Category: RKBA

Well, maybe they’ll go into vapor lock?

Trump’s Mere Mention of the Second Amendment Sent Progressives Off the Deep End

During President Donald Trump’s nationwide address on Monday evening, he announced his intent to use all federal resources to help stop the rioting and looting that’s taking place across the country. He also mentioned that he would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, including the right to keep and bear arms. Naturally, progressives and those who hate the Second Amendment were up in arms over the mention of the Second Amendment….

Here’s what these folks fail to understand: the Second Amendment is there to protect our freedoms, including our First Amendment rights, but it’s also there for self-defense.

Oh, they understand that alright. They just don’t like the idea that people they disagree with and don’t like can tell them where to go and what to do with their brand of politics…and make it stick.

Relying on cops to protect you when they’re trying to keep rioters from looting and literally burning down cities, it’s up to you to protect yourself, your family and your property. Even when there aren’t massive riots taking place across the country, it can take cops minutes, sometimes even hours, to arrive to a person’s call for help (depending on where they live and how well-staffed their police and/or sheriff’s department is).

DEAR RIOTERS AND LOOTERS

Dear rioters and looters:

No, I’m not addressing demonstrators. There’s a difference, even if the mainstream media can’t bring itself to say so.  If you want to peacefully demonstrate, no problem. You know who you are. Some of you have already held back The Others, or tried to, and in at least one instance I know of have saved a cop who was cut off from his team-mates and surrounded by an angry mob of The Others.

I’m addressing The Others – the rioters, the looters, the destroyers. There are strong indications that Antifa is involved, though I can’t say they’re entirely responsible. But you heartfelt demonstrators are the ones they’ve made into cat’s paws and puppets with their instigation to violence, and if you go along with them you’re shaming yourselves and everything you’re trying to stand for.

No one can seriously believe that looting and burning stores, often owned by hard-working black people for whom their business is their only livelihood, is doing anyone any good.  But, looters and arsonists and destroyers, if all you care about is yourselves…well, let’s talk about that.

The police have held back thus far (I write this on the first of June). It’s partly political correctness on the part of local government leaders, and partly the reluctance of police to use force, whether you choose to believe that or not.  But the time will come, if you continue, when even the most pusillanimous leader will say, “Enough is enough.” And that’s when the shooting will start coming your way.

Read the following. https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/antifa-warns-alert-f-the-city-tonight-we-move-into-the-residential-areas/ .  The source quoted is not the only one of The Others to publicly express that sentiment.  For your own good, hear me.

The Mood of the Courts today is that human life has a greater value than “mere property.” I and virtually all other past and present cops I know share that belief. It’s why you haven’t been shot down in the streets yet as you would have been by now in so many other countries.  But, understand this:

When you start attacking homes – occupied dwellings – the rules change. Arson of occupied dwellings is what the law calls a “heinous felony against the person,” and ordinary citizens are allowed to shoot you to stop you from doing it. You’ve gotten away with breaking into stores that were closed for the safety of their employees and customers, but if you try to do the same to people’s homes, that’s “violent and tumultuous entry of occupied dwellings.” It’s “home invasion.” And when you start doing that, the people who live there are authorized by the law to shoot you to death in defense of themselves and other innocent parties.

Enough.

For you genuine, non-violent protesters: you’ve made all the points you’re going to make without turning the rest of the nation against you. If you haven’t already, please harken to the words of Atlanta’s African-American mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms.

Thank you. And please, understand, what I’ve written here is not a threat.

It’s a well-intentioned warning.

The Cluebat of reality strikes again, but I’ll bet the idjit still votes demoncrap.

Since the M16 selective fire version is pretty much out of the reach of the average person these days, the AR-15 is what I call the current place holder of ‘The American Rifle’.
Yes, I’ve got other rifles, including an M16, but my consideration is that the current iteration of the standard issue rifle/carbine is what everyone should have one (1) example of in their inventory, and if you can’t figure out why, please look up the word – logistics – and think a bit.

Last Night We Saw Why Americans Own 16+ Million AR-15s

As televisions and computers showed a fourth day of protesters turned rioters Saturday, looting and destroying property, it was readily apparent why Americans own 16+ million AR-15s.

When Robert ‘Beto’ O’Rourke was still vying for the Democrat nomination–and pledging to come take away your AR-15–Breitbart News spoke with the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) about what a Herculean task that would be. After all, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle platform in America.

NSSF shared their calculations with Breitbart, showing an estimated 16= million privately owned AR-15s in the U.S.

You cannot be blamed if you thought the number was closer to 250 or 300. Moreover, you cannot be blamed if you thought the 300 AR-15 owners were toothless, old, white, racists living on some isolated, off-the-grid piece of property deep in the heart of the South.

But as it turns out, AR-15s are owned by black people and white people, and by all skin colors in between. And there are WAY MORE than a couple hundred in circulation.

On August 31, 2018, Breitbart News reported more than nine million AR-15s were manufactured for sale in the U.S. under Barack Obama alone.

And on May 30, 2020–at the height of the Minneapolis rioting–Breitbart News reported on black business owners standing guard with AR-15s outside their properties.

And AR-15s are not just for men. On November 4, 2019, Breitbart News reported on a pregnant Florida woman who used an AR-15 to kill an alleged home intruder while her husband was under attack.

So when Joe Biden and other Democrats demonize AR-15s as “assault weapons” and campaign on taking them from the American people or at least ending their sales, remember the feelings you have right now; the feelings of wanting a tool you can keep in your house to protect your family in times of civil violence and unrest. And also remember those black business owners and that pregnant Florida woman, who saved her husband’s life.

Again, there are over 16 million privately-owned AR-15s in this country and after last night–after watching the wanton destruction and violence in city after city–perhaps you better understand why Americans own them.

Colorado Democrats’ gun reform agenda is latest COVID casualty

Colorado House Rep. Tom Sullivan had a gun bill drafted and ready to introduce before the 2020 legislative session even started in January.

But now, his legislation requiring lost or stolen firearms to be reported is headed toward the chopping block, along with nearly 300 other bills claimed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Sullivan, an Aurora Democrat, isn’t giving up on House Bill 1356 or another bill on secure storage of guns because he made a promise to his supporters that he would get them through this year. But he also sees the writing on the wall. With only three weeks to get a budget and essential bills passed, Colorado House Democratic leaders say there isn’t time to debate changes to gun laws this year.

