicants can download state-standard application forms, legal information, and report unconstitutional policies or process issues at

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation ( is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

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

White House, gun ban groups conspire to exploit Sandy Hook anniversary

1 Comment

This is from The Examiner.

The antigun crowd is shameless POS’s that exploit human misery.

If someone at Sandy Hook Elementary School was armed 

The death toll would have been less

Sadly Sandy Hook Elementary School is a gun free zone.

Like so many other schools and businesses. 


A blockbuster revelation yesterday by Politico shows the depth of hypocrisy being practiced by gun prohibition lobbying groups and the Obama White House to exploit the anniversary of the Sandy Hook tragedy, while condemning pro-rights groups for allegedly doing the same thing; something of a vindication for a Bellevue-based gun rights advocate.

Almost immediately after Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, announced that Dec. 14 had been picked for “Guns Save Lives Day,” he was condemned by anti-gunners for trying to use the anniversary for political gains. Thanks to Politico’s report, that shoe is now on the other foot, precisely where Gottlieb had predicted it would be.

While reporting that Vice President Joe “Shotgun” Biden has been sidelined in the administration’s gun control efforts, Politico noted in the fourth and fifth paragraphs that, “Officials from the White House Office of Public Engagement, which reports to senior Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, are now carrying the administration’s gun control efforts. OPE officials hold a regular meeting with the major gun control groups known as the Gun Violence Table.

“The weekly sessions often include OPE Director Paulette Aniskoff or official Paul Monteiro along with representatives from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, the Center for American Progress, Organizing for Action and Americans for Responsible Solutions,” Politico added.

But it is not until the sixth paragraph that the reason for these strategy sessions is revealed: “The groups are coordinating a November lobbying effort and planning events to commemorate the first anniversary of the Newtown, Conn., massacre last December.”

In a press release Tuesday morning, Gottlieb noted, “For those lobbying groups to condemn gun rights organizations is at best disingenuous, if not downright despicable. They have known for weeks, perhaps months, that they were going to exploit this solemn anniversary, and it is clear now they do not want a different message competing with their efforts to erode our civil rights.”

Gottlieb was savaged over “Guns Save Lives Day” even after shifting the date to Dec. 15, coinciding with Bill of Rights Day. His condemnation was particularly bristling in the pages of the New York Daily News, but a reader of that story put the controversy in this context: “Yes, it may have been a bit crass for the SAF to have their rally on the anniversary of such a tragedy, yet it also worked: here we are — here the whole NATION is — talking about it! They couldn’t have bought that sort of press! And they do have a point: we need to WAKE UP and abolish feel good ‘gun-free zones’ and implement a true security plan. Teachers and faculty: don’t want to own or handle guns? No problem. Just don’t get in the way of those who DO, and/or get used to the idea of armed safety officers. It really is that simple.”

The Newtown Bee on Oct. 15 reported that the date had been changed, and then quoted First Selectman Pat Llodra, who stated, “For this group to use our Sandy Hook tragedy as a springboard for political action is disrespectful to our community of Newtown and is of particularly insensitive timing… I respect their right to promote their beliefs regarding guns. I ask that they respect our community and not use us for their purposes.

“We will not host a political rally of any stripe on that day,” she said, “and we hope that all such inclined persons understand that they and their agenda are not welcome. We ask for privacy and expect that all caring folks, including the media, will accommodate us. Those persons, who choose to not accede to our request to be left alone, (will) show the world their own moral and ethical fiber.”

Will that sentiment also apply to the gun ban groups and the White House OPE, which are planning the events “to commemorate” the tragic attack?

MEANWHILE, American Tactical Imports announced today that they will relocate from present headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. to Summerville, S.C. beginning next month. In a press release, ATI made it clear why the company is moving.

“ATI believes it is imperative that a firearms importer and manufacturer do business within a state that is friendly to the second amendment rights of the people,” the release states. “It is also important that ATI be close to the port-of-entry into the country for several of their imported products. The relocation to South Carolina ensures that both of these factors are met.”

“This move to South Carolina will help ensure a solid foundation for our company,” said ATI President Tony DiChario. “The relocation process will be smooth and we have ensured that the process will not affect customer service, product distribution or any other segment of our business. The people of South Carolina have welcomed ATI with open arms and we are excited about making our new corporate home there.”



Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: