Rep. Gohmert: If Orlando Was About Guns, Then ‘Boston Was About a Pressure Cooker’

Leave a comment

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is correct the problem is not guns or pressure cookers the problem is Islamic Terrorist.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) called it “outrageous” that House Democrats would grab microphones and prevent fellow lawmakers from conducting business in violation of House rules, all to make a point about gun control, which is really beside the point:

Source: Rep. Gohmert: If Orlando Was About Guns, Then ‘Boston Was About a Pressure Cooker’


I Love My Children, So You’ll Never Take My AR-15 

Leave a comment

Charlton Heston said it best “From My Cold Dead Hands!”




The AR-15 is the most capable home defense rifle in the nation, and no power-mad politician is going to strip me of the ability to defend those I love most.

Source: I Love My Children, So You’ll Never Take My AR-15 – Bearing Arms

Tennessee Woman Shoots Monster Under Bed, Won’t Face Charges – 

Leave a comment

The monster picked the wrong bed to crawl under and got shot for his stupidity.

Wrong house.

Source: Tennessee Woman Shoots Monster Under Bed, Won’t Face Charges – Bearing Arms

Should Your Right to Carry Your Gun End at the State Border?


This is from Freedom OutPost. 

This is something every gun owner should get behind and help to get the concealed carry reciprocity bill passed.

Sources inside Congress have told Gun Owners of America that they may soon be taking up a concealed carry reciprocity bill.

If enacted, this legislation would mean that your right to carry would no longer end at your state border.

It would mean we would be one step closer to enjoying the full protections of the Second Amendment, which says the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

To this end, Gun Owners of America is supporting H.R. 923 and S. 498 — legislation introduced by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

H.R. 923 and S. 498 are the best reciprocity bills in the Congress.  Yes, there are similar bills, but they don’t protect citizens who travel from Constitutional Carry states.

As we reported last week, there are now ten Constitutional Carry states in the union — states that have passed laws which don’t require gun owners to get permission to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights or to be registered like sex offenders.

These states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and most of Montana.

The Stutzman-Cornyn bills do not punish these states for being too pro-gun.

They do not require a gun owner from these states to get a concealed carry permit before carrying a firearm out of state.

Sadly, the other reciprocity bills in Congress would impose this restriction, forcing people to get registered through the permitting process before exercising their rights.

Why Reciprocity Legislation is Needed

Some gun owners have argued that reciprocity legislation is unnecessary because the Second Amendment recognizes the right to carry wherever we want.

We agree that Americans have that right.

But sometimes a “right” — even a God-given right — needs a mechanism to enforce it against a politicized judiciary.

When Shaneen Allen was arrested in New Jersey for carrying a firearm with a Pennsylvania concealed carry license, the Garden State was flagrantly denying Shaneen’s rights and acting unconstitutionally.

Shaneen faced over a decade in prison — and was only exonerated when gun owners pressured Governor Chris Christie, whose presidential ambitions made him unusually receptive to our message.


So consider this:  When you carry concealed in New York, New Jersey, California, or another state, the fact that you are “right” isn’t going to keep you from going to prison for decades — unless the Stutzman-Cornyn legislation is passed into law and forces these lawless states to comply.

This legislation is consistent with the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.  The Supreme Court (correctly) ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms from federal AND state abuse.

That’s what the Stutzman-Cornyn bills do — they prevent anti-gun states from denying your right to carry concealed when you travel with your family out of state.

This is important legislation.  Please urge your Representative and Senators to cosponsor H.R. 923 and S. 498.


Buying and Selling a Firearm: Private Sales Explained

Leave a comment

This is from OutDoorHub.

Continuing with our series on buying and selling firearms, in this article we are going to talk about private sales. In our last post, we explained FFLs and background checks, so we already covered how buying firearms from a gun shop works, but what about private sales?

Say you have an old gun you want to sell, or maybe you know someone who’s willing to sell you a firearm that you’ve wanted for ages—like perhaps the coveted Colt Anaconda or Marlin 336. How would you go about completing the transaction? Is there some sort of license you need to get, or somebody you need to clear with before exchanging firearms and money?

In general, people who make the occasional sale, exchange, or gifting of a firearm are not required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), which gun shop owners need, however, they are still required to know and abide by local, state, and federal laws.

There are many things to consider when dealing with private sales, and the first is if it is legal in your state. Not all states allow private sales, and some have certain restrictions that you should be aware of. For example, in California private sales must be completed through licensed firearm dealers. Connecticut requires the person making the transfer to get an authorization number before such sales can be completed, and forbids the transfer of long guns unless certain conditions are met. A number of other states have similar restrictions. It is also illegal to sell a firearm to a resident of another state without going through a dealer, and sellers cannot ship directly to (non-FFL) buyers in another state. Selling to convicted felons and any other prohibited purchaser is illegal as well.

To find out what laws your state has, you can visit, which has a detailed state-by-state breakdown. Check out the sections under “Purchase.”

Private gun sales are widely supported by Second Amendment advocates, who view it as a bedrock principle in American gun ownership. It is also important to note that gun control groups widely oppose private transfers and in recent years have been pushing to either to bring them within the umbrella of “universal” background checks, or ban them outright. Gun rights groups such as the NRA have long fought these attempts on the basis that prohibiting private sales would greatly hinder the constitutional rights of gun owners, while not likely reducing crime. According to the NRA, most firearms used in crimes are obtained by theft; illegal, “off-paper” transactions; or straw purchasers.

For example, in 1991, California famously banned private sales of handguns in response to an escalation of drug-related crimes. However, experts say that the escalation of crime in the early 1990s was mostly accounted for by juveniles, who are already prohibited from buying or possessing handguns.

Private sales also account for only a small amount of gun purchases in the United States. However, if you want to sell that old rifle or perhaps add another firearm to your collection, it is not as complicated as it seems. Just make sure you understand the applicable laws.

To learn more about your state’s laws on private sales of firearms, visit

And stay tuned for the next part in our series on Buying and Selling a Firearm, Gun Shows.


Bloomberg Says He Won’t Run For President And ‘Risk’ Electing Trump Or Cruz


This is from NPR.

This announcement has made Hillary and Bernie very happy.

Yet it makes them sad because when Hillary or Bernie net the nomination and lose, they will not have Nanny Bloomberg to blame.

American gun owners win also.

Former three-term mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg said Monday he will not run for president, after months of speculation that he would jump in as in independent during a campaign in which it seems anything could happen.

In a column on his opinion site Bloomberg View, he said looking at the data made it “clear to me that if I entered the race, I could not win.” He added that he feared his running could split votes enough to give Donald Trump or Ted Cruz an advantage.

Bloomberg writes that he believes he could have won a number of states but that ultimately the race could come down to three people in the general election, none of whom would get enough electoral votes to win the presidency. That would put the onus on the Republican-controlled Congress and, as Bloomberg writes, “out of the hands of the American people.”

“As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz,” he said. “That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.”

Bloomberg wrote a searing critique of Trump, saying he has “run the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people’s prejudices and fears.” In particular, he hit Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the country, and called Sen. Cruz’s “pandering on immigration … no less extreme” than Trump’s.

Bloomberg said he had given “serious consideration” to running. The New York Timesreported that he had “quietly laid groundwork” for a campaign including a network of “several dozen strategists and staff members,” and had conducted polling and even produced TV ads and set up campaign offices.

He said the decision not to run comes despite the fact that he has “always been drawn to impossible challenges.”

“All of us have an obligation as voters to stand up on behalf of ideas and principles that, as Lincoln said, represent ‘the last best hope of Earth,'” he continued. “I hope and pray I’m doing that.”

BREAKING: Legislature Overturns Veto, Makes This State Constitutional Carry

Leave a comment

This is from Controversial Times.

Bravo to the men and women in the West Virginia Legislature for standing up for the Second Amendment and the people.

Just two days after the Governor vetoed a constitutional carry bill, both the House and Senate have voted to override the veto, meaning constitutional carry will be the law of the land.

West Virginia governor Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed the measure on Thursday during a large press conference with a large number of law enforcement officers from throughout the state.

That didn’t stop legislators from standing up for Second Amendment rights. The House moved quickly and overrode Tomblin’s veto the yesterday by a vote of 64-33.

With the House vote already in, the Senate voted 23 to 11 during a Saturday morning floor session, making constitutional carry the law of the land.

“I recognize that there are issues as it relates to public opinion on this, but at the end of the day, it is a constitutional right and we really don’t see much difference between carrying in an open manner without a permit or putting a jacket on over your weapon and then being a felon,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael said of the vote Friday.

The bill removes the current permitting system and requirements to carry a concealed weapon over the 21 and puts in place a licensing system for 18 to 20-year-olds that includes a $50 tax credit for anyone who goes through the permitting process.

The bill will take effect in 90 days.

Read more:

Marco Rubio Has a Second Amendment Problem

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

Little Marco is more of a liar than the people he is accusing of being a liar.

I hope he is out of the race real soon, along with Kasich.