“I had said at the beginning of the session that the session would be a failure if I couldn’t get a single Republican to vote on either of the two bills,” Sullivan said. “It would be more of a failure if I don’t even get either of those bills to see the light of day.”

Sullivan’s bill would have required individuals to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement within 48 hours. The first offense would draw a fine and the second a misdemeanor………….

The gun loss or theft bill, along with the gun storage bill, House Bill 1355, were assigned to the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee where they are expected to be postponed indefinitely, or killed.

The secure storage bill would make unlawfully storing a firearm a misdemeanor. This would apply to guns stored where a minor can access them without permission from their parent and those stored in the residence of a person who isn’t allowed to have a firearm.

The Second Amendment is helping defend small businesses in the Minneapolis riots

The city of Minneapolis is burning.

Much of the media’s attention has rightfully focused on how the protests-turned-riots undermine the justified outrage over George Floyd’s cruel death at the hands of the police, and the unacceptable arrest of CNN reporters who were trying to cover the developments.

At the same time, these troubling developments should provide a renewed appreciation for the importance of the Second Amendment and how the right to self-defense uplifts minority groups in particular.

During the riots, many minority-owned Minneapolis businesses have unfortunately been looted or destroyed. In response, a number of responsible, law-abiding citizens, both black and white, have exercised their Second Amendment rights to protect their businesses.

“It’s about damned time some heavily armed rednecks stood with fellow citizens,” one pair said. “These guys are out here with machetes and shattered windows trying to keep looters out of their business because cops can’t get in here. And so, you know, I figure, before there were cops there were just Americans … so, here we are.”

“Justice for Floyd, and I hope they stop looting at some point,” the men, who are both white, finished. Behind them, you can see minority business owners engaged in similar self-defense posturing.

In a second video from the scene, we specifically see armed, law-abiding black men deployed peacefully outside their minority-owned businesses to protect them from looters and rioters.

These are just two examples of many.

So, despite all the dark news, it’s worth remembering that the right to self-defense protects all Americans, not just white Christian Republicans, as some gun control activists would have you believe. In fact, gun control actually has a deeply racist history. All of this is worth remembering the next time so-called champions of minorities start calling for restrictions on the Second Amendment.

 

The Real Dangers of So Called ‘Tough On Crime Bills’

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Recently, GOA has been asked about bills such as H.R. 2837 that purport to “get tough on crime” by authorizing extended terms of imprisonment for offenses that involve firearms; irrespective of whether or not the offense was violent or possessory in nature. Gun Owners of America (GOA) has opposed bills of this sort for decades because they violate the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

However, what is truly unfortunate, is that some firearms owners think this type of legislation might be a good idea.

Many gun owners who diligently follow this issue, probably remember “Project Exile” which began in Richmond, Virginia in the mid-1990s with the stated goal of prosecuting those who commit “gun crimes” in Federal Court instead of the state court. The potential penalties for violating Federal law are generally harsher than state penalties.

Some gun owners reflexively supported “Project Exile” because after all, it was going after criminals — or was it?

There is now a new and updated “Project Exile” called “Project Guardian” and based on press releases issued by the US Department of Justice — “Project Guardian” is being used across the country. It is essentially the same anti-gun program with a catchy new name.

GOA’s long-standing position is that most people who were prosecuted under “Project Exile” were not violent criminals, but people who were caught up in the bureaucratic maze of anti-gun laws which are, at their core, unconstitutional intrusions on freedom. These programs significantly increase the likelihood that an otherwise law-abiding person will go to federal prison for committing a victimless, non-violent, technical violation of the law. And in many cases, gun owners will be confused because the technical “crimes” that gun owners will violate are actually legal activity in many states and at the federal level.

For example, carrying a gun without a license is perfectly lawful in seventeen states and under federal law. Possession of a magazine that holds more than ten cartridges is perfectly lawful in a majority of states and under federal law, as is the possession of “hollow-point ammunition,” which is perfectly lawful under federal law and in every state except New Jersey.

All of this begs the question: Are those convicted of violating these laws truly felons or are they victims of anti-gun, unconstitutional intrusions on freedom by states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other freedom-hating locales?

What about someone who is charged with dealing guns without a license? It is undisputed that individuals are free to sell-off their private property — including firearms. However, ATF has for decades, refused to say how many guns sold in private transactions constitute dealing without a license. How can an honest person follow the law if the enforcers of the law refuse to provide guidance?

H.R. 2837 even included this language, which seems to go after violent criminals but could also ensnare law-abiding gun owners in a trap:

“any group of convictions for which a court referred to in section 922(g)(1) imposed in the same proceeding or in consolidated proceedings a total term of imprisonment not less than 10 years, regardless of how many years of that total term the defendant served in custody.”

Many of the offenses described above carry a prison term of fewer than 10 years, but due to the language in the above example, it provides anti-gun judges with an incentive to impose consecutive, rather than concurrent sentences for possessing more than one magazine or hollow point cartridge. These offenses are strictly possessory offenses, meaning there was no violence and no victim other than the sensibilities of the leftists who enacted and enforce these laws.

Finally, this article would not be complete if I didn’t mention the case of Bruce Abramski, Jr. whose “straw purchase” conviction was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. What is particularly galling about this case is that Mr. Abramski purchased a firearm and passed the background check. Then because his uncle, Angel Alvarez, was a resident of a different state, Mr. Abramski, complied with federal law and turned the pistol over to a Pennsylvania FFL for ultimate transfer to Mr. Alvarez, who also passed a background check. If this were a true “straw purchase” Mr. Abramski would have merely handed the pistol over to Mr. Alvarez. The government’s position was that the transaction was a straw purchase because Mr. Alvarez paid for the gun. Yes, Mr. Alvarez did pay for the gun, but as the late Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent:

“The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it—especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused.”

Prior to the Abramski case, it was widely understood that a “straw purchase” only occurred when a person who was legally eligible to purchase a firearm did so and then turned the firearm over to someone who was prohibited from owning arms. That did not happen in the Abramski case.

When considering issues that can cause Americans to lose their freedom it is important to understand that there are two types of laws. Those which are malum in se refer to acts that are evil and wrong in and of themselves. Murder, rape, and assault are all examples of conduct that is malum in se. Other laws are malum prohibitum which means they criminalize victimless conduct that a legislator or bureaucrat dislikes. These include activities such as carrying a gun without a license, possessing hollow-point ammunition, possessing a magazine which holds more than a predetermined number of cartridges or even helping a relative — who is not a prohibited person, to obtain a handgun.

Gun owners and legislators need to be very careful when they say, “just enforce the existing laws” because in many cases, the existing laws were vigorously opposed by gun owners when they were moving through the legislative process. Only later, after they have been in effect for a few years, they are used as the vehicle to unconstitutionally disarm American Citizens in the name of “getting tough on crime”. This is exactly what happened in the Abramski case and will continue to happen if gun owners don’t stop asking for existing laws to be enforced.

Gun owners should instead demand that unconstitutional laws be erased from the statute books. Gun Owners of America will continue to be a leader and push for repeal of unconstitutional laws and the defeat of bills which treat firearms, rather than predatory criminals as the problem.

*Gasp* Horrors! Permitless Concealed Carry for Tennessee.

Tennessee lawmakers consider bills lifting Second Amendment restrictions

NASHVILLE, Tenn.–Several bills under consideration in the Tennessee General Assembly aim expanding certain Second Amendment rights.

At the top of the list on Wednesday is HB 2661, a bill which allows a person to carry a handgun in a concealed manner without the need for a concealed carry permit.

Under the bill, a person who legally owns a firearm could conceal carry the weapon, even at parks, venues of higher education, and other areas where concealed carry permit holders are allowed to carry.

Governor Bill Lee has previously supported legislation supporting concealed carry without a permit, stating in February he supported protecting the right of Tennesseans to bear arms.

“The Second Amendment is clear and concise and secures the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms,” Lee said. “I am pleased to announce Constitutional Carry legislation today that will protect the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans, while also stiffening penalties on criminals who steal or illegally possess firearms.”

Other bills being considered by committees in the Tennessee General Assembly are HB2536, which allows for civil suits to be filed against a person or government which “infringes upon a person’s right to bear arms” and requires the person or entity to “be liable for actual statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs.”

HB2298 and HB2102 also pertain to the Second Amendment, although they each focus on the ability of those with concealed handgun carry permits to carry at higher education campuses and public parks in the state.

Of course, they’re ‘wary’. But any crims out there to take on the police aren’t going to care about a piddly permit law anyway.

Law enforcement wary of proposed bill for people to carry a handgun without a permit

……… yesterday, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings and the Shelby County Crime Commission addressed this bill at the general assembly.

“With masks and guns, it almost would appear to be the wild wild west, and I definitely do not want that Memphis, and I don’t want that for the state of Tennessee,” Rallings said.

Rallings spoke out against a bill that would allow open and concealed carrying of a handgun for people 21 and older without a permit outside their home or personal property.

“Do you think if this legislation is passed that it would endanger the lives of the men and women on your force,” said Representative Bo Mitchell, Nashville.

“Yes,” Rallings said.

The bill passed 16 to 7 and will advance to the house finance committee.

It would also increase the crime of theft of a firearm from a misdemeanor to a felony.

First-Time Gun Buyers Explain How Coronavirus Changed Their Politics

Scott Kane went 38 years without ever touching a gun. That streak would have continued had it not been for the coronavirus. In March, fearful of the harassment his wife and child experienced over their Asian ancestry, Kane found himself in a California gun shop. His March 11 purchase of a 9mm would have been the end of the story, were it not for a political standoff over shutdown orders and background checks. Now Kane, a former supporter of gun-control measures and AR-15 bans, is frustrated by the arduous process that has denied his family a sense of security. The pandemic has made the soft-spoken software engineer an unlikely Second Amendment supporter.

“This has taken me, a law-abiding citizen with nary an unpaid parking ticket to my name, over a month,” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “Meanwhile Joe Bad Guy has probably purchased several fully automatic AK-47s out of the back of an El Camino in a shady part of town with zero background checks.”

Receipts reviewed by the Free Beacon show Kane first purchased a firearm on March 11 from Sportsman’s Warehouse in Milpitas, Calif. Santa Clara County shut down the shop before Kane’s 10-day waiting period was complete. No end date was given for the order, but a California law giving buyers just 30 days to pick up a gun remained in effect. Kane was stuck in a legal limbo that only grew worse.

Unable to do business, the store went belly-up in May. Kane had no way to pick up his gun. He started the process over again at another store in a neighboring county. He returned home with a Springfield XD 9mm and a biometric safe on April 29, 50 days after he first passed a background check and paid for a gun.

“I’m seriously thinking of running for office or something,” Kane said. “This state’s gun laws are insane.”

Kane is not alone. An influx of new gun owners has the potential to permanently alter the politics surrounding guns in the United States. If industry estimates are correct, millions of Americans across the country have become first-time gun buyers since March. If the experience changes their minds about the ongoing debate over gun control it could tip the balance of political power toward pro-gun activists and politicians.

It is not that the new buyers were unaware of the politics of gun control. Several new gun owners who spoke to the Free Beacon—some of whom requested anonymity citing safety concerns—generally leaned toward enhanced restrictions, their positions informed mostly by major news stories. But as they have become more personally invested in the debate, they find themselves more skeptical of gun control. Brian, a 40-year-old Floridian, used his savings to buy a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield in March after being laid off—the experience changed his entire approach to Second Amendment issues.

“In the past, I wasn’t against owning a gun. However, I did think that we had suffered enough as a country from school shootings, and something needed to be done. I was for stricter gun laws—no ARs, close the gun-show loophole, better mental health regulations, etc.,” he said. “I would now oppose stricter gun laws.”

While all of the first-time buyers who spoke to the Free Beacon cited safety concerns stemming from the pandemic as their top reason for buying a gun, some said the politics of the moment played a significant role in their decision. But they held differing and even opposing viewpoints on which politicians concerned them the most—suggesting the group of new owners represents a fairly diverse political spectrum……….

This reduces municipal power to make places ‘gun free zones’

Louisiana House Bill 140

Louisiana-2020-HB140-Engrossed.pdf

Present law limits a political subdivision’s authority to enact certain ordinances or regulations involving firearms. In this regard, present law prohibits a governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation,license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition.

However, present law further provides that this provision of present law does not apply to the authority of political subdivisions to prohibit the possession of a weapon or firearm in certain commercial establishments and public buildings.

Proposed law removes this exception from present law, prohibiting any governing authority of a political subdivision from enacting any ordinance or regulation that is more restrictive than state law concerning the possession of a weapon or firearm in certain commercial establishments and public buildings.

 

First-Time Gun Buyers Explain How Coronavirus Changed Their Politics

Scott Kane went 38 years without ever touching a gun. That streak would have continued had it not been for the coronavirus. In March, fearful of the harassment his wife and child experienced over their Asian ancestry, Kane found himself in a California gun shop. His March 11 purchase of a 9mm would have been the end of the story, were it not for a political standoff over shutdown orders and background checks. Now Kane, a former supporter of gun-control measures and AR-15 bans, is frustrated by the arduous process that has denied his family a sense of security. The pandemic has made the soft-spoken software engineer an unlikely Second Amendment supporter.

“This has taken me, a law-abiding citizen with nary an unpaid parking ticket to my name, over a month,” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “Meanwhile Joe Bad Guy has probably purchased several fully automatic AK-47s out of the back of an El Camino in a shady part of town with zero background checks.”

Receipts reviewed by the Free Beacon show Kane first purchased a firearm on March 11 from Sportsman’s Warehouse in Milpitas, Calif. Santa Clara County shut down the shop before Kane’s 10-day waiting period was complete. No end date was given for the order, but a California law giving buyers just 30 days to pick up a gun remained in effect. Kane was stuck in a legal limbo that only grew worse.

Unable to do business, the store went belly-up in May. Kane had no way to pick up his gun. He started the process over again at another store in a neighboring county. He returned home with a Springfield XD 9mm and a biometric safe on April 29, 50 days after he first passed a background check and paid for a gun.

“I’m seriously thinking of running for office or something,” Kane said. “This state’s gun laws are insane.”

Kane is not alone. An influx of new gun owners has the potential to permanently alter the politics surrounding guns in the United States. If industry estimates are correct, millions of Americans across the country have become first-time gun buyers since March. If the experience changes their minds about the ongoing debate over gun control it could tip the balance of political power toward pro-gun activists and politicians.

It is not that the new buyers were unaware of the politics of gun control. Several new gun owners who spoke to the Free Beacon—some of whom requested anonymity citing safety concerns—generally leaned toward enhanced restrictions, their positions informed mostly by major news stories. But as they have become more personally invested in the debate, they find themselves more skeptical of gun control. Brian, a 40-year-old Floridian, used his savings to buy a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield in March after being laid off—the experience changed his entire approach to Second Amendment issues.

“In the past, I wasn’t against owning a gun. However, I did think that we had suffered enough as a country from school shootings, and something needed to be done. I was for stricter gun laws—no ARs, close the gun-show loophole, better mental health regulations, etc.,” he said. “I would now oppose stricter gun laws.”

While all of the first-time buyers who spoke to the Free Beacon cited safety concerns stemming from the pandemic as their top reason for buying a gun, some said the politics of the moment played a significant role in their decision. But they held differing and even opposing viewpoints on which politicians concerned them the most—suggesting the group of new owners represents a fairly diverse political spectrum.

Aaron Eaton, a former Army MP and current sewer company technician in Alabama, said the increasingly hostile stance many in the Democratic Party have taken toward gun ownership helped push him to make his first purchase.

“I figured now’s the time to buy before, God help us, a Democrat becomes president again,” he said. “Then I would probably never get that chance again. The only view that has changed, and solely because I got into politics because of Donald Trump, is [what I think of] the stance Democrats have regarding guns. I do not find it funny how Democrats are trying to interpret the Second Amendment.”

Andrew, a federal contractor who, along with his wife, bought a Heckler & Koch VP9 on March 21 in Virginia, said the state’s Democrat-controlled legislature pursuing a package of gun-control laws this winter in the face of unprecedented opposition directly contributed to his purchase. He said he and his wife are currently considering buying a number of other firearms they worry state Democrats will try to ban—or even confiscate—in the next legislative session despite those bills being defeated in the last session.

“These are just the first two purchases—sidearms—and when things settle down, we’ll likely get into long guns too,” he said. “We know we want a shotgun and an AR (or similar) platform before the progressives in the Virginia legislature ultimately prevail (as I expect they ultimately will) in tightening up regulations on ownership.”

Kane, on the other hand, said his gun-buying ordeal hasn’t moved him closer to supporting the president but has moved him to consider the California Republican Party—perhaps even as a candidate.

Brian from Florida said he was concerned less about the gun debate and more about President Trump’s competence in handling the coronavirus outbreak. “I’m just concerned, as is my wife, about what the future holds,” he said.

For others, the coronavirus has not changed their views on gun control or either political party. Instead, it pushed them to make a purchase earlier than they otherwise would have or act on pro-gun views they’d already held. Jake Wilhelm, an environmental consultant in Virginia, said he had “always been a staunch 2A supporter.”

Mathew Rosky, a North Carolinian who bought a shotgun for himself and another for his wife last month, said he believes what he always has.

“I’m generally conservative and believe the Second Amendment is clear,” he said. “If you are a citizen that is not a criminal/prohibited by law or has not been adjudicated a danger to yourself or others you should be able to own a gun if you want to.”

Still, for those who have experienced a political change of heart, the effect has been dramatic. Kane fired the first shots with his Springfield XD 9mm on May 15.

“Now I’m 100 percent converted,” he said.

He’s already begun recruiting others.

“I got one of my Asian-American friends to take the NRA basic pistol class with me,” Kane said. “Signed my wife up too for a later session so we can tag-team it. Never thought I’d be that guy taking his clueless-about-guns buddy to the gun store.”

After firing his first shots, Kane bought two more guns—a Smith & Wesson .357 revolver and a California-legal model of the AR-15 he used to think should be banned. He’s hoping this time he won’t have to wait more than two months to actually shoot them.

 

Not that we didn’t already know that, but openly admitting it is what’s really interesting.

Canadian Gun-Grabber Admits Disarmament is the Ultimate Goal

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The government has finally moved to ban military-style assault rifles. Great. So now let’s go to the next step, a complete and comprehensive ban on the sale and ownership of all handguns,” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation opinion writer Tony Keene demands.

It’s not just “military-style assault rifles.” Per The Daily Wire:

“[T]he list of banned guns includes 10- and 12-gauge shotguns — a necessity for hunting in many of Canada’s more remote locales — hunting rifles, a BB gun, and even the website AR15.com.”

“There is no conceivable reason why an ordinary person needs to own a handgun,” Keene asserts. “No reason whatsoever.”

People who have used guns to save their lives and to stop violent criminals would disagree with Tony. So would the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which concludes:

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

But don’t bother opinionated Tony with facts. He’s self-evidently the type of prohibitionist zealot described by libertarian novelist L. Neil Smith:

“What kind of moral cripple would rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose, than see her with a gun in her hand?”

