Washington: Lawsuit Against I-1639 Proceeds After Motion To Dismiss Denied

On May 20th, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected a motion by the government defendants to dismiss the lawsuit filed by NRA and the SAF against Washington’s gun control ballot initiative, I-1639.  The lawsuit may now proceed.

NRA and SAF previously filed the lawsuit in November, 2018.  Initiative 1639 classifies ordinary, recreational firearms in common use as “assault” weapons, denies young adults the right to self-protection, and bans the sale of firearms to out-of-state residents.  The provision restricting the Second Amendment rights of young adults went into effect on January 1st, 2019.  The other provisions are set to take effect on July 1st, 2019.

Why the Founders Wanted You to Own Military-Style Weapons

Two hundred and twenty-seven years ago this month, the U.S. Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792. This pair of bills authorized the president to lead the state militias in war and to conscript all able-bodied free men to fight with self-provided arms and munitions.

To a modern American living in the midst of an empire with a permanent military presence both here and abroad, there might be little reason to acknowledge this anniversary. However, it offers an example of how the founders believed military defense and war should be handled, and why so many modern arguments against civilian gun ownership don’t match the history.

The first Militia Act was passed on May 2, followed shortly thereafter by the second Act on May 8. The first act gave the president the power to call up the militia “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe.” The second Act called on every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18-45 to join a militia.

Why are these laws relevant today?

We live in a time when Americans are told by self-appointed “wise overlords” that the founders never intended for private citizens to have military weapons. Incidentally, they never cite anyplace that the founders made this assertion, nor where they declared their love for intervening in other countries’ domestic affairs, endless unconstitutional wars, and a permanent military with bases in foreign nations for that matter. This argument is used to justify gun control policies that restrict our right to keep and bear arms as described in the Second Amendment.

The reality is that many in the founding generation were terrified of a permanent, standing army that could crush liberties at home. This fear was a major theme during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788. In fact, the convention’s proposed Second Amendment text makes it clear why it was so important that the proposed central government had no say in the possession of firearms by Americans (bold emphasis added):

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The convention’s “Second Amendment” draft also provides another glimpse into their worldview. The country’s defense was to come from the people, not an army held to a different legal standard. There was no separation between soldier and civilian. At the convention, George Mason referred to the militia as “the whole of the people.” In every colony besides Pennsylvania, able-bodied men not only had to join a militia and show up to musters, but they had to furnish their own functioning arms.

The Militia Acts show that this tradition carried on through Colonial America into its history as an independent country apart from Great Britain and under the newly-approved U.S. Constitution.

Under the Militia Acts, the militia members had to bring the following:

A good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutered and provided.

The militiamen were to be armed with their own weapons, not ones provided and owned by the federal government.

Now some might argue the U.S. government lacked the financial resources it does today, but that’s why it’s important to look at the broader context of the law. The founders did not want a standing army, and there were no calls for these men to surrender their personal firearms once a military crisis had been addressed.

Ultimately, free men must be the ones responsible for defending their liberties and their country if that freedom is to last. The founders believed that, and it’s why they favored a militia-style military composed self-equipped men, which would reduce the risk of a standing army that would take that responsibility away. If free men are not responsible, then they are not really in charge – and thus they are not truly free.

A constitutionalist or someone sympathetic to anti-federalist concerns might take issue with the law and how it was used to call up the militia during the Whiskey Rebellion. However, the Militia Acts offer reveal the blueprint for how the founders believed wars should be fought, and why they made it clear the central government should have no right to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

City agrees to stay on three gun-control bills while lawsuits play out in court

Pittsburgh’s three gun-control ordinances will not be enforced until the court deems them legal, according to an order issued by an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge Monday.

All parties agreed to the stay during a Monday morning meeting held in Judge Joseph James’ chambers between city lawyers and legal counsel representing opponents of the laws.

“That’s consistent with the city’s goal all along, which is to put this in front of the court, let the courts decide whether these ordinances are permissible under Pennsylvania law,” said Eric Tirschwell, an attorney with gun-control advocacy organization Everytown Law who is representing the city pro bono. “The city is not looking to prejudice anyone while those decisions are made.”

Everytown Law is the legislative arm of the national Everytown for Gun Safety organization.

This has always been the strategy, said Mayor Bill Peduto’s spokesman Tim McNulty. “The Mayor has said basically the same thing numerous times,” Mr. McNulty said.

The three gun ordinances, signed into law by Mr. Peduto in April, aim to ban the use of certain assault-style weapons and accessories as well as allow the courts to temporarily seize weapons from those threatening to harm themselves or others.

State and local gun-rights groups, as well as four local residents backed by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, have filed three separate lawsuits against the city — including two actions to halt the laws and another petitioning to hold the city in contempt for violating Pennsylvania preemption laws on local regulation of firearms.

“We want to make sure the public is aware of the fact that these ordinances are stayed and that there’s not going to be any enforcement until Judge James has an opportunity to decide the matter,” said attorney Joshua Prince, who is representing state and local gun-rights organizations Firearms Owners Against Crime and Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, which are plaintiffs in two lawsuits against the city.

Murder Rates in Brazil Drop

Hey! Maybe Bolsonaro’s reformation of  Brazil’s gun laws helped.

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – The murder rates in Brazil for January and February this year were 25 percent lower compared to the same period last year, according to G1’s national homicide index. The index is based on official data from the 26 states and the Federal District.

According to this index, there were 6,856 homicides in the first two months of 2019, compared to the 9,094 murders in the same period last year. (The data does not include the state of Paraná.)

The decline is mainly led by states in the Northeast, which, together, recorded the most significant reduction in the number of deaths (34 percent). In Ceará alone, the murder rate dropped by 58 percent.

According to researcher Bruno Paes Manso, from the Center for the Study of Violence at USP, despite this downward trend, it is too early to celebrate a reduction of lethal violence in Brazil.

“The data is far from pointing to a widespread reduction throughout the year and only increases the responsibility of the new state and federal governments to maintain and improve these results,” he said.

Causes

Director of Brazilian Public Security Forum Samira Bueno believes that initiatives such as the creation of the Ministry of Public Security, the implementation of SUSP (Sistema Único de Segurança Pública, or Unified System of Public Security), and the application of federal funds can help explain the decline.

The index created by the G1 gathers data about victims of violent crimes in Brazil month to month. Victims of willful homicides, robberies, and bodily injuries followed by death are counted.

Kirsten Gillibrand: The NRA’s greed leads to ‘dumb’ ideas like arming teachers

Demoncraps are a deathcult.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., voiced her opposition to the idea of having armed teachers during school hours during her interview with CNN on Wednesday. She blamed the idea being presented in the first place on the National Rifle Association’s “greed.”

“I’ve got three kids and I said very openly that I’m not particularly comfortable with teachers walking around with loaded weapons. I wonder what’s your response is to that,” CNN’s Jim Sciutto asked.

Gillibrand said, “I think it’s a dumb idea and I think it is something being pitched by the NRA because all they care about is gun sales. They are absolutely corrupted. They are focused on greed and they want to sell guns to people on the terror watch list, to people with grave mental illness, with violent backgrounds or people with criminal convictions for violent crimes, which is why they’re against the universal background check bill that people support across this country, and it’s also why they oppose the Violence Against Women’s Act.”…………..

Gillibrand has been struggling to reach the 65,000 unique donor minimum needed in order to qualify for the primary debates.

Justice Department urges Supreme Court to overturn NYC gun law

Here’s the brief. It looks like the DOJ is working to help give the court some kind of cover to rule as narrowly as possible against the NYC ordnance and no further. It mentions ‘intermediate scrutiny’ several times and even though using a correct reading of the Heller decision and the 2nd amendment, finally makes it clear that’s what they’re suggesting.

CNN) – The Justice Department on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to overturn a New York City gun law that regulates where licensed handgun owners can take their firearms.

The justices are poised to hear the Second Amendment case next term, and it will be the first substantive gun rights cases the court has heard since Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark opinion in 2008 holding that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun at home and a follow up case in 2010.

Since those opinions came down, the court has declined to take up several other follow up cases to the frustration of gun-rights supporters.

2A Attorney: 70% of N.J. gun laws could go away if SCOTUS takes up this case on May 23rd.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – There’s a major challenge to New Jersey’s gun control regime which could get taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision will be made on May 23rd.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Club previously initiated Rogers v. Grewala challenge to New Jersey’s restriction on carry licenses, and the case has worked its way through the federal judiciary. Next week, the Supreme Court will finally hold a conference at which time the Justices will sit around a giant conference table, discuss the points of law implicated by cases awaiting action, and ultimately vote on any pending petitions of certiorari (a request for SCOTUS to review a lower court’s decision).

The stakes are potentially huge.

That’s because the circuits are split. The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have issued decision favorable to strong state gun controls concerning carry licenses; the Seventh and Ninth Circuits along with the influential D.C. Circuit went in the other direction. This is an opportunity for the Highest Court in the Land to resolve the dispute… if they take it up and grant cert.

If SCOTUS hears the case, how the High Court rules will likely turn on whether a majority believes “strict scrutiny” is the appropriate standard of judicial review for gun control carry laws.

Joe Biden: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Say Americans are ‘Entitled’ to Own Guns

It’s nearly unbelievable just how stupid these politicians are and believe the people are as well.
You see, technically, he’s correct even though he doesn’t know it, and this is not his point.
The amendment simply states that the right shall not be infringed.
So, there’s nothing there that ensures you owning a gun and getting one given to you, say if you can’t afford one, kind of like the ‘entitlement’ to Social Security if you qualify, but, of course, we know what he actually means.
He believes that people really don’t have this right, even though it’s been adjudicated several times in the past that the people do have it as an individual right.

Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted that the “Second Amendment exists” but stressed during his speech in New Hampshire on Tuesday that it does not say everyone is “entitled” to own a gun.

Biden, who was taking questions at a small outdoor venue, then added, “By the way, if one of you left the keys in your car down the street, and a kid comes along and jumps in it and takes off, you could be held liable civilly for that. So if you own a gun, put a damn trigger lock on it. Put it in a case. You have an obligation.”

Biden also spoke about past gun bans he supported. He specifically referenced the 1994 “assault weapons” ban and noted that it also “limited the number of bullets in a clip.” Additionally, he spoke about being former President Barack Obama’s point man for gun control following the December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School.

He said, “There are so many other things we can do to make schools safer, other than arming teachers.” He did not specify, however, what those other things are. Rather, he pivoted to the next question.

Oregon Republicans and Democrats (surprise-surprise-surprise) Kill Sweeping Gun Control Bill

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Beaver State gun owners are breathing easier in the aftermath of a GOP legislative maneuver that saw state Senate Republicans return to the chamber floor this week to help pass a major education funding bill, because Democrats agreed to kill a sweeping gun control package in exchange, according to the Salem Statesman-Journal.

The newspaper said Republicans had staged a four-day walkout that ended “Monday after securing major Democratic concessions.” One of those concessions was stopping Senate Bill 978.

But the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), while congratulating state gun rights activists for their efforts, also cautioned against celebrating just yet.

“Anti-rights zealot Senator Ginny Burdick promised that gun grabbing bills would fail ‘over my dead body’ and the last time we checked Burdick was still with us,” OFF said in a prepared statement. “Rest assured she will be doing everything she can to revive and least some of the onerous elements of SB 978.”

In an email to AmmoLand News, OFF noted, “There are three other gun bills that are not dead…It’s not over till the last Prius leaves the building.” Those other bills are House Bill 2505, House Bill 3299 and House Bill 3329, OFF said.

Republicans had walked out a few days earlier, leaving Senate Democrats without the required number of votes. The Senate needs 20 votes present to take action. There are 18 Democrats in the Senate. When Republicans returned, the gun control bill, SB 978, immediately became a casualty of political warfare over constitutional rights versus anti-rights activism.

Under SB 978, Oregonians would have faced a variety of new regulations including safe storage, allowing gun dealers to raise the minimum age for purchasing firearms, accessories, and components, added prohibitions on where armed citizens could carry, mandatory theft or loss reporting within 72 hours, empowered the Oregon Health Authority to set minimum specifications for trigger and cable locks, and locked containers, and a raft of other requirements. The bill spanned 26 pages.

John Lott: Gun controls backed by Dem presidential candidates would hurt poor and minorities

As always, the Doctor plainly lays it out.

Name a gun control regulation, and you’ll find Democratic presidential candidates who enthusiastically support it.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., promised Wednesday that if she becomes president she will use executive orders to mandate background checks on the private transfers of guns, revoke the licenses of gun makers and dealers whose guns are used in crimes, and ban the importation of many semi-automatic guns.

Her proposals follow Sen. Cory Booker’s push for licensing gun owners and an even longer list of gun regulations. Like Harris, Booker, D-N.J., is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

The regulations Harris and Booker are proposing would hit low-income Americans – many of whom live in high-crime neighborhoods – particularly hard, because the regulations would effectively prevent them from owning guns for protection by making gun ownership more expensive. Black Americans would be disproportionately affected because of their disproportionately high poverty rate.

Booker said that as president he would seek to remove the National Rifle Association’s tax-exempt status, license and fingerprint gun owners, impose universal background checks on the private transfers of guns, place microstamps on all firearms (even though this technology does not yet exist), and ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Booker would also allow courts to confiscate firearms if a judge merely suspects that an individual is dangerous and use your tax dollars to fund gun control research.

Both Harris and Booker claim that background checks for gun purchasers stopped 3.5 million dangerous or prohibited people from buying guns. However, virtually all of those denials are the result of mistakes.

Harris and Booker also seem content to stop law-abiding people from buying a gun simply because their name is similar to that of a criminal. Relying on birth dates and phonetic similarity of names just doesn’t allow for much accuracy.

Incidentally, people are more likely to share names with other members of their racial and ethnic groups. Hispanics often have names similar to other Hispanics, and certain names are relatively common among African-Americans. Law-abiding black people and Hispanics are particularly likely to have their names confused with people whose criminal records preclude them from having guns.

This problem of false positives requires only an easy fix. The government need only follow the same rules that it demands of private companies when they conduct criminal background checks on employees.

But instead of fixing the system and requiring the use of basic identifying information, Democrats reveal that they want to make it more difficult, unfair, and inconvenient for law-abiding people – particularly minorities – to buy a gun.

Democrats argue that requiring voters to shows free IDs discriminates against minorities. But the universal background checks that Harris and Booker want for gun purchases don’t come cheap. In Washington and New York City, checks on private transfers of guns start at $125.

The licensing laws Booker favors will only raise costs of legal gun ownership still further.

Booker’s home state of New Jersey has just proposed increasing the cost of its mandatory firearms purchaser identification card – which functions as a license to own a gun – to $100. On top of that, gun owners must obtain a permit, for which the proposed fee is $50.

So who do they think that all these costs will prevent from owning guns?

Booker believes that licensing gun owners will reduce crime, but licensing and registration hasn’t worked out that way in parts of the U.S. and other countries where it has been tried.

In theory, if guns are left at a crime scene, they can be traced back to the criminal. In real life, crime guns are only left at the scene of incidents when criminals have been seriously injured or killed.

Also, crime guns are very rarely registered. In the exceedingly rare instances that they are, they typically aren’t registered to the person who committed the crime.

That’s why police in Canada, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Chicago and Washington, D.C., can’t point to any crimes that have been solved as a result of gun registration. But there is a cost. In Honolulu, the licensing and registration operation takes 50,000 hours of police time each year to run.

Booker claims that Connecticut saw “a 40% drop in gun homicides” between 1995 and 2005, but he ignores that crime was falling nationally as well as in the Northeast during the period – not just in Connecticut.

Indeed, in the rest of the Northeast, the drop in gun homicides was greater than Connecticut’s in three of the next five years after licensing was enacted and eight of the next 15 years.

Harris and Booker want to close the “boyfriend loophole” to prevent dating partners convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns, but this misstates existing regulations.

Under federal law, “domestic violence” already includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by an “intimate partner.” Even a misdemeanor conviction involving a violent crime bans someone from owning a gun for life.

Booker’s promise to close the so-called “Charleston Loophole” is just as misleading. Supposedly, if the government would only have had more time to check Dylann Roof’s background, he would have been stopped from buying a gun.

But Roof, who pleaded guilty to murdering nine people at a church in Charleston, S.C., in 2015, had only been charged with misdemeanor drug possession prior to the church shooting, so would not have been barred from buying a firearm under Booker’s proposal.

Even if Roof had been convicted of misdemeanor drug possession, the federal background check system would not have red-flagged his gun purchase. So there’s no loophole to be closed, unless Booker will strip people of their right to self-defense when just arrested for misdemeanor drug possession.

As to banning high-capacity gun magazines, they are just a metal box with a spring. They are trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banning magazines holding more than 10 bullets had no effect on crime rates.

“Congress has not provided federal funds to research gun safety,” said Booker, in what is a flat-out lie. The federal government has generously funded firearms research, spending over $43 million between 2015 and 2018.

Nor has this been the only source of funding. Multibillionaire gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort.

Other regulations, such as microstamping firearms – where a gun’s firing pin imprints a microscopic set of characters that identify the gun’s make, model and serial number on each cartridge – have yet to be developed. Mandating this on guns effectively bans new guns.

Instead of adding more fees and inefficiencies, Democrats would be more honest with the American people if they simply acknowledged that they want to ban guns. This wouldn’t so unfairly and disproportionately affect poor Americans, many of whom are minorities.

 

Gun control in New York: Here’s what Democrats plan to pass next

Hey! Lets make something more illegaler! (As in, our Fed congresscritters outlawed ‘undetectable’ guns way back in 1988 with the Undetectable Firearms Act .

ALBANY – Senate Democrats on Wednesday passed another gun-control bill after the Legislature and Gov. Andrew Cuomo approved sweeping changes in January.

The latest measure would ban undetectable guns, including 3D-printed guns, from being manufactured and sold in New York.

The bill, also likely to be approved by the state Assembly, comes after a series of gun-control laws passed earlier this year, including a ban on bump stocks and allowing New Yorkers to report people deemed dangerous from possessing guns.

Senate Democrats said the bill was initially scheduled to pass Tuesday, but it was approved 51-5 on Wednesday.

Guns Ownership is a Dangerous Virtue.. and we need to defend it

Free speech is dangerous. The right to petition our government and to own guns is dangerous. Those rights are particularly threatening to entrenched politicians and the special interest they represent. Besides being dangerous, those rights are also the safest way to organize a society. It is time we defended them, not because they are safe, but because they are virtues.

Virtues are how we do good things. Defending your community, the right to bear arms in public, is how you ensure public safety when the police aren’t there. The police are rarely there when you’re attacked by a criminal. We’ve lost much of our right to bear arms. We surrendered it to “public safety”. The right to bear arms was never meant to be convenient for politicians.

Your gun might be “safer” if it was under lock and key. It is also less useful that way. You can’t use your gun to protect yourself and your family if it takes you minutes to put to use. We forget that. We forget that in your hands, guns save lives. Making firearms “safer” and less accessible means we save fewer lives.

I see that every day. I study self-defense week after week, year after year. I also study the statistics of armed defense. I report the stories where ordinary people like you stopped a violent assault. You saved your life. You also saved the lives of your family and other innocent parties. I see it. Unfortunately, you can’t protect the people you love once you’ve made your tools of self-defense “safe”.

Like the police, you will probably never need to press the trigger. Unlike the police who see violence every day, your family will probably see violence once in your lifetime. That is what the FBI statistics tell us. There are about 70 million families in the USA, so the numbers add up. We defend ourselves about once every 30 seconds.

You protect yourself when you go buy groceries and when you fill up your car with gas. You protect yourself at work and at home. You protect yourself on your way to the gym, to school and to church. When the attack is over and you’ve defended yourself and others, then you call the police. That is what good people do. The police show up minutes later and take a report. The fact that you go armed, that you have your self-defense tools with you, that makes all of us safer. Thank you.

About 20 million of us have permits to carry a concealed weapon in public. That is about one-in-ten adults. The number of us carrying in public increases to about one-in-five adults when the government gets out of the way. Government fees and licensing requirements disarmed about half of us. That is bad. Disarming the good guys makes us less safe.

Gun-control disarms us by inches. As we’ve seen in the news, there is no such thing as a “gun-free” zone. Politicians said that honest people should be disarmed so that only criminals would be the only ones with guns. Politicians don’t want your gun to be too big or too small, too old or too new.. except for their bodyguards, of course. Politicians want you disarmed. For many reasons, disarming you is safer for them.

Being disarmed is not safer for you and me. Good women with guns and good men with guns make their families safer and their communities safer. You can’t be a force for good if you don’t have your self-defense tools, and the training to use them.

I have to address a comforting myth about owning a gun. The average defense takes place in seconds. That isn’t enough time for you run to your gun safe, get your ammunition that you stored separately, load a magazine, and protect your family or your employees. Time yourself.* You’ll see that I’m right. A gun you can’t use is dangerous.

We defend ourselves a million times a year with a firearm. We also have thousands of firearms accidents each year. Criminals put their guns under the front steps. Thugs leave their guns under the couch cushions in their girlfriends house. That is where children find them and where children get hurt. I want you to own your firearms responsibly, but I also want you to keep them accessible so you can use your “rescue tools” when you need them. For many of us, that means you carry your gun on your body and then put it in a small, quick-access, gun vault. That is careful storage of a dangerous tool. That is what good men and good women do. I thank you.

I mean you, the average citizen of the USA. I want you to exercise your rights. I want you to have dangerous freedom because I trust you. You have more common sense and honesty than the politicians paraded before us on the news. I trust your wisdom and your motives far more than I trust theirs.
~_~_

*- I asked my listeners to get their guns from “safe storage”. It takes them over half a minute to access a “safe” gun.

Minnesota committee sinks pair of gun control bills

ST. PAUL — A Minnesota committee on Tuesday, May 14, voted down a pair of gun control proposals, likely blocking their path forward this year.

The panel aiming to reconcile differences between House and Senate public safety and judiciary spending bills rejected each of the bills with Democrats supporting them and Republicans opposing them. The bills needed a majority vote among both the House and Senate sides of the committee to be added to the larger spending bill.

The first proposal would require background checks at the point of transfer of a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. Exceptions would be made for firearm transfers to an immediate family member, transfers while hunting, at a shooting competition or at a gun range.
The second would allow law enforcement to remove a person’s firearms if they are believed to pose a danger to themselves or others.

Supporters, including law enforcement officers, said the proposals would help cut down on gun violence in Minnesota.

“I would say it would almost be grossly negligent not to take a step like this,” Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, said, pointing to higher rates of gun deaths in states that rolled back laws requiring background checks to purchase firearms.

While the proposal didn’t pass, Democrats said they could again bring the measures up for consideration later.

Opponents, including gun rights advocates, said the measures could unfairly restrict Minnesotans’ right to bear arms.

“We’re treating folks as if they all have the potential of becoming criminals,” Sen. Mark Johnson, R-East Grand Forks, said. “It’s neighbors, it’s friends, it’s those people who are hunting together.”

Democratic-Farmer-Labor leaders in the House, who hold a majority in that chamber, have said they’d fight to pass the bills this session. GOP leaders in the Senate, meanwhile, have said the measures wouldn’t have the support their to pass.

New Zealand prime minister: ‘I do not understand’ US lack of action on gun control

That’s because the Euros that populated NZ never had a constitution that restricted the government from infringing and abridging the people’s rights it was supposed to be protecting. NZ doesn’t even protect the right of free speech and a free press as the police there jailed and charged someone for posting the murderer’s manifesto online.

