Posts Tagged ‘Gun Laws’

How Everytown’s background check law impedes firearms safety training and self-defense

November 2
Today, many gun control advocates are pushing for what they call universal background checks. In this and future articles, I will explain the strange system of “universal background checks” being promoted by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety lobby. These laws  severely obstruct ordinary activities that do not involve gun sales, such as self-defense and firearms safety training.

Laws based on the Bloomberg system have been enacted in Colorado, Oregon and Washington. They will be on the ballot in 2016 in Nevada, and perhaps in Maine. A similar law (Fix Gun Checks Act, S. 374) has been repeatedly proposed federally by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)

The Bloomberg system applies to every firearms “transfer.” In normal firearms law, a “transfer” means “a permanent exchange of title or possession and does not include gratuitous temporary exchanges or loans.” Chow v. State. 393 Md. 431, 473, 903 A.2d 388, 413 (2006).

However, the Bloomberg laws create a very different definition. For example, the Washington state law says that “ ‘Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.010(25). In other words, it applies to sharing a gun while target shooting on one’s own property, or to lending a gun to a neighbor for a weekend hunting trip.

Under the Bloomberg system, transfers may take place only at a gun store. The transfer must be conducted exactly as if the retailer were selling a firearm out of her inventory. So the transferee (the neighbor borrowing the hunting gun) must fill out ATF Form 4473; the retailer must contact the FBI or its state counterpart for a background check on the transferee; and then, the retailer must take custody of the gun and record the acquisition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. Finally, the retailer hands the gun to the transferee and records the disposition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. A few days later, after the hunting trip is over, the process must be repeated for the neighbor to return the gun to the owner; this time, the owner will be the “transferee,” who will fill out Form 4473 and undergo the background check.


How does this affect the Second Amendment’s “core lawful purpose of self-defense”? (D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630 (2008)). Under the Bloomberg federal model, there is no allowance for lending a firearm to a citizen in case of emergency. S. 374, § 202(2) (exceptions only for family gifts, inheritances, transfers in the home, and for “hunting or sporting purposes” with various limitations).

Under the proposed Nevada initiative, a firearm may be lent if the loan is “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” and the loan “lasts only so long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm.” Whatever “imminent” means, the loan is allowed only as long as “immediately necessary.”

Read the rest Here

BALTIMORE —Amid an unrelenting streak of violence, Baltimore’s mayor said current gun laws miss the mark.

The number of homicides in Baltimore reached 211 on Wednesday, matching the number for all of last year. The 211th homicide was recorded when police found the body of a man who was shot in a vacant house in the Penn-North neighborhood of west Baltimore, the same area hit by riots in April.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s political career may depend on getting the violence under control. She gave credit Wednesday to city police officers because arrests are back up to a normal pace. She suggested that it doesn’t matter that Maryland has some of the toughest gun laws on the books while other states don’t.

Not since the 1990s has the city seen this many homicides this soon in a given year. In 2007, the city recorded its 200th homicide on Aug. 20 and went on to 282 homicides for that year.

At City Hall on Wednesday, Rawlings-Blake said the city’s violence follows what she called four strands of rivalry and retaliation.

“There are four major strands that are impacting the homicide rate in Baltimore. We can trace it and we can trace the players,” Rawlings-Blake said. “There are known entities who are battling it out on the streets like is this is the wild, wild west, and we need help.”

The mayor implored people with information to come forward.

“If you know someone who is involved in this, who you know are either the next victim or the next perpetrator, if you don’t want to see your loved one die in the streets, we need you to help us do something, because if they are involved in these strands, it’s coming,” Rawlings-Blake said.

Citing similar increases in violence in other cities, the mayor called for a national response, including a controversial target: tougher federal gun laws. She acknowledged that Baltimore’s violence surges on despite Maryland’s gun laws, some of the toughest in the country. The problem, she said, is that laws in other states are more lax.

“What I am saying (is) the current approach, the state-by-state approach, has not been effective,” Rawlings-Blake said.

On another front, concern about a police slowdown in Baltimore seems to have eased. Between July 15-31, city officers made 1,318 arrests, nearly double the 771 arrests that officers made between May 15-31, right after charges were announced in the Freddie Gray case.