The kind that demands a totalitarian monopoly of violence. Tony goes on to prove it and which side he’s on.

“Those of us trained in the use of handguns (and I mean properly trained, by the police or the military, not just a weekend course at the local gun club) know that the armed amateur is dangerous,” Tony instructs, making sure to include himself as a former military reservist in the exclusive cadre of armed elites.

It seems Tony “served for more than four decades as a military reservist and took part in, and wrote about, multiple missions in Canada and abroad.” Good for him, he’s a veteran.  So was one of our country’s greatest military heroes, and he’s remembered today as Tony deserves to be for the destruction of liberty he wants to force on his countrymen.

As for “those…properly trained,” they get three tries to qualify with “policing standards”? These are them? That’s it? But Tony obnoxiously dismisses gun owners who put themselves through more demanding exercises on any given weekend as “Citizen Rambos”?

“Likewise, the term ‘shooting yourself in the foot’ is not just a metaphor,” Tony bloviates, oblivious that he has just stepped in a real-world refutation of his ignorant arrogance.  Remember DEA agent Lee Paige, the guy who claimed to be “the only one … professional enough” to carry a gun, and then did just that?

Thanks to this bit of ironic karma, the term “Only Ones,” proven fitting every day by innumerable examples, was born.

We could go on fisking this fanatic, but the rantings of someone who thinks he’s clever for comparing gun owners protective of their rights to “poison gas enthusiasts” aren’t worth the time. We know bigotry is born of ignorance, and Tony proves it yet again with his “suggested scenario” demanding:

  • A total and absolute ban on handgun sales, and on handgun ownership by private citizens. (With long prison terms for violation.)
  • Restriction of long guns to bolt-action rifles and limited-magazine shotguns.
  • Firm enforcement of minimum sentences for possession of any restricted weapon, and even more stringent penalties for anyone committing a crime with a firearm.
  • Exemptions, under strict controls, where subsistence hunting is a way of life.

We owe Tony thanks for making it clear that no, it’s not about “commonsense gun safety,” and yes, his counterparts on our side of the border really are talking about taking our guns. (Speaking of which, I also give him props for “heightened border vigilance,” but still wouldn’t mind seeing woke and triggered Canadian “progressives” attack him as a xenophobe and hater.)

“And no, it won’t take away our freedom or democracy,” Tony disingenuously concludes. “But it will make us safer.”

If by “us” he means his side, the one with the guns, then yeah.

Some will no doubt dismiss this because it’s in Canada and ask why we in the U.S. should care what they do over there. We need to be vigilant to threats as they approach because the goals of their grabbers are the same as ours. And the goals of the globalists who would rule us if we let them are to impose totalitarian disarmament edicts everywhere, in Everytown…

CCRKBA, SAF HOSTING FREE ONLINE GRASSROOTS TRAINING SESSIONS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment Foundation will co-host a FREE online Grassroots Activism Summit on three consecutive evenings, each timed for a separate U.S. time zone, though users can choose which session they would like to join, on Zoom.

The programs will air Tuesday, May 26 (Eastern), Wednesday, May 27 (Central) and Thursday, May 28 (Pacific). Each session begins at 7 p.m. in the respective time zones. Each program will be live, with recurring material.

This FREE program will feature Glen Caroline, who recently joined CCRKBA and SAF as Director of External Affairs. He spent 29 years at NRA, primarily as NRA’s Managing Director of Grassroots Programs & Campaign Field Operations. Also appearing are SAF founder and CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, and Andrew Gottlieb, SAF Director of Outreach.

The program is titled “Grassroots Activism in the COVID Environment.” The session runs approximately one hour and will discuss steps local activists can take to enhance your defense of the Second Amendment in our current pandemic situation. The sessions are FREE.

Pre-registration is required.

To register for the Tuesday, May 26 evening program, Click Here.

To register for the Wednesday, May 27 evening program, Click Here.

To register for the Thursday, May 28 evening program, Click Here.

“We’re encouraging all Second Amendment activists to sign up, participate and learn new strategies to help us win in the months and years ahead, and make the Second Amendment great again,” Gottlieb said. “We look forward to greeting all of you.”

TWENTY-SEVEN WORDS PROTECT GUN RIGHTS, NOT HUNTING

U.S. Sen Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) joined Everytown for Gun Safety’s vice presidential webinar forum where she trotted out her yarn about gun laws and Uncle Dick in the deer stand.

It’s time we get Uncle Dick down from there. First of all, deer season has been over for months; now, he’s just poaching. Second and most importantly, these gun control laws that politicians banter about have nothing to do with hunting. It’s time to make our elected officials read and understand the U.S. Constitution they swore to defend – including the Bill of Rights – and live up to the words that are written.

Hunting is certainly a beloved recreational activity by a large percentage of gun owners. For some, this might even be their reason for owning a gun. They are a means by which to harvest wild game and put food in the freezer and on the table. In 22 states, the right to hunt and fish is explicitly protected, but the idea that the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting is a red herring and is completely false.

Not About Hunting

The hunting misnomer is a favorite of the gun control politicians. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked hunting as he unilaterally banned modern sporting rifles throughout all of Canada. “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer,” he said.

To be fair, Canada doesn’t have a constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. The United States does, however. It’s simple. It’s short, just 27 words. The Supreme Court held that it applies as a right of individual Americans – not the government, and nowhere in that short sentence does it once say anything at all about hunting.

Not once. Not even a hint. No innuendo. Nothing tongue-in-cheek. It’s so clear, even a politician can understand it. Or should at least. Never underestimate a politician, though, and Sen. Klobuchar wasn’t the first.

New York’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo bellowed at all Americans, “It’s simple, no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer…” That was as he jammed through the New York SAFE Act, a sweeping set of gun control laws in a midnight vote. New York’s SAFE Act was passed with no hearings, no testimony, no time for opponents to exercise their First Amendment rights and make a case to their legislators.

Campaign Reload

Former Vice President Joe Biden conflated the meaning of the Second Amendment in an interview with Field and Stream’s Anthony Licata in 2013. Licata asked him directly what the Second Amendment means. Biden agreed it is an individual right, adding, “But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense.”

In that same interview, Biden said he believes the government has a right to limit the firearms an individual can own, specifically, modern sporting rifles. He claimed the rifle was not protected because it’s not usual. “If you have to go up into the Poconos and go bear hunting or deer hunting with that weapon, and you need a clip that has 30 rounds in it, then you shouldn’t be hunting,”  Biden said.

But there are nearly 18 million modern sporting rifles in circulation today.  They are used legally every day for home defense, recreational shooting and, yes, even hunting.

Biden’s misapplication of Supreme Court rulings and his hyperbolic rhetoric continued. He goaded gun owners on the campaign trail comparing rifles to fighter jets and rocket launchers. He did this even as he argued for DNA-enabled technology for firearms, nationwide gun registries and exposing the firearm industry to harassing litigation that would threaten the entire industry.

What’s Not Said

What Biden, Sen. Klobuchar and the rest of the candidates that dropped along the campaign trail never talked about was the criminal. They didn’t talk about actually attempting to reduce crime. They never spoke about soaring crime in areas where there is the strictest gun control. Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore are all examples of cities that press for more gun control, but whose politicians refuse to address crime or the criminals perpetrating those crimes. During the coronavirus crisis, prisoners were turned out of jails, including murderers. Police were ordered to stop arresting for certain criminal charges. The results were growing crime rates.

Here’s what else the politicians refuse to address: these gun control laws they foist on law-abiding Americans do nothing to address crime because criminals don’t follow the law. Department of Justice surveys of prison inmates show, time and again, criminals overwhelmingly obtain firearms through theft and the black market. Universal background check laws, waiting periods, registration schemes and a list of other gun control ideas are only observed by law-abiding citizens. Felons bent on criminally misusing firearms don’t fill out background check forms in dark alleys. They don’t submit their names to the FBI to have them say they can’t posses a gun.

Politicians also ignore that gun ownership is increasing even as crime has steadily declined. Nearly 19 million Americans have concealed carry permits in the United States today. It increased by 1.4 million people in 2019. That doesn’t account for the 18 states where citizens have a constitutional right to carry a firearm for personal protection.

Gun control politicians hover and nod approvingly around Biden when he berates voters who question his gun control platform shouting at them, “You’re full of sh*t!” They believe the Second Amendment is a problem to be fixed. At campaign fundraisers, they speak of it only as a loophole or a privilege that should be reserved for a select few. They don’t see it as a right to be respected and defended. It’s a cancer. If they can excise it, cut it out, isolate it, it will wither and die.

The first step for these folks is to get America to believe that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with a God-given right. Instead, say it’s about hunting. After all, that requires a license.

When the question answers itself.
What does it mean when they have to twist facts to promote their agenda?

Everytown Ignores Its Own Data to Get Attention

Everytown for Gun Safety produced an “analysis” that sought to tie an “‘alarming’ spike” in fatal firearms-related accidents involving children to the recent surge in firearms purchases across the country. Their point is predicated on the deliberate exclusion and misuse of their own data – they used the tragic deaths of children to push their anti-gun agenda. Their own historical data disproves their claim.

Shannon Watts spoke to CBS News about this analysis and said: “‘We know that there are risks to having guns in the home, and with the surge in gun sales in the last two months, it could create more opportunity for kids to gain access to guns and unintentionally hurt themselves or someone else,’ said Shannon Watts, founder of Everytown’s anti-gun violence volunteer network Moms Demand Action. ‘The numbers show there’s been an increase in these horrible shooting tragedies during the time the pandemic was at its peak.’”

Watts and Bloomberg must be desperate to spin the recent increase in gun sales into a negative. The Everytown research division put together this analysis by comparing the number of fatal accidents involving children and teens (up to age 17) as either the victim or the accidental perpetrator in March and April 2020 to the average number of children and teens involved in fatal firearms-related accidents in the same months for 2017 through 2019. They say that there were 21 such deaths in March and April 2020, and that the average number of such deaths in the same months for 2017 through 2019 is 15.

Watts wants you to think that those additional deaths should be attributed to the increase in gun sales because the 2020 total is higher than the average for the previous three years.

Every accidental death of a child is a tragedy, no matter the means, but Everytown is using these tragedies (and some misinformation) to further their political agenda.

The truth is within the data that Everytown scraped (on which their analysis is based). There were, according to Everytown’s data, 21 deaths resulting from a firearms-related accident involving children or teens. The average for March-April over the last three years is, in fact, 15.  Why use an average, and why use three years of data when five is available? Let’s look at the annual totals for March-April, according to Everytown’s data:

Sadly, the 21 fatalities in 2020 is not the peak for the March-April period according to Everytown’s data. It is tied for second with the year 2016. Everytown focuses on averages to avoid the year-to-year comparison that shows that the 21 fatal accidents in 2020 is similar to – and even lower than – other years in their own data. The time period used for their average was deliberately chosen because it gives the smallest average possible. The victims of these tragic accidents from 2015 through 2020 range in age from 1 to 28 years old, with the age of one victim unknown to Everytown.

Everytown’s deliberate misrepresentation of their own data is disgusting. These are people – including young children – who lost their lives in tragic ways. Everytown is treating them as a means to an end.

No one wants children to be hurt or killed. The NRA developed the Eddie Eagle program to teach kids to stop, don’t touch, run away, and tell a grown-up if they come across a firearm. More than 30 million children have participated in this program since 1988. The firearms industry trade group NSSF developed Project Child Safe in 1999 and has distributed more than 38 million cable locks and safety kits to gun owners.

Everything with Shannon Watts and Everytown comes back to their desire to strip away the gun rights of law-abiding Americans. Why else make a baseless and inaccurate claim that is obviously designed to score political points by pulling emotional levers?

These children and teens deserve better than to be weaponized by Shannon Watts and Everytown.

Why Gun Rights Are Essential In a World of Uncertainty and Scarcity
Firearms are the most practical and effective way for the average American to secure his or her life, liberty, and property.

A common joke in the American gun community goes something like this:

Q: Why do you carry a gun?

A: Because carrying a cop is too heavy.

This humorous quip should not detract from the fact that many individuals in the United States (including me) own and carry a firearm for purely pragmatic reasons. The simplest case for the right to keep and bear arms can be summarized in one sentence: You are ultimately responsible for your own safety and security.

This sobering pill can be difficult for many people to swallow but that’s reality. Evil exists in this world. Under the right circumstances, people can and will do unspeakable things to each other as any student of history or psychology will know. Those fortunate to live in gated communities and can afford armed security are often oblivious that most other people do not enjoy the same luxuries.