New Zealand Prime Minster Jacinda Ardern expressed shock at the lack of action in the United States to implement gun control laws.

“You can draw a line and say that does not mean you need access to military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. You do not. And New Zealand has by and large absolutely agreed with that position,” Ardern said in a CNN interview.

“Australia experienced a massacre and changed their laws; New Zealand had its experience and changed its laws,” Ardern said, referring to the country’s mass shooting at Muslim mosques in March. More than 50 people were killed during the gunman’s attack

In response to the mass shooting, Ardern pushed for more gun control, saying New Zealand “had pretty permissive gun legislation.” Ardern did say firearms have a use for hunting, but only certain guns should be sold.

“To be honest with you, I do not understand the United States,” she said.

Some of the new gun laws the New Zealand parliament passed after the mass shooting at Christchurch included a mandatory gun buyback, with an amnesty period until September 2019. The Evening Standard reports said there are only two exemptions: If the weapon is used for pest control on private and nonconservation land and if the weapon is a family heirloom.

ALLEN WEST CALLS FOR WAYNE LAPIERRE RESIGNATION IN WAKE OF LEAKED NRA MEMOS; NRA LEADERSHIP FIRES BACK

National Rifle Association board member Lt. Col. Allen West (ret.) called for the resignation of executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre on Tuesday after leaked memos revealed accusations of impropriety, including $275,000 spent on Italian suits and $265,000 spent on travel. The accusations were levied at him by former NRA president Oliver North and the gun-rights group’s largest media vendor.

“It has become very apparent that I need to speak out about what is happening at the National Rifle Association,” West said in a statement published on his website. “I am in my second term as a Board member, and I am deeply concerned about the actions and statements being made. The recent statements by Charles Cotton and Carolyn Meadows that are appearing in the Wall Street Journal, and now other news outlets, are outright lies. I have never been told, advised, informed or consulted about any of these details mentioned in the WSJ, and who knows how much more despicable spending of members’ money.”

In a joint statement to the Washington Free Beacon from NRA president Carolyn Meadows, first vice president Charles Cotton, and second vice president Lt. Col. Willes Lee (ret.), the three defended LaPierre and accused West of making false statements about the way the board has operated.

“It is unfortunate that certain board members have resorted to making false and misleading public statements about proceedings of the NRA board of directors,” the joint statement said. “As those board members know, we are not at liberty to discuss the particulars of the board of directors meeting that occurred in executive session on April 29. However, every board member was afforded the opportunity to speak openly about any issues of concern to them. To suggest otherwise is dishonorable.”

West’s comments were in response to statements made by Meadows and Cotton that painted the recently leaked memos as old news that the NRA board was long aware of. Both statements asserted that the board is fully supportive of Wayne LaPierre as well as Brewer Attorneys and Counselors and the expenses incurred by both of them.

“This is stale news—being recycled by those with personal agendas,” Meadows said in a statement sent to multiple outlets. “In any event, the entire board is fully aware of these issues. We have full confidence in Wayne LaPierre and the work he’s doing in support of the NRA and its members. It is troubling and a bit pathetic that some people would resort to leaking information to advance their agendas. This has no bearing on the board’s support of Wayne—and the work the NRA does to protect America’s constitutional freedoms.”

“The board supports the work the firm is doing, the results achieved, and the value of its services. Importantly, this relationship has been reviewed, vetted and approved,” Cotton said in the same statement.

West said those comments are not only wrong but may carry legal consequences for members of the board.

“These statements have maliciously, recklessly and purposefully put me, and uninformed Board members, in legal jeopardy,” he said.

NRA leadership responded by saying board members like West were given the opportunity to be heard in the closed-door session of the latest board meeting.

“During the meeting in question, the board had a healthy discussion where the issues that are being reported upon now were vetted and discussed,” the three officials said. “Beyond that, every board member was invited to attend committee meetings where legal, financial, regulatory, and business issues are thoroughly addressed. The NRA has an office of the general counsel, and separate independent outside counsel to represent the board of directors. In sum, there is no excuse for any board member to claim they are unaware of legal and business concerns being addressed by this Association.”

They further said board members are responsible for keeping themselves informed about the operation of the organization.

“It shocks the conscience to read that certain board members have apparently not kept themselves updated, informed and active on matters that are of interest to our 5 million members,” the three officials said. “They have an open invitation to get more actively involved—and to join the conversation in an appropriate way, as is provided for in our Bylaws.”

West said he informed LaPierre’s office prior to the group’s annual meeting in April that he believed LaPierre should resign and that he informed the board of his concerns at the meeting.

“Prior to the NRAAM in Indianapolis I sent an email to Wayne LaPierre’s managing director, Millie Hallow, expressing my sentiment that Wayne LaPierre resign immediately,” he said. “I also drafted a memo entitled ‘Resolution of Concerns.’ Both of these statements are known to the NRA board.”

“I do not support Wayne LaPierre continuing as the EVP/CEO of the NRA. The vote in Indianapolis was by acclamation, not roll call vote. There is a cabal of cronyism operating within the NRA and that exists within the Board of Directors. It must cease, and I do not care if I draw their angst. My duty and responsibility is to the Members of the National Rifle Association, and my oath, since July 31, 1982, has been to the Constitution of the United States, not to any political party, person, or cabal.”

Meadows, Cotton, and Lee reiterated that LaPierre was reelected “unanimously.”

“Fact—when the board met, Wayne was unanimously voted to continue in his leadership role of the Association,” they said. “Anyone could have run against him, or any one of us for that matter, or even called for a roll call vote. They chose not to do so.”

The vote on NRA officers, including LaPierre, was held in executive session when only board members and select staff were allowed in the room during the NRA’s most recent board meeting.