“We are seeing a lot of positive indicators that officers are engaged on every level, and the concerns that were raised, that things are turning around,” Rawlings-Blake said.

The recent arrest numbers are much closer to the level of arrests before Gray’s death.



Freedom Advocates, Pro-Gun Senators Unite to Oppose the Obama Administration’s Attempt to Censor Information about Firearms Technology

As we reported in June, the Obama Administration’s State Department (DOS) proposed a revision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) on June 3 that would require anyone seeking to make certain types of information about firearms publicly available to first obtain government approval. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by the proposal are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law. Our original alert encouraged gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, serious hobbyists, and others who rely on design, development, production or manufacturing information about firearms to file comments with the State Department opposing the rule and explaining its problems.

The response was overwhelming. By the time the comment period ended on Monday, nearly 10,000 comments had been posted to the website, the vast majority of them adamantly opposed to the law. A DOS official put the actual number of comments (which can also be submitted by other means) at some 12,000. Those opposing the rule include police officers, engineers, research universities, scholastic rifle teams, defense contractors, gunsmiths, firearm instructors, professors, IT professionals, and thousands of gun owners who enjoy fabricating or working on firearms for their lawful personal use. Their input illustrates not only the proposal’s restraints on free speech but the numerous practical problems it would pose for a variety of professionals, students, researchers, and other law-abiding Americans.

NRA’s own comments were submitted on Monday. The comments begin by emphasizing that the larger Export Control Reform effort of which the June 3 proposal is a part has always intended to move firearms off ITAR’s list of controlled items (the U.S. Munitions List) to a list subject to more flexible controls administered by the Commerce Department.  The whole point of having dual systems of control is to recognize that especially sensitive or sophisticated military technology (like that used in nuclear subs or ballistic missiles) requires a different level of regulation than items like firearms that have both military and civilian applications. Yet the Obama Administration, solely for political reasons, continues to treat the same sorts of firearms that some 100 million Americans (and countless foreigners) already have in their homes as if they are as militarily sensitive and consequential as aircraft carriers or strategic bombers.

Our comments also note that a proposed definition of “defense service” is so far-reaching that it could hinder efforts by NRA and NRA certified instructors to provide firearm education and safety training within the U.S. Under the proposal, a foreign person lawfully present in the U.S. could not participate even in “basic” operational training with a firearm unless the person had been approved to receive that firearm as an export in another country. This means, for example, that a foreign exchange student living with an American host family could not lawfully obtain the necessary training to safely use and handle a borrowed bolt action rifle to accompany the family on a deer hunt. Obviously, this is too restrictive and does nothing to further America’s national security.

The bulk of NRA’s comments, however, are devoted to explaining how the proposal would impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on firearm-related speech protected by the First Amendment.  We also expose DOS’s falsehood that the proposed requirement for “preauthorization” to discuss technical aspects of firearms and ammunition is merely a “more explicit statement” of current practice and policy. The comments quote extensively from case law and Department of Justice memorandums dating back to the 1970s which warn DOS that it cannot constitutionally impose a broad requirement that Americans first obtain government approval before speaking publicly about unclassified military technology.  We also show how DOS, under prior administrations, removed a similar preauthorization requirement in response to these concerns. “Not only is the preauthorization requirement a radical departure from DOS practice as it existed immediately prior to the proposal’s publication date,” our comments state, “it is a return to policy DOS had abandoned in the 1980s as incompatible with the First Amendment.”

Finally, our comments expose how another supposed clarification is actually a massive power grab by DOS, with the proposal’s insistence that speech published online must be treated as an “export,” because of its presumed availability to foreign persons. Not only is DOS’ attempt to seize control of Internet content futile from a practical standpoint, it was never authorized by the Congress that original passed ITAR’s enabling legislation, the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Internet had yet to be developed at the time of the AECA’s passage, so it authors could hardly have appointed DOS the government’s official Internet censor. More to the point, even if they had tried, the First Amendment would have stopped them.

Surprisingly (or maybe not), the media has been surprisingly silent on the government’s attempt to censor speech about constitutionally-protected firearms owned by millions of Americans. NRA’s comments quote statements from a press conference in which a DOS official sets up a strawman by insisting the proposal would not ban “general descriptions” or “imagery” of firearms. What the official fails to mention, however, is that more detailed information about firearm technology would be seriously curtailed. Worse, because the proposal is so awkwardly and confusingly drafted, even unregulated speech would likely be chilled because of the inability of individuals and media outlets (like Internet service providers) to determine when the regulatory line was crossed. Is the mass media so hypocritical that it’s willing to sacrifice a whole category of legitimate, constitutionally-protected speech, simply because it supports a gun culture the media detests? So far, that seems to be the case.

Fortunately, pro-gun representatives in the Senate have been more conscientious in protecting the public trust on this issue.  Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) led an effort that resulted in a 28 senators signing on to a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, opposing the June 3 proposal. According to the letter, “certain definitions within the proposal are so broad as to capture actions essential to the exercise of a citizen’s Second Amendment rights.” It goes on to state that the new definitions could capture “information such as how to legally modify or assemble a generally available firearm, such as a hunting rifle or self-defense handgun, or information on the development of new loading information for existing firearm ammunition.” “These types of activities,” the letter warns, “are part and parcel of how many Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights.” The signatories accordingly “urge the State Department to modify or delay these misguided changes to the ITAR in order to ensure they do not violate the First and Second Amendments or until commonly owned firearms and ammunition are not adversely impacted.”

Once again, America’s gun owners, and their elected officials, with the backing and support of your NRA, have risen to the challenge of opposing an attempt from the Obama Administration to use executive authority to limit Second Amendment rights. Whether the proposal will be enacted as written, in a modified form, or will be scrapped, remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, DOS has received a clear message that America’s gun owners will not stand by to let either their First or Second Amendment rights be trampled.

Via David Codrea

“A+”-rated* Sen. John Cornyn has the National Rifle Association’s backing for a “modest” bill “that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers,” Fox News is reporting. The legislation is generating no small amount of debate among gun rights advocates, with some supporting it as a pragmatic move designed to thwart more draconian proposals, and others characterizing it as a preemptive surrender (and worse).

Without getting into that debate, because there will be plenty of others weighing in on both sides, I’d instead like to just ask a few questions that all who are interested in due process ought to be interested in seeing answered. By way of disclosure, my longstanding contention is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, but that’s not likely to be reflected in social policy anytime soon, so it’s not the focus here.

Backers of the bill tell us “due process” protections will be increased for veterans and others under Cornyn’s bill. Per his spokesman, “This bill codifies into law that individuals must get their day in court they’re entitled to, and no agency or state can make their own determination without that.”

It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial  that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?

What protections will exist to offset politically-connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask, because APA includes in its advocacy platform registration-enabling, background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.

Significantly though, even APA admits:

Only a small proportion of individuals with a mental disorder pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.

Casting a wide net and leaving the shot-calling up to those with subjective political motivations has historical precedence – predominantly in “gun control” havens.

Also of interest – or it should be – how will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health prescription to deny them? What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure be to “err on the side of caution”?

Read the whole thing Here

[Recently], Time magazine published a piece that pushes the narrative that today’s firearms laws are permissive in comparison to those of the early 20th century. Titled, “Guns Were Much More Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s than They Are Today,” the piece contends that “Those who look to America’s past to extol a time when nothing stood between an American and a gun need to look again.” The obvious goal of the work is to convince the uninformed that any notions they might have about America’s long-standing culture of gun ownership should pose no barrier to future restrictions, particularly on the ownership of semi-automatic firearms.

The piece was written by long-time anti-gun author and SUNY Cortland Political Science Professor Robert J. Spitzer. Since the 1990s, Spitzer has been writing columns and books advocating for gun control; often focusing on semi-automatic firearms. In these pieces Spitzer pushed – now mostly recognized as silly – misconceptions about popular semi-autos, such as “The lighter weight, compact design, and pistol grips give the ability to ‘spray fire’ – often from the hip,” and, “Their concealability adds to their criminal appeal.”

Further, Spitzer advocated for the – now thoroughly rejected – notion that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms. In his 1995 book, The Politics of Gun Control, Spitzer claimed, “The desire to treat the Second Amendment as a constitutional touchstone by gun control opponents is understandable… Such claims are, however, without historical, constitutional, or legal foundation.”