Many violent crimes take place and are over in a matter of seconds (and stopped in seconds that prevent the worst). As another popular saying goes, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” In the United States, depending where you live, police response time ranges from nine minutes to over an hour. Right now, one in five New York police officers are currently out sick due to COVID-19. Police in multiple states have announced they will no longer respond to theft, burglary, and break-ins. Given the current climate, it’s not unreasonable to assume police will take much longer to arrive, if they do at all, should someone dial 911.

Furthermore, Americans need to understand there is no legal obligation for the police to protect you, which is affirmed by the Supreme Court and multiple lower courts. (See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. District of Columbia, and Lozito v. New York City). Should the police fail to arrive or protect you when needed, you can’t even sue for neglect.

Thus, given the legal and logistical realities, taking the initiative to protect yourself should be as sensible as any other proactive measure such as having a fire extinguisher in the home or jumper cables ready in the back of the car. Should disaster strike, preparedness will make all the difference in the world. Protecting your one and only life deserves no less preparation and investment, especially in our increasingly complex and uncertain world.

Americans are fortunate to live in a country with mostly stable institutions. But there are vivid examples when segments of society break down, many in not-too-distant memory. In widespread civil disturbances such as the 1992 LA riots or the aftermaths of Hurricane Katrina, Florence, and Harvey, the authorities were overwhelmed and unscrupulous individuals took advantage of the chaos to prey on others.

Going by sheer numbers, almost all of us will encounter at least one black swan in our lifetime. The current COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath are already the most trying times on the lives and livelihoods of Americans since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

Should an even deadlier natural or man-made catastrophe take place, if the authorities haven’t been incapacitated, displaced, or destroyed completely, whatever personnel and resources are left will be prioritized to protect high-ranking government officials, their inner-circle, and critical government facilities and infrastructure.

The economist Thomas Sowell reminds us, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it.” Security also happens to be a scarce resource. There’s simply not enough boots on the ground that can guarantee all 300 million Americans will be protected at all times from all threats. In every emergency, tough decisions will have to be made. From what we know about past and present “continuity of government” plans, ruling elites will be evacuated to a secure bunker in some undisclosed location while John Q. Public will be left to fend for himself.

Every American schoolchild is taught that everyone is equal before the law. Given this fundamental axiom, it’s not unfair to demand that the average American citizen have access to the same means of security and protection that government officials—who are our servants, not overlords—insist on having for themselves (while using taxpayer money). Under the American political system, the right of self-defense cannot be limited to only a privileged few. No one, regardless of their socioeconomic status, can deny fundamental rights to others.

The right to life is closely intertwined with the right of self-preservation. John Locke, a major influence on the philosophical foundations of the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, described the right of self-preservation as a “fundamental law of nature” in his Second Treatise of Civil Government:

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

The political philosophy of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers contributed a unique element to American political theory: Fundamental rights do not come from the government. Human beings possess them already simply by virtue of being free and that includes a pre-existing, natural right of self-defense and self-preservation. As the Declaration of Independence memorably emphasizes, these natural rights are “unalienable” which means they cannot be taken or given away. They are permanent and apply in all times and all places to all human beings, with or without the Second Amendment or any other statutory pronouncement.

“Self-evident truths” and similar conclusions are found in other schools of thought. The ethical intuitionist philosopher Michael Huemer also highlights an interlocking relationship between the right of self-defense and the right to own a gun:

It is possible for a right to be both fundamental and derivative. Derivative rights are usually related to fundamental rights as means to the protection or enforcement of the latter, though this need not be the only way in which a right may be derivative. I claim that the right to own a gun is both fundamental and derivative; however, it is in its derivative aspect—as derived from the right of self-defense—that it is most important.

Even without the existence of absolute rights (which Huemer declines to acknowledge for guns or any other right), he nevertheless persuasively argues:

  1. There is a strong prima facie right to own a gun
  2. Prohibiting private gun ownership constitutes both a major interference in gun owners’ plans for their own lives as well as a significant violation of their right of self-defense

Using a memorable thought experiment, Huemer shows how gun control laws that prevent a person from accessing or exercising the means of self-defense is akin to a criminal accomplice who holds a victim down while the actual murderer carries out the foul deed. By preventing the victim from escaping or exercising his right to self-defense, the accomplice’s action is still “if not equivalent to murder, something close to murder in degree of wrongness, even though he neither kills nor injures the victim.” In a follow-up thought experiment, Huemer adds:

…except that the victim has a gun by the bed, which he would, if able, use to defend himself from the killer. As the killer enters the bedroom, the victim reaches for the gun. The accomplice grabs the gun and runs away, with the result that the killer then stabs his victim to death.

Most reasonable individuals will intuitively recognize what the accomplice did was morally wrong. In both scenarios, the accomplice’s actions purposely prevented the victim from defending himself. If gun control laws have the same effect, it logically follows that they are “about equally serious as a violation of the right of self-defense.”

Fortunately for Americans, most of us still have access to a wide range of choices when it comes to self-defense. While it is understandable to be reluctant to pick up a gun, it is worth mentioning alternatives such as martial arts, tasers, and pepper spray are often severely limited by range, efficiency, or effectiveness.

Even if she is proficient in martial arts (which requires years of training), a 5-foot, 100-pound woman will be overwhelmed if she faces multiple attackers who weigh twice as much. On the other hand, she can ably defend herself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, which is a popular weapon for many Americans, including women, because of its light weight, low recoil, accuracy, reliability, ergonomics, and ease of customization to fit any shooter regardless of size and stature.

Compared to other options, firearms are the most practical and effective way for the average American to secure his or her life, liberty, and property. As I emphasized in a previous essay:

From the colonists winning independence from Great Britain to African-Americans vindicating their civil rights, the role of the gun is inseparable from American identity. The gun is the ultimate multipurpose tool that empowers its user with the means to put food on the table, as well as preserve one’s life, whether against common street criminals or government tyranny.

In these uncertain times, both the pragmatic and philosophical case for gun rights are as strong as ever.

Many Americans, especially minorities, have realized the need for self-protection in times of social upheaval and breakdown. It is unfortunate that it took a tragedy as extreme as the COVID-19 pandemic to remind people that we should never take peace, prosperity, and freedom for granted. But millions have now taken the first steps to defend themselves and their loved ones. They should know they are in good company.

From what I’ve witnessed firsthand and experienced to date, the American gun community is strongly supportive and always welcoming towards first-time gun owners and anyone remotely curious about firearms regardless of their background. (See our plethora of welcome and orientation videos for newcomers brought in by the recent gun-buying surge). Our country’s gun culture and people’s civic virtue reinforce each other. In the spirit of Tocqueville, civil society has stepped up in the COVID-19 pandemic and demonstrated exemplary acts of charity. It’s only natural that the gun community is also actively participating by sharing knowledge with their fellow Americans and ensuring new gun owners are comfortably onboarded.