After a contentious members meeting in Indianapolis, where a resolution expressing no confidence in Wayne LaPierre and some members of the board was hotly debated, West told the Free Beacon the board needed to take action to address the allegation of financial impropriety. However, after a nine-and-a-half-hour board meeting spent mostly behind closed doors, the board announced few public changes. West appeared displeased with the outcome.

“It is imperative that the NRA cleans its own house,” he said. “If we had done so in Indianapolis, much of this could have been rectified.”

Meadows, Cotton, and Lee said West’s statements may be part of a failed attempt to remove LaPierre from power.

“In closing, it occurs to us that board members ‘voicing’ concern may have been part of a failed attempt to oust Wayne LaPierre as CEO and Executive Vice President of the NRA prior to the board meeting in Indianapolis,” the three said. “In fact, we were all warned that a scorched earth campaign would ensue unless Wayne moved to withdraw the NRA’s lawsuit against Ackerman McQueen and walked away from the NRA. Wayne chose the principled path—and did neither. He will continue to press for full transparency from all vendors, even the ones that employ Col. North and others.”

West further called for the board to be reduced in size from 76 members to “30 or less” and said each member should be limited to four terms on the board. He said the group needed to be refreshed.

“We need to focus the NRA, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization on its original charter, mission, training and education in marksmanship, shooting sports, and the defense of the Second Amendment,” he said. “I will dedicate all my efforts to the reformation of the National Rifle Association and its members, of whom I am proud to serve.”

West was not the only board member publicly complaining about how the recent allegations of wrongdoing by LaPierre and others have been handled. Timothy Knight, another board member, took to his Facebook page to say he was not aware of all the different claims being made before they were leaked to the media.

“I certainly did not know all those things being leaked nor do I believe that the whole Board was aware,” he said.

Knight also said the NRA needs to make reforms if it hopes to continue to be as successful in lobbying for gun rights as it has in the past.

“I need the NRA to succeed,” he said in his post. “We all do. We need strength and focus to be effective. We must be united in protection of our traditions, sports and rights. But I am not going to ask you to ignore your issues and concerns. We need to right the ship. I am asking you to share your concerns beyond social media.”

In an interview with the Washington Free Beacon, West said there were a number of other board members who also shared his concerns. He said they would not stand for anyone using money from the nonprofit for their own enrichment.

“I’m concerned about anything that results in members’ money being used for personal gain,” West told the Free Beacon.

He said he hoped other NRA members and those on the board would also speak up about the concerns they have.

North County gun-rights group forms in opposition to new gun law

Clark County WA – The debate over a controversial gun control initiative has led to North County’s own homegrown group of Second Amendment hardliners as the North County Sons and Daughters of Liberty (NCSDL) are working to see resolutions passed in local governments.
The group formed following many members attending rallies by Vancouver-based Patriot Prayer, then eventually picking up steam on social media. Their primary rallying cry is opposition to I-1639.

The group most recently came to a Battle Ground City Council meeting on May 6, during which the council made an official statement on I-1639. The city approved by consensus the statement, which affirmed the role of the judicial branch of government on determining the constitutionality of laws in Washington state.

Currently, I-1639 has received a legal challenge by the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. The initiative, which Washington voters passed in November, imposes restrictions on ownership of semi-automatic rifles ranging from age of purchase, interstate sales, mandating safety classes for purchases and regarding storage and liability on those firearms if used to commit a crime.

“I think we all pretty much expected it,” Shauna Walters, the chief organizer of NCSDL said about the statement, commenting on a previous meeting where the council had a discussion on the initiative. She said the statement wouldn’t slow down the group’s momentum, adding she felt if anything it empowered the group to keep working at getting people against I-1639.

Florida Carry Sues FDLE For Violations Of Gun Background Check Laws

Tallahassee, FL – A class action lawsuit for ongoing violations of Florida’s firearms background check and preemption laws was filed today on behalf of all Floridians whose right to acquire firearms have been illegally interfered with by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).

Florida Law 790.065 subsection (2) requires that FDLE complete background checks for firearm purchases within 24 working hours. In March of 2018, FDLE began illegally putting background checks into an indefinite “Decision Pending” status. Various plaintiffs have been waiting for as much as a year, in some cases even after providing FDLE with certified proof that they are not prohibited from purchasing firearms.

The law is crystal clear on how FDLE is required to conduct background checks and issue either approval, conditional, or non-approval statuses on background checks.

An indefinite “Decision Pending” is not a legal status under Florida statute. FDLE has knowingly and willfully changed its policies, rules, and regulations to illegally deprive many law-abiding Floridians of their right to keep and bear arms without proper evidence of a disqualifying background or the due process required for the denial of a fundamental right.

Bureaucrats in Florida have no authority to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. Only the legislature may enact Florida firearms and weapons laws or procedures. Under FDLE Commissioner Swearingen’s leadership, Florida’s top law enforcement agency became law breakers by illegally taking it upon themselves to violate the rights of Florida citizens.

Florida Law provides that: “790.065 (10) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer is not required to comply with the requirements of this section in the event of: … (b) Failure of the Department of Law Enforcement to comply with the requirements of subsections (2) and (3).”

FDLE is not complying. The FDLE Commissioner must be beyond reproach in ensuring that the Department of Law Enforcement operate in adherence to Florida law. We call on Governor DeSantis to direct FDLE to immediately comply with Florida firearms laws and exercise his unquestionable authority to take appropriate action in light of Commissioner Swearingen’s malfeasance in office.

Latest Excuse for Gun Ban: Saying Elderly Can’t Be Trusted to Own Firearms

Anti-gunners have long infringed on gun rights by spouting off about the need to constrain magazine capacity, to limit how much ammunition you can buy, and to define what kind of gun you can’t own with those every-changing and meaningless definitions of so-called “assault weapons.”

Now, they are putting the squeeze on by trying to limit the age of gun ownership at both ends of the age spectrum. Their mantra seems to be, “Well, if you can’t ban the product, find a way to bar people from exercising their rights another way.”

Look at these headlines:“Few laws to address growing issue of elderly gun owners with dementia” — “High rates of gun ownership and dementia risk among baby boomers”.