Who is Not Telling the Truth About Their Gun Control Record?

Springfield, VA -( When Marco Rubio was a local commissioner in Florida in 1999, he voted to ban guns from local parks.

Now, politicians make mistakes. And honest politicians “fess up” and move on. Rubio’s problem is that, when Senator Ted Cruz called attention to Rubio’s anti-gun vote, Marco’s response was to call Ted a “liar.”

This was part of a larger narrative in which Donald Trump and Rubio were hurling “pants on fire” insults at Cruz. But when Rubio disavowed his 1999 anti-gun vote — falsely accusing Ted Cruz of Rubio’s own sins — he made a serious mistake. Because it turns out that Breitbart had a videotape of Rubio casting the anti-gun vote which he was denying.

And not only was Rubio caught red-handed in a lie — about a significant and unambiguous misrepresentation — he was caught accusing others of “lying,” when in fact, it was Rubio himself who was not telling the truth.

As we said, politicians make mistakes. And Marco Rubio’s misrepresentation won’t be the worst mistake he’s made this week. (His worst mistake would be continuing his campaign in a context where the only conceivable outcome would be to prevent the pro-gun Cruz from seizing the nomination.)

But, just as Ted Cruz fired a top staffer in order to maintain the reality and appearance of scrupulous honestly, we do believe that Rubio owes Cruz an apology for his undeniable and conspicuous lie against him.

Incidentally, Cruz’ scrupulous honesty — in the face of child-like, baseless, repeated accusations — reaffirms Gun Owners of America in our decision to endorse Ted Cruz as, frankly, “the only adult in room” in a field of Republican candidates who appear, increasingly, like playground bullies.


Tim Macy
Gun Owners of America

About Gun Owners of America (GOA):

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul.

For more information, visit:

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


Pro-Gun State Rep Has Whole Room Cheering After Slamming Obama Administration…

Leave a comment

This is from the Gateway Pundit.

I applauded Washington state representative Jay Rodne also.

You should tell that to the Obama administration.” quipped Washington state representative Jay Rodne, after Mercer Island police chief Ed Holmes speaks in favor ofHB 2372, which mandate destruction of seized firearms.

Chief Holmes says that “Government’s role should not be in a transaction history of selling guns“, to which Rep. Rodne responded “Your last comment about the government should not be in the business, you should tell that to the Obama administration.” Those attending the hearing erupted in cheers, as committee chairhag Laurie Jinkins (C) jumps in to save her anti gun friends “REPRESENTATIVE RODNE, WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION?

Rep. Rodney went on to ask the Chief about background checks involving the selling of these guns. The anti gunners’ support of this mandatory destruction law, in a round-about way, is an admission that the expanded background checks they sought in 2014 don’t work.

How Gun Control Advocates Could Take Your Guns With One Law


This is from Godfather Politics.

If this law was to pass I can see hundreds of thousands of lost or stolen gun reports. 

I thought about whether I should write an article on how gun control advocates might go about confiscating guns with almost no physical force. They might actually do it just like this.

“So, I would like you to explain with 350 million guns in 65 million places, households, from Key West, to Alaska, 350 million objects in 65 million places, if the Federal government wanted to confiscate those objects, how would they do that?”

This was a question that was asked in the great town hall gun show starring Barack Obama.

It’s simple: Pass a law that if people do not turn in their guns they will be fined $250,000 for each gun.

Will everyone turn in their guns? Probably not. But any use of them would almost bankrupt the typical gun owner.

Look what happened to the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding. They were fined $135,000 and had their bank accounts emptied.

Consider what New York City is doing with a draconian law that could fine someone up to $250,000 for using the wrong pronoun for any number of sexual preferences.

Read related article: “You Could be Fined $250,000 for using the Wrong Pronoun.”

The government doesn’t need to go door-to-door for full gun control. It only needs to make it very expensive for gun owners ever to show or use their guns.

In fact, since most guns are registered, the government could send gun owners a bill for $250,000 for every registered gun. The only way gun owners could get the bill cancelled is to turn in their guns. Failure to do so could be very expensive.

criminals love gun control

Of course, criminals would not have to worry about these huge fines if their guns had been stolen since they could not be traced to them. Any gun owner who did not report his gun stolen would be out of luck.

Like drugs, guns could be purchased at a premium on the black market, but if an otherwise law abiding citizen ever used an illegally purchased gun in self-defense, the shooting victim could very likely sue the shooter. He could claim that he only broke into the house because there was a law prohibiting gun ownership.

If guns had not been outlawed, he never would have broken into the house.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: