Posts Tagged ‘anti-gun idiocy’

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon bill expanding background checks to encompass nearly all gun sales in the state made it through the Legislature on Monday, overcoming obstacles that stymied two previous attempts to pass similar laws.

The measure now heads to Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, who has indicated support. Her signature would make Oregon the eighth state to require screening before firearms could be transferred between private, unrelated owners. No other states have passed such legislation this year, advocates said.

Oregon’s effort is the latest after the long-running debate over gun rights intensified following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Last year, Washington state passed a ballot initiative requiring background checks on all gun sales and transfers, and Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the group has the signatures for a similar ballot initiative in Nevada.

Supporters have tried twice before to expand background checks in Oregon, saying it closes a loophole that allows people to purchase firearms online without a review. Neither attempt made it past a Senate vote, but Democrats managed to increase their majorities in both chambers after last year’s election, partially because key candidates in the Senate were backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety.

The bill that passed the state House on a 32-28 vote Monday requires background checks on most private sales and transfers, except those between close family members such as spouses or siblings. There are some exceptions, such as sharing a gun while hunting or handing over a firearm for use at a shooting range. Three Democrats joined all 25 Republicans in opposition.

Once the measure takes effect, private sales would need to happen in front of a licensed gun dealer who would run the check through Oregon State Police.

There is an exception for gun sellers and buyers who live more than 40 miles from each other. In that case, the seller could send the firearm to a dealer near the buyer, who would then run the check and hand over the gun to the buyer if they’re cleared.

The bill has borne intense opposition from gun rights supporters, and every legislative Republican has voted against it. Many cited law enforcement officials in their districts who said they wouldn’t enforce the law or that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

Senate Bill 941, worse than doing nothing, gives false hope, because it represents to people that felons are not going to get guns. And colleagues, I think we all know that’s not true. They are going to get them one way or another,” House Republican Leader Mike McLane said.

Others argued the bill would trample Second Amendment rights or would make criminals of gun owners who choose not to get a background check every time they hand over a gun to a friend or neighbor.

The seller of a gun would face a misdemeanor for a first offense, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,250 fine. A second offense would be a felony, with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Under current law, anyone purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer has to pass a background check to ensure the buyer isn’t prohibited from owning a gun because of convictions for felonies or violent behavior. Oregon goes further than federal law by also requiring background checks at gun shows under an initiative voters approved in 2000.

“This bill is not about stopping all gun violence in Oregon, and it’s not about taking guns of the hands of law-abiding citizens,” said Rep. Jennifer Williamson, a Portland Democrat. “It’s about keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, those suffering from mental health crises, and convicted felons.”

Bloomberg and his minions just keep checking off states on their list one by one-Nevada’s next.

I’ve posted many times about this-as have a lot of others,apparently no one’s listening,because every state on Bloomberg’s list is going down one after the other-and he’s going to keep checking off states on his list because no one’s paying attention.

Maybe when he buys enough votes in Nevada-people will wake up.

Via David Codrea…

Far from protecting lives and property, "progressive" Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake interferes with the ability of people to protect their own while simultaneously guaranteeing the safety of violent looters, vandals, arsonists and rioters.
Far from protecting lives and property, “progressive” Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake interferes with the ability of people to protect their own while simultaneously guaranteeing the safety of violent looters, vandals, arsonists and rioters.
Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images

As Baltimore erupts in violence, and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake promises a safe haven for destroyers (thwarted only by the occasional armed citizen protecting life and property where the police fear to tread), an inescapable observation strikes. High-profile shootings of black males continue to occur in cities where “progressive” Democrats run things. Yet in spite of that, they embrace “gun control,” that is, a system where police are the “only ones” trusted to keep and bear arms.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake has been a big supporter of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. She’s also a proponent of imposing citizen disarmament edicts not just in Baltimore, but in urging Congress to make his Demanding Moms agenda the law of the land.

That being the case, it’s fair to question how such representatives continue to be elected. These are supposed to be the places where politicians who purport to care deeply about minorities and social justice call the shots and implement programs to alleviate the inequities. Of course, we saw the last such gun-grabbing Baltimore Mayor, Sheila Dixon, resign in disgrace after being convicted of helping herself to gift cards intended for the downtrodden. Hey, an anti-gun kleptocrat can’t get by on fur coats and “lavish trips” from favored developers alone.

The bottom line: Local governments over much of urban America are indistinguishable from corrupt Third World regimes. The hate runs highest in these bastions of “tolerance” with their monopolies of violence. And those in charge seemingly get there not so much by merit or success at leading people in the dream of freedom and meritorious prosperity, but for a much more shameful reason, as indicated by a makeshift plywood sign on a looted store.

“this is a black own store,” a person self-identified only as “Mike” wrote. “you shouldn’t have touch.”

Why should who owns a store make a difference? It wasn’t merchants of any color who killed anyone.

The fruits of “progressivism” are becoming increasingly more apparent and less deniable for all to see, including the way it has most betrayed those relying on its exploitive promises. But don’t expect that to be widely recognized by the people most affected.

None of us can foresee the future and predictions are always dicey things to make, but if I had to venture one, I’d say U.S. cities are in for an interesting summer. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be surprised to see members of the productive sector, who in turn will soon come to understand the “authorities” are useless at providing protection, reapplying old lessons learned from when Korean merchants refused to stand by while their livelihoods went up in flames

Via

On Monday, April 20, and after nine months of debate that included receiving testimony from Buckeye Firearms Association’s Ken Hanson, the Cleveland City Council passed a watered-down version of gun control legislation that had been proposed by Mayor Frank Jackson in 2014.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, after passing the law, Council President Kevin Kelley stated that “the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence. Rather, it is a reflection of council’s values and is good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”

That is an interesting admission on a number of levels.

First, many are making note of the fact that Kelley is admitting that it is the City of Cleveland’s policy to pass gun control laws whether they are expected to work or not, and this is indeed a rare moment of honesty by a gun control proponent. “The legislation was not designed to stop gun violence. Rather, it is a reflection of council’s values …”  That is gun control in a nutshell.

But that isn’t all. Kelley’s admission is also notable because it flies in the face of a statement he made last year, when the proposals were first introduced. In a press release issued by the mayor’s office last year, Kelley said “gun violence has taken far too many lives in our community. The City of Cleveland must act aggressively to address this issue.”

So when the proposal was first made public Kelley said it was intended to be an aggressive act to address gun violence, but when it was passed he says it was never intended to stop gun violence. Got that?

According to the Plain Dealer, Councilman Zack Reed drove home the point that the bill won’t do what its supporters once claimed it was intended to do. Again, from the article:

Read the rest @ http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/cleveland-council-president-claims-new-gun-control-law-was-never-about-violence-values

Via David Codrea

Anti-gun Oregon Democrat State Senator Chuck Riley says the Supreme Court was “right for the time” for upholding the enslavement of blacks as Constitutional. His comments came after questioning by gun rights advocates who were attempting to understand his rational for supporting citizen disarmament edicts, and was recorded by videographer “LaughingAtLiberals.”

Historically, the courts have demonstrated a tolerance for tyranny and a deference to those who would enslave. That's why there were "laws" to ensure that slaves were not armed.

The Library of Congress

“But that wasn’t the end of it,” blogger Gateway Pundit noted. He embedded a second video, where Sen. Riley and his staffers were unable to explain how the “universal background check” edict would work at stopping violent criminals, or do anything besides provide a registration list of gun owners.

As for Riley’s slavery concession, we’ve seen such precedent-driven disconnects with freedom before, even with checks and balances in place. Without them, things get even worse. An activist court empowered to make up law on its own has the potential to impose enslavement via a complicit executive branch. A tyranny-minded legislature can write edicts that do the same, providing they can get them enforced without judicial restraint. An unchecked executive can use all sorts of justifications to impose despotism. And all three branches working in concert have pretty much brought us to the point where “shall not be infringed” has been rendered meaningless beyond what those in power will politically tolerate — for now.

That’s why the growing new paradigm represented by the “I will not comply” movement represents such a threat to those who would rule. Because ultimately, when the system results in tyranny, an armed people retain the power to nullify bad enforcement just as informed jurors have the power to nullify bad edicts. Of course the outcome of that is not assured (what is?), but to those who have made the choice between defiance and surrender, it beats the alternative.

That leads to some fair questions for the individual leaders of self-designated “gun rights groups” that call for enforcement of existing Intolerable Acts (gun laws), and who actually have publicly joined with anti-gunners in disparaging civil disobedience activists as “extremists”: If, years from now, with a shifted Supreme Court majority enabled by an unchallengeable electorate (something foreseen by another Oregon Democrat), a new ruling reverses Heller and says it’s Constitutional for the government to start rounding up registered guns and jailing anyone who has not obeyed, will you urge defiance and resistance, or will you ask your members to plead with their oppressors (and send a donation)? If the former, why wait until things become so desperate? And if the latter, why shouldn’t we know now if you ever envision a line in the sand?

From NRA-ILA

Recent history shows why Congress had to rein in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) with the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.

On Friday, Feb. 13, 2015—the eve of a three-day weekend, with members of Congress back in their home states—BATFE quietly announced its intention to ban the manufacture and importation of the M855 cartridge. The plan was to take the second-most common variety of ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15, off the market.

Your National Rifle Association (NRA), ever vigilant, caught the move and immediately sounded the alarm. Staunch opposition from the public and the law enforcement community (which rejected the Obama administration’s fairy tale that this was all for them), along with stalwart leadership from U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and U.S. House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson (R-Texas), forced BATFE to back down—at least for now.  Were BATFE to formally adopt the Framework, it could jeopardize access not just to M855, but to almost all ammunition…

BATFE laid out its absurd case for the ban in its “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c).” I encourage everyone to carefully read the “Framework,” which we linked to in our online alerts on NRAILA.org. Were BATFE to formally adopt the Framework, it could jeopardize access not just to M855, but to almost all ammunition if any of the ongoing attempts to ban lead ammunition were also to succeed.

The law that BATFE cited as the basis of the Framework was added to the Gun Control Act of 1986. It prohibits the manufacture and importation of so-called “armor-piercing ammunition.” This includes “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely … from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium.” The law was passed because several special-purpose handgun bullets made of hard metals had been developed for law enforcement use, and concern arose that some of them might fall into the hands of criminals.

The core of an M855 bullet is made of lead, rather than one of the hard metals listed in the law, but BATFE designated the bullet as “armor-piercing ammunition” because of its steel tip. At the time, this didn’t present a problem in practical terms. Congress had recognized that many rifle cartridges “may be used in a handgun” chambered in a rifle caliber, so it passed the law with an exemption for projectiles “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” From the outset, BATFE said that the exemption applied to M855. Problem solved—or so it seemed.

Three years later, however, BATFE began showing signs that, in hindsight, could have served as a warning that M855’s “sporting purposes” exemption might one day be in jeopardy.

In 1989, BATFE prohibited the importation of 43 makes and models of detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles which, for many years previously, it had approved for importation as being “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”

Attempting to justify its politically motivated reinterpretation of the law during the media-driven “assault weapons” frenzy, BATFE ludicrously claimed that shooting sports based upon defensive firearm skills were not “sporting purposes.” Equally indefensibly, it also said that recreational target shooting, which it dismissed as “plinking,” was not a “sporting purpose,” but was instead a “pastime.” By that ridiculous standard, sandlot baseball, a popular version of “the nation’s pastime,” would also not be a “sport.”

Sports, BATFE insisted, consist only of hunting, skeet and trap, and “organized marksmanship competitions.” But even by this overly restrictive definition, BATFE’s rifle ban had no legitimate basis. Virtually all of the general-purpose, magazine-fed rifles that it banned were no different than the American-made Springfield M1A. At the time, this rifle predominated in the most “organized marksmanship competitions” in this country, the annual National Rifle Matches, conducted every summer by the NRA and today’s Civilian Marksmanship Program at Camp Perry, Ohio.

Having redefined “sports,” BATFE next turned its attention to redefining “sporting” firearms. The Gun Control Act had originally sought to prohibit the importation of ultra-compact, inexpensive handguns. In 1993, however, BATFE again reinterpreted “sporting purposes,” this time to ban the importation of large, expensive handguns like the Heckler & Koch SP89, which it had previously approved for importation. BATFE didn’t pick and choose which sports to consider “sporting” this time, but it ignored its own longstanding Handgun Factoring Criteria. Handguns like the SP89 had satisfied BATFE’s criteria for “sporting purposes” by having features like adjustable sights, a long barrel and a mechanical safety.

In 1994, BATFE reinterpreted “sporting purposes” yet again to ban the importation of 12-gauge shotguns it had previously approved for importation. Then, in 1998, it reinterpreted its 1989 reinterpretation of “sporting purposes” to ban the importation of semi-automatic rifles made expressly to comply with the agency’s 1989 ban.

Fast-forward to the present. The BATFE attempt to ban M855 ammunition features its most far-fetched reinterpretation of “sporting purposes” to date. First, instead of considering, as the law requires, whether a projectile is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,” the Framework claims that what counts is the type of handgun in which the projectile can be used.  BATFE argues the new focus on handguns is necessary because AR-15-type handguns pose a “significant risk” to law enforcement officers.

Originally, the BATFE granted M855 a sporting purposes exemption because the ammunition can be used in rifles. Now, it says that a center-fire projectile is sporting only if the only handgun in which it can be used is a single-shot. When “a handgun’s objective design is not limited to primarily sporting purposes, such as handguns designed to be carried and concealed, it may be reasonably inferred that ammunition capable of use in such handguns is unlikely to be used primarily for sporting purposes.” I guess the BATFE never heard of either wadcutter .45 caliber rounds used for Bullseye Shooting (or the NRA’s Conventional Pistol) competitions or hunting projectiles designed for revolvers.

BATFE argues the new focus on handguns is necessary because AR-15-type handguns pose a “significant risk” to law enforcement officers. That argument fails for multiple reasons. First, the exemption should not be based upon the type of firearm in which a projectile could possibly be used, but upon how the manufacturer or importer of the projectile intends it to be primarily used. Otherwise, ammunition designed for rifles can be jeopardized the minute someone creates a handgun that can fire it.

Second, the FBI reports that no law enforcement officer has been killed with any handgun chambered in .223 Rem. or 5.56×45 mm NATO during at least the past 35 years, and BATFE’s Framework makes no claim this has ever happened.

Third, the manufacturer or importer of a projectile cannot possibly know what type of firearm someone might use to fire the projectile. Congress could not have intended to place manufacturers and importers at risk of prosecution because their products might be used in a way for which they were not intended.

BATFE’s latest politically motivated twisting of “sporting purposes” has President Barack Obama’s fingerprints all over it. Obama is still livid over the fact that in 2013, the Senate voted down Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s “assault weapons” bill on a bipartisan vote of 60-40. He claimed if Congress wouldn’t act, he would.

To carry out the administration’s goals, BATFE didn’t just reinterpret the law, it effectively rewrote it. Untold millions of M855-type cartridges and projectiles have been manufactured, imported, sold and used for sporting purposes over the years. Since the mid-1990s, AR-15s have accounted for the vast majority of rifles used in  center-fire rifle shooting sports, and M855 ammo accounts for between a quarter and a third of all .223 Rem./ 5.56 mm cartridges sold. Simple math tells you the overwhelming use of those rounds has been lawful.

After creating a furor, BATFE retreated from its attack on the AR-15. Gun owners who contacted their senators and representatives to request congressional action to thwart BATFE’s ban were a key factor in this about-face. Majorities in both the House and Senate signed letters in opposition to the ban.

Nevertheless, as long as BATFE enjoys the support of an administration willing to bend the law to its agenda, the threat will linger. And that brings us to 2016.

Next year, we will have the chance to steer America back on course. A pro-Second Amendment Congress and president can curb BATFE from thwarting the will of the American people. Where BATFE’s ever-changing misinterpretations of “sporting purposes” are concerned, that must include revising federal laws to ensure they respect the right of Americans to acquire firearms and ammunition for all legitimate purposes.

Let’s ensure BATFE’s bogus Framework is trumped by America’s Framework, the U.S. Constitution. For the future of our country, we can strive to do no less.

Via David Codrea

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson shares the spotlight with another notorious gun-grabber, Attorney General Eric Holder.

Admitting that legislation it passed Monday will not stop violent crime, Cleveland politicians instead came up with excuses for imposing it on citizens anyway, Northeast Ohio Media Group reported. All but one Council member, Zack Reed, voted in favor of the new edicts, which in many areas duplicate state law, but supposedly will allow the city to keep resulting fines.

Whether any such coveted revenues will outweigh further legal costs the city will face is a question taxpayers should be asking their representatives who insisted on reopening an issue presumably already settled in the courts. Ohio Revised Code claims preemption by the state in the field of non-federal firearms regulation, and the matter was supposedly already settled when the City of Cleveland lost against the state in 2010, with the Supreme Court of Ohio “uphold[ing] as Constitutional state law displacing local gun-control ordinances.”

In addition to the duplicate laws and creation of a “gun offender registry,” the Cleveland diktats create several new burdens on law-abiding gun owners, including presuming to dictate reporting requirements for private sales (creating a de facto registry) and to impose storage mandates. Ohio Code declares “a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition,” meaning the city has nothing lawful to say about imposing constraints. The new decree also imposes a stolen gun reporting requirement that would appear to exempt criminals, as requiring them to attest they were in violation of the law prohibiting them from possessing a gun in the first place would also require self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Rather than directly addressing Councilman Reed’s challenge to show how the new edicts would have prevented any of the 25 homicides the city has experienced so far this year, supporters of the legislation offered unsubstantiated platitudes. Safety Director Michael McGrath fell back on the “possibility of saving a life” talking point used to restrict the rights of everyone else while saving nothing and no one. Councilman Michael Polensek even admitted “the bad guys are not turning in their guns. The bad guys are not registering. The kids who want to shoot indiscriminately on the street won’t stop,” and Council President Kevin Kelley “said that the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence” and instead offered bromides about “council’s values and … good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”

In other words, knowing full well what they are imposing will accomplish no reduction in violent crime, and in fact, violate Ohio law, they are nonetheless using the coercive force of the city to mandate citizen compliance — or else. But the desperate to appear effective politicians behind the scam will all get their names in the press and claim bragging rights that they are both “doing something” and showing leadership.

In any legitimate field of endeavor, that would be considered not just malpractice, but outright shameless fraud.

UPDATE: From an email alert received moments after publishing this article:

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/cleveland-gun-edicts-violate-law-infringe-on-rights-and-won-t-stop-violence?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Via David Codrea-

An Uber driver with a concealed carry permit, something self-designated “common sense gun safety law” advocates fought tooth and nail, saved a crowd of people on a Chicago street after a criminal opened fire on them by shooting the assailant, The Chicago Tribune reported Monday. Per the Assistant State Attorney, no charges will be filed, because the driver acted lawfully “in the defense of himself and others.”

There are two problems with this story.

First, chief MILM Shannon Watts says this never happens. And second, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy says if it does, he’s trained his men to kill you first and ask questions later.

Three problems, actually, when you consider all the smug antis, like CNN’s resident ignoramus James Alan Fox, who assure us firing at an assailant in a crowd situation will only make things worse, and what we really need is more citizen disarmament.

What’s evident is that the “gun safety advocates” would rather the driver had been unarmed and the people being fired upon undefended. That way, they would have been able to up their “gun violence” hysteria, plus they would have had fresh blood to dance in and exploit for more citizen disarmament edicts.

People are waking up to that and it’s not working, unless, of course, you’re a “progressive” who takes his talking points from garbage like a hit piece in The Atlantic by a totally unqualified critic, or desperate one-sided Mother Jones propaganda presented as objective journalism.

It has to be driving these people nuts that despite all of Michael Bloomberg’s money, all of the grandstanding politicians and all of the efforts by an overwhelmingly sympathetic media, people are recognizing the truth in increasing numbers. And that means they’re also recognizing the lies in the gun-grabber narrative about armed citizens.

Via NRA-ILA…

Oregon: Radical Anti-Gun Bills on the Move in Salem

This bullshit is brought to you courtesy of Bloomberg and co. Oregon was the next state on their list-They’re trying to check ’em off one by one.

On Tuesday, April 14th, Senate Bill 941, which seeks to expand background checks to private transfers, is scheduled for a vote by the Senate.  Please continue contacting your state Senator and strongly urging him or her to OPPOSE SB 941.

As previously reported, SB 941 would require individuals to appear before a gun dealer to request a criminal background check prior to privately transferring a firearm. Transfers include, but are not limited to, sales, gifts, loans and leases. Failure to comply with this mandate could result in stiff penalties and possible loss of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

On Thursday, April 16th, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing and possible work session on Senate Bill 945.  Introduced by state Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D-17), SB 945 creates the crime of endangering a minor by allowing access to a firearm. This bill would essentially require a person to lock-up or render their firearms inoperable.  Failure to do so could result in stiff penalties, including a five year prohibition on firearm possession.

On Friday, April 17, both Senate Bill 525 and Senate Bill 913 are scheduled for a work session and a committee vote.

As previously reported, SB 525, introduced by state Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-25), would expand the list of those prohibited from owning firearms.  NRA does not support any expansion of the prohibited persons categories as defined by federal law.

Under SB 913, the ivory regulation bill, the sale, offering for sale, possession with intent to sell or importation for purchase or sale of any ivory or ivory product would be prohibited.  Virtually any lawful item containing any amount of ivory, with very limited and narrow exceptions, would be rendered valueless as it would be an offense for you to sell it or for another person to buy it.

Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and politely urge them to OPPOSE SB 945, SB 525 and SB 913.

Senate Judiciary Committee Members:

Senator Ginny Burdick (D-18)
(503) 986-1718
Sen.ginnyburdick@state.or.us

Senator Sarah Gelser (D-8)
(503) 986-1708
Sen.saragelser@state.or.us

Senator Jeff Kruse (R-1)
(503) 986-1701
Sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us

Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-4)
(503) 986-1704
Sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

Senator Kim Thatcher (R-13)
(503) 986-1713
Sen.kimthatcher@state.or.us

 Clare O'Connor  Forbes Staff

Bloomberg-Backed Gun Control Group Upping Ante To End Open Carry At Kroger

Everytown and Moms Demand Action’s latest ad follows their print campaign, pictured, showing what Kroger doesn’t allow in its stores (here, outside food) versus guns, which are allowed.

Back in August, billionaire-backed groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action joined forces to pressure Kroger KR -1.45%, the country’s largest grocery chain, to change its position on the open carrying of firearms in its stores.

The two groups, bolstered by a $50 million philanthropic injection from Michael Bloomberg, focused their attention on Kroger following a spate of lobbying victories.

In the span of a few months, they’d watched Starbucks SBUX -0.44%, Target TGT +0.12%, Sonic, Chipotle, Chili's and Jack in the Box respond to their demands by asking shoppers to leave their guns at home.

The groups followed their tried and true formula, starting a petition and mobilizing their hundreds of thousands of supporters to use a dedicated hashtag, #GroceriesNotGuns, across social media.

Kroger (market cap: $37 billion) wouldn’t budge, however. That August, the Ohio-based 2,625-store grocery giant — the country’s second largest general retailer, behind Walmart — released a statement saying it would “follow state and local laws” on open carry.

The following month, Everytown and Moms Demand Action upped the ante against Kroger, launching the umbrella group’s first ever large-scale corporate campaign, with an advertising spend of six figures.

Its ad blitz aimed to contrast items banned from Kroger stores — like outside food and skateboards — with openly carried rifles, which are permitted.

Kroger remained unmoved by that campaign, as well as a rally held outside its corporate headquarters the following month to coincide with the chain’s annual meeting.

Everytown and Moms Demand Action isn’t giving up just yet. On Tuesday, the two groups launched their latest joint effort against the open carrying of guns in Kroger stores, releasing a video ad they’ll promote widely online called Not Allowed.

In the video, seen below, a man walks unhindered through supermarket aisles with a large firearm strapped to his back, while other shoppers are stopped for bringing in a dog or a water gun:

Everytown and Moms Demand Action have also launched a microsite where supporters can enter totals spent on groceries at Kroger competitors. They aim to prove to the retailer that inaction on the issue of open carry is resulting in lost sales.

A representative of the two groups made it clear they’ll carry on pressuring Kroger until the supermarket chain agrees to ask customers to forgo their guns while grocery shopping. Their expenditure on this campaign is just shy of the $1 million mark to date.

Kroger did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This post will be updated if they do.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) is set to reintroduce legislation this week that would provide a $2,000 tax credit to people who chose to turn in an assault weapon to law enforcement.

According to the Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act, the term ‘specified assault weapon’ that people could turn in for the tax credit includes a long list of pistols, rifles and shotguns including:

AR–15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95, Striker 12 and “a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has— a folding or telescoping stock, a threaded barrel, a pistol grip, a forward grip, or a barrel shroud.”

Click here to see the list of weapons covered by the bill.

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense. There is no reason on Earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield,” DeLauro says in her press release.

The SAFER Streets Act creates a $2,000 refundable tax credit ($1,000 for two consecutive years) for an assault weapon owner who gives their firearm to law enforcement.

DeLauro first introduced the bill in 2013.