The battle intensified after the tragic school shooting in Parkland, Fla., after which we saw retailers and various jurisdictions arbitrarily determine that young adults—people who are old enough to vote and to put their lives on the line for this country—can’t possibly be responsible enough to own a rifle.

On the other flank, the gun grabbers contend more and more that the elderly can’t be trusted with firearms.

They start by asserting that many elderly gun owners don’t keep their firearms stored safely.

Read this recent mainstream media article: “Many older U.S. gun owners don’t store firearms safely.”

And, they build upon that by saying age-related mental conditions make them prime candidates for misusing their firearms. One report mentioned an 87-year-old who sleeps with a loaded handgun next to his bed.

While anti-gun activists using any excuse to limit gun ownership isn’t new, what is new is that more outlets are focusing on the serious matter of dementia and are attempting to use it as a justification for broad age-based gun bans.

But what they are failing to consider is this: criminals often consider the elderly soft targets because the younger and stronger perpetrators generally figure they can easily overpower a senior citizen.

And by telling gun owners that they must unload and lock their guns in the house, the lawmakers are depriving the citizenry of the ability to defend themselves. Really, how many burglars or assailants do you know who would stop if you said, “Hold on a minute, I’ve got a gun but I have to unlock the safe and load it?”

It all comes down what NRA-ILA terms the “Goldilocks” approach to gun control. Anti-gunners have often been thwarted in broad-based attacks to our Second Amendment, so they start devising random “this is too big,” “this is too small,” “this person is too young,” or “this person is too old” parameters to cut into the number of what they consider eligible gun owners.

While they’re making their case out of one side of their mouth to further curtail the number of people who can own guns, they say out of the other side that they don’t want to ban guns! No, no, no. They can’t say that because they’d be run out of office in a heartbeat.

But by whittling down the number of people who are qualified to own a firearm—and by deciding what few select models one can own—they are essentially achieving their objective, just in a roundabout way.

They simply think that by making it sound like there are health issues at play, they can make their limitations on our freedoms more palatable.

And the scary thing is, it’s working.

At least with respect to the fact that they have mainstream media outlets waiting with bated breath to propagate more disinformation so they can claim they’re changing the world for the better. The media outlets have cast aside all sense of fairness, opting instead to simply spout off using the anti-gun terminology and reporting their assertions unchallenged.

While dementia can be debilitating, linking it to a widespread problem of gun ownership by the elderly is a stretch.

The number of illegal shootings by the elderly is scant, and, as discussed, seniors are more likely to need a firearm to be able defend themselves from a criminal. Of course, that side of the story is rarely—if ever—mentioned in the articles sounding the alarm about the risk of the elderly owning guns.

Like most anti-gun proposals, gun control activists won’t let a lack of evidence get in the way of their campaign to disarm all law-abiding gun owners.

Gun Confiscation Dies in the Texas House

Texas ‘Red Flag’ law is done for, for now. And the Texas legislature only convenes every two years.

Despite fears of a backdoor gun confiscation bill being snuck in at the last minute, Texas gun confiscation bill HB 545 is officially dead.

Lone Star Gun Rights reports that “HB 545 has been defeated.”

McNutt shared his thoughts with BLP:

Speaker Bonnen allowed gun control to come to the house floor for a vote while Constitutional Carry languished in committee. But thanks to the quick action and phone calls of our members, we forced Poncho Nevarez to withdraw his bill from consideration by the Texas House, thus killing his own bill.

Had it passed, HB 545 would have hurt gun rights in Texas considerably, which is constitutionally protected both at the state and federal level.

Americans Don’t Trust Feds on Gun Control But Less Wary of Federal Gun Licenses

Cognitive dissonance: In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.

Americans tend to favor Democratic presidential hopeful Cory Booker’s idea of a federal gun license, even though most don’t trust the federal government with gun laws and don’t expect Booker’s plan to reduce gun crime.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of American Adults favor a mandatory federal license for all gun owners. Thirty-nine percent (39%) are opposed, while 13% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on May 6-7, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

At Sturm Ruger Annual Meeting, Activist Investors Push For ‘Smart Gun’ Products

For these ‘so-called activists’ (pro-marxist, anti-gun/American civil rights/capitalist system leftist Social Justice Warriors, FIFY) the ‘change in internal policy’ is to try and make the company do something that will eventually bankrupt the company and force closure. One more step on the road to the goal of only the government and other ‘approved’ people having access to arms.

The realization that there are people that can and who will be armed and that can and who will take ‘exception’ to tyrants– in any guise -concerns them since it’s a direct threat to the plans of forcing their idea of Utopia on Earth down the throats of the benighted masses who don’t know any better.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”— C. S. Lewis

At Sturm Ruger’s annual shareholder meeting in New London, N.H., Wednesday, the gun manufacturer defended its business model and rejected a push to unseat two board members.

In recent years Ruger, which is based in Connecticut and employs approximately 1,000 people at a facility in Newport, N.H., has been targeted by so-called activist investors who buy shares in publicly traded companies and then attempt to change internal policies.

Led by several faith-based groups who are members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, those investors are pushing the company to reduce the risk of gun violence, in part, by developing “smart gun” products that can’t fire without an owner’s fingerprint or other unlocking feature.

Ruger CEO Christopher Killoy responded during the meeting that rolling out a line of these weapons would be a financial loser.

“While people think there is often a great market for ‘smart guns,’ or user-authorized technology, we are not seeing it,” he said.

The company’s decision to not pursue smart guns frustrated Colleen Scanlon, an activist investor with Catholic Health Initiatives, which is based in Colorado, where a school shooting on Tuesday killed one student and injured others.

“We find management’s decision dangerously short sighted. It ignores a significant business opportunity, as well as one of the most promising prospects for reducing gun violence,” Scanlon told shareholders.

Last year, Scanlon and other faith-based activist investors successfully persuaded Ruger shareholders to adopt a resolution requiring the company to produce a reportinvestigating the viability of smart guns and how the company assesses risks related to gun violence.