However, the thesis laid out in the column’s title only works if one completely ignores the federal government’s entrance into the field of firearms control, and subsequent restrictions on firearms enacted in several states. In the 1920s and 1930s, Americans purchasing firearms could simply order rifles or shotguns by mail right to their front door. The Gun Control Act of 1968 brought about much of the modern federal gun control regime, including federal prohibitions certain categories of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, importation restrictions, and the licensing and regulation of firearms dealers. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993, which requires background checks on those purchasing a firearm from a dealer. In the 1990s and 2000s, several states restricted access to semi-automatic firearms, and some states have continually expanded their categories of prohibited persons. A quick glance at two of BATFE’s publications, the “Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide,” and “State Laws and Published Ordinances,” makes it abundantly clear that 2015 America isn’t some sort of unfettered gun rights utopia in comparison to the early 20th century.

Perhaps most bizarre about Spitzer and his work is that even after decades of advocating for gun restrictions, the professor still appears to know little of the firearms he seeks to ban, botching terminology at every turn. In his latest piece, Spitzer notes that modern hunters are likely to use something he describes as a “semi-automatic long barrel gun.” Later, he claims that in the early 20th century states had little patience for “semi-automatic firing married to the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading.” Anyone with a cursory knowledge of firearms would know that the latter characteristic is a prerequisite of the former. Further on, Spitzer uses the term “large capacity bullet magazines.”

Over the years Spitzer has been wrong on the history of gun control, wrong on the Second Amendment, and displayed a severe lack of basic firearms knowledge. Unfortunately, when it comes to an anti-gun periodical like Time, the ability to further the publication’s political agenda, rather than accuracy, appears to be the chief requirement for publication.

© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Editor’s Note: recently contacted Buckeye Firearms Association about the closing of the media access loophole. The resulting article, entitled “Another State Just Made It Impossible for Reporters to Access Concealed Carry Records,” is posted here.

Readers Beware.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently revealed a new tactic in his ongoing campaign to impose his anti-gun agenda on Americans with the launch of “The Trace .” The new website describes itself as a “media organization dedicated to expanding coverage of guns in the United States.” Bloomberg, of course, already owns and controls one of the largest media empires in the world in Bloomberg LP , but apparently it is not adequately biased to serve his anti-gun agenda.

According to editorial director James Burnett, “The Trace” is not an “anti-gun” organization, but hopes to “appeal to people across the spectrum on the issue.” But the content makes it clear that the organization is just another Bloomberg-funded gun control project. The site even states, “We bring an admitted bias to our beat.”

Huffington Post further illustrated this intentional bias while celebrating the launch of the new “news” organization. “We believe that the rate of gun violence is too high and we believe that there is not enough information about the issue as a whole,” editorial director James Burnett said in his interview. “As journalists, we have it as our mission to address that shortage of information.”

Like other Bloomberg backed organizations (Everytown for Gun Safety, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America), “The Trace” has already earned a lack of credibility among gun owners. Within the first few days of operation, the organization has readers outraged over one-sided reporting on issues and reckless disregard for facts.

It is clear that Bloomberg’s true goal is not to increase education and awareness on firearms and firearm safety, but to even more thoroughly color the information that reaches Americans about their Second Amendment rights. Orwellian propagandists have nothing on the sprawling Bloomberg newspeak machine.

Readers who may stumble across an article in “The Trace” — and any legitimate reporters seeking to inform themselves and the public on Second Amendment issues — should ignore the advocacy “journalists” at the “The Trace” and treat them like the Bloomberg, anti-gun staffers they are.

Click here to read the entire op-ed at

h/t The Grey Enigma

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Senate Republicans and Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration have agreed to change part of the state’s gun control laws.

Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said Saturday that an agreement had been reached to suspend development of a database for checking the backgrounds of ammunition buyers.

The database was included as part of the so-called “SAFE Act,” which was enacted following the 2012 Newtown school massacre.

According to the agreement signed by Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan and top Cuomo aide Jim Malatras, the database is being put on hold because the state police determined the necessary technology doesn’t exist yet.

It won’t be revived until the technology and state funding are available.

In the past, Cuomo has resisted calls to change what he considers a signature achievement.