I am confident these new gun owners will learn how to handle their weapons responsibly, discover the joys of shooting, and become future staunch defenders of the Second Amendment (and hopefully the rest of the Bill of Rights as well). Our past is full of inspiring examples of Americans emerging stronger and freer after overcoming crises that tear the fabric of society and test our ideals. In these “times that try men’s souls,” let us not forget the precious legacy bequeathed to us.

THE 2A ACID TEST
HOW TO MAKE A FOOL OUT OF A “GUN SAFETY ADVOCATE”

Earlier this year, there were two occasions when this correspondent wound up in broadcast discussions with gun prohibitionists trying to pass themselves off as “gun safety advocates.”

In one of those encounters, it seemed necessary to remind the listening audience there was one certified firearms instructor in the room and it wasn’t the other person who was representing a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group.
Take this as a learning experience because the elections are on the horizon, you’re a voter with an opportunity to question candidates and you might wind up in a debate with some gun grabber who claims to be an authority on gun safety or a member of some so-called “gun safety” organization. This is when you can put them on the spot and they will unintentionally help you do it.

NRA Certified firearms instructors have a card identifying them as such. Mine has been protected with a laminated plastic cover. A friend who used to be a lobbyist was also an instructor and he habitually pulled out his instructor’s card to ask opponents, “Do you have one of these? If you don’t, you probably shouldn’t be here talking about gun safety.”

If you can’t say you’re a certified instructor, the next best thing is to challenge these anti-gunners to recite the four rules of gun safety as set down by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, the “Father of the Modern Technique.” The founder of the American Pistol Institute, now known as the Gunsite Academy, Cooper kept it simple and his rules have withstood the test of time:

• Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
• Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
• Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

There may be a moment of silence, possibly a blank stare as your opponent’s try to figure out who Cooper was and maybe offer a remark about “not being the point” before they scramble to change the subject. This is when you’ve got them. They can’t answer directly since they don’t know. Whatever else is said after this point, just keep reminding your opponent — and anyone else listening — your question wasn’t answered.

These self-appointed arbiters of firearms etiquette don’t really know anything about guns or safety, other than they don’t like them and don’t want anyone to have them. It’s up to you to set it in concrete so people remember it. You’re the expert, not them.

If or when one of these people claims to be a gun owner, it’s easy to make them stammer by asking, “Oh, how many guns do you own?” Or better still, “How many guns have you owned? If you sold one or two to someone else, did you require the buyer to go through a background check?”

It’s not unfair to ask when was the last time they went to the range to practice? Have you taken a gun safety course? The same questions apply to anyone running for local public office.

‘Oh, Where Do You Offer Classes?’

If you’re in a discussion with somebody who says he or she is a member of a “gun safety” group, stop them cold by asking, “Oh, where do you hold classes on gun safety?”

When they respond, “We don’t really hold classes,” (and they will) this is the moment to remind them they’ve got no business preaching gun safety if they’re not teaching gun safety.

This same strategy applies to meeting candidates because the next eight weeks should provide plenty of opportunities to attend at least one of these sessions. Any candidate who claims to support “gun safety” legislation should be challenged to recite Cooper’s Four Rules.

Here’s another way to make these people look foolish: Offer to take them shooting. If they’ve claimed to be gun owners, invite them to bring their own firearms.

In one of those encounters, it seemed necessary to remind the listening audience there was one certified firearms instructor in the room and it wasn’t the other person who was representing a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group.
Take this as a learning experience because the elections are on the horizon, you’re a voter with an opportunity to question candidates and you might wind up in a debate with some gun grabber who claims to be an authority on gun safety or a member of some so-called “gun safety” organization. This is when you can put them on the spot and they will unintentionally help you do it.

NRA Certified firearms instructors have a card identifying them as such. Mine has been protected with a laminated plastic cover. A friend who used to be a lobbyist was also an instructor and he habitually pulled out his instructor’s card to ask opponents, “Do you have one of these? If you don’t, you probably shouldn’t be here talking about gun safety.”

If you can’t say you’re a certified instructor, the next best thing is to challenge these anti-gunners to recite the four rules of gun safety as set down by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, the “Father of the Modern Technique.” The founder of the American Pistol Institute, now known as the Gunsite Academy, Cooper kept it simple and his rules have withstood the test of time:

• Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
• Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
• Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

There may be a moment of silence, possibly a blank stare as your opponent’s try to figure out who Cooper was and maybe offer a remark about “not being the point” before they scramble to change the subject. This is when you’ve got them. They can’t answer directly since they don’t know. Whatever else is said after this point, just keep reminding your opponent — and anyone else listening — your question wasn’t answered.

These self-appointed arbiters of firearms etiquette don’t really know anything about guns or safety, other than they don’t like them and don’t want anyone to have them. It’s up to you to set it in concrete so people remember it. You’re the expert, not them.

If or when one of these people claims to be a gun owner, it’s easy to make them stammer by asking, “Oh, how many guns do you own?” Or better still, “How many guns have you owned? If you sold one or two to someone else, did you require the buyer to go through a background check?”

It’s not unfair to ask when was the last time they went to the range to practice? Have you taken a gun safety course? The same questions apply to anyone running for local public office.

‘Oh, Where Do You Offer Classes?’

If you’re in a discussion with somebody who says he or she is a member of a “gun safety” group, stop them cold by asking, “Oh, where do you hold classes on gun safety?”

When they respond, “We don’t really hold classes,” (and they will) this is the moment to remind them they’ve got no business preaching gun safety if they’re not teaching gun safety.

This same strategy applies to meeting candidates because the next eight weeks should provide plenty of opportunities to attend at least one of these sessions. Any candidate who claims to support “gun safety” legislation should be challenged to recite Cooper’s Four Rules.

Here’s another way to make these people look foolish: Offer to take them shooting. If they’ve claimed to be gun owners, invite them to bring their own firearms.

‘Do You Take Money From …?’

A couple of years ago, as a private citizen and constituent, I attended a public forum with three local legislators. A woman in the audience demanded to know if the Republican state representative had taken money from the National Rifle Association.

It’s a fair question, but the savvy activist should immediately counter by asking whether the politician or candidate has accepted contributions from Everytown for Gun Safety or a regional or local gun control group. We discussed this last month………