This year, the activist group failed in its efforts to remove two members of the board of directors, including Chairman Michael Jacobi and Sandra Froman, who served as NRA president in the mid 2000s……

Students storm out of Colorado school shooting vigil in protest of politicians

Survivors of a Colorado school shooting walked out of a vigil for their slain classmate Wednesday night in protest of politicians and other groups using it as a platform for gun control, a local report said.

The students from STEM High School, where two gunmen killed a student and wounded eight others Tuesday, began yelling from the stands that they “wanted to be heard” after two politicians and pro-gun control advocates addressed the crowd, according to the local NBC affiliate, KUSA.

They then stormed out of the vigil after Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet and Democratic Congressman Jason Crow addressed the crowd, the Denver Post reported.

The kids chanted “Mental health” and hurled expletives at the media, according to the report.

The students returned, and some of them took the microphone, saying their grief was being used for political purposes.

“What has happened at STEM is awful. But it’s not a statistic. We can’t be used as a reason for gun control. We are people, not a statement,” one student said, according to video by KUSA.

Speaking of the lone fatality, 18-year-old Kendrick Castillo, another student added, “We wanted Kendrick to be mourned. We wanted all of you to join us in that mourning, but that was not allowed here. We all walked out. We were not kicked out.”

The vigil was organized by Team Enough, the student branch of gun control group the Brady Campaign.

2019 Indiana Gun Law Reform Bill Eliminates Fees, More

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- The Indiana legislature has passed, and Governor Eric Holcomb signed  HB 1284. The bill reforms several areas of Indiana gun law.

HB 1284 passed the House, 80-13 on 11 February, 2019. It passed the Senate, 47-7 on 8 April, 2019. HB 1284 was signed by Governor Holcolmb on 26 April, 2019.

Voter registration forms will now be available with applications for carry permits, by designating the Indiana State Police, Sheriff’s offices, and municipal law enforcement agency offices, as voter registration offices.

The legislation creates immunity from civil action when justifiable self defense or defense of others is successfully raised. Those who were justified in self defense are immune from civil suit by a person or person’s estate if  who was attempting to commit a forcible felony or was attempting to cause, or causing, unlawful serious bodily injury to another person at the time the justified use of force occurred.

The legislation requires a court to award, in certain instances, reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to the defendant, when the justifiable force defense is raised and is successful.

The legislation increases the  term of handgun and carry licenses from four to five years. Five years is becoming the de facto national standard.

The legislation eliminates the  fee for a five year license, as of 30 June, 2020. The current fee is $40.  The application fee for a lifetime license will be reduced from $175 to $125, or $100, if the applicant has a valid Indiana handgun license. Licenses restricted to target shooting or hunting have also had their fees reduced.  It appears the current $9.99 fee for fingerprinting may be eliminated. The new law states:

(c) This subsection applies after June 30, 2020.The law enforcement agency which accepts an application for a handgun license shall not collect a fee from a person applying for a five (5) year handgun license and shall collect the following application fees:

There does not appear to be any mention of fingerprint fees. Shall not collect a fee is strong legal language.

HB 1284 also requires that when an application for a carry permit is made to a law enforcement officer, the officer must check local state and federal criminal history data banks.  Those data banks include the National Instant background Check System run by the FBI.

The Indiana lifetime permit seems a real bargain, eliminating the problems with continually having to re-apply to be able to exercise Second Amendment rights will be worth paying a one time fee of $125 or $100 to many people.

HB 1284 also reforms the law to remove the restriction on the legal carry of firearms to houses of worship that are located on school property, if the persons carrying the firearm are attending the worship services, carrying out official duties, or employed or a volunteer at the house of worship.

The push for Constitutional Carry appears to have died with the end of the current legislative session. The removal of the requirement to pay a fee to exercise Second Amendment rights is a incremental move toward Constitutional Carry.

The 16 states that have generally restored Constitutional Carry do not require a permission slip from the government to carry a handgun in public areas, either openly or concealed.

At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the States did not require permits for the carry of weapons, either openly, or concealed.

IS CORY BOOKER DANGEROUS, OR JUST CONFUSED WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTION?

Confused? No.
I’d say he’s stupid and -obviously – ambitious, which is dangerous

Presidential hopeful and New Jersey U.S. Senator Cory Booker has made headlines recently for his list of wildly unconstitutional gun control proposals. At the top of his list is requiring a government license to buy and own a firearm.

To make his case, Sen. Booker argues that if one needs a license to drive a car, the same should be required to own a gun. What he misses is that unlike the privilege of driving a car on public roads, owning a firearm is a Constitutional right. A better analogy is requiring a license to exercise the right to freedom of speech or to practice one’s religion. Of course, then even he would have to admit that would constitute a dangerous threat to our rights as Americans.

Barriers to Rights

He is arguing that it is ok to set up barriers to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional right. As if requiring fees and photos and fingerprints will not necessarily prevent some from their right to protect themselves and their families is somehow acceptable, particularly those with less income and free time to spend in government lines. It wasn’t ok to require a poll tax for voting, why should it be ok to restrict the rights of citizens now?

So maybe he is just confused, and he hasn’t really thought this through. After all, why would he also be arguing for a return of the so-called assault weapon ban that did nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes, or for microstamping technology that doesn’t actually exist?

Real Solutions

Perhaps if he actually wants to help ensure that those who should not have guns don’t get them, he should call for making sure all states and federal agencies submit their disqualifying records to the FBI’s background check database? Or help educate law-abiding citizens about options to safely store their firearms?

If he wants to know what policies actually work, we can help. The firearms and ammunition industry has real solutions for safer communities. And none of them require limiting any of the fundamental Constitutional rights we enjoy as U.S. citizens. Whether he is aware or not of how dangerous it is to toy with American freedoms, we hope he does his homework and supports actual solutions to the real problems in our country.

Meanwhile, if you are a firearms owner or anyone who cares about protecting the Constitution, you should be sure to register to vote