On Friday, Azzopardi said Republican Sen. James Seward, a critic of the SAFE Act legislation, “mistakenly” said a moratorium on Internet sales of ammunition would be lifted as well. Azzopardi said that was not part of the deal agreed upon.

Spokesmen for the GOP majority and Seward didn’t initially respond to requests for comment.

Democratic State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie called the agreement “an ill-advised end run” around the legislation


Via David Codrea

The fallout from two recent Supreme Court rulings is receiving needed attention, as it’s up to activist gun owners to keep apprised of looming threats and opportunities, and to minimize damage/maximize gains of case outcomes. For one decision, Gun Owners of America has been at the forefront of warning against the anti-gun dangers hidden in Obamacare. On the flip side, some are looking at the same sex marriage ruling to prompt states to recognize concealed carry permits. But as important as those concerns are, they may ultimately become moot points if a case SCOTUS declined to hear is an indicator of things to come . . .

“The Supreme Court … refused to accept a case which sought to allow states to supplement a federal voter registration form so as to require proof of citizenship to vote,” Legal Insurrection reported Monday. “This is not just a battle of forms. It’s a battle for preventing theft of elections.”

“A new study … indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterm,” National Review reported in November. “Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic … Al Franken’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race [is] one likely tipped by non-citizen voting.”

While Obamacare is cited as a law that was passed by adding Franken’s 60th vote to the total, his hostility to gun rights and his affirmation of anti-gun nominees to administration and federal court positions were also enabled by his questionable win. A co-sponsor of the “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act,” which called for up to a 10-year prison sentence for violations, Franken is rated “F” by both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.

Still, the High Court’s deliberate indifference may have been based on recognizing that ascertaining proof of citizenship may itself soon be a moot point if establishment Democrats and Republicans have their way. That’s because the Obama administration is paving a “pathway to citizenship” for foreign nationals illegally residing in the U.S. Likely Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has pledged that as a priority. And GOP leadership and current flip-flopping frontrunner Jeb Bush are servicing their Chamber of Commerce patrons to ensure a continued source of “cheap” (meaning paid for by everyone else) labor.

Add to that an overlooked but undeniable danger identified by activist and journalist Rick Oltman in an exclusive report the media and political establishments have ignored, but that merits widespread attention: Expect a “massive naturalization of legal permanent residents [LPRs] before the 2016 election,” a move that will overwhelmingly favor Democrats.

That’s especially dangerous, because the Democrat Party includes “gun control” as a central part of its national platform:

Read the rest @


By Donald L. Cline. June 24th, 2015

I am a Constitutional scholar and a pro-right to keep and bear arms activist. I am writing today to bring to the attention of the —-NRA members and leadership a fundamental issue everyone seems to be ignoring: The right to keep and bear arms is not the only right being assaulted today by the anti-rights gun-banners, and we are helping them accomplish their objective! It is time to stop helping our enemies.

When the Brady Act of 1993 was proposed, with its attended Form 4473 interrogation and NICS check, the NRA leadership thought it was a good idea. Apparently the NRA leadership did not realize it was a stalking horse. The object was not to reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms, and its backers knew it. And in fact it has not reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms. Not one bit. The object was to sucker gun owners into supporting destruction of their Fourth Amendment-guaranteed right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct.

The object was also to confiscate from citizens their right to keep and bear arms without due process, and replace it with a government-issued privilege which could be permitted or denied by a faceless bureaucrat in some FBI basement boileroom.

The object was also to further erode – let’s face it, destroy, once and for all – our 10th Amendment-guaranteed right to a federal government exercising only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and a State government exercising only those powers not prohibited to it by the Constitution.

  •   Interrogation and search and seizure of rights without probable cause: The purchase or transfer of a firearm is not probable cause of criminal conduct.
  •   The taking our RIGHT to keep and bear arms without due process: A compelled interrogation and search under color of bogus law is not due process.
  •   The federal government doesn’t even have the authority to license gun dealers or commission ATF agents or to monitor, notice, oversee, infringe upon or interfere with our right to keep and bear arms in any way.
  •   Government does not have the lawful power to command the waiver of a right as a precondition to allowing you to exercise a right.
  •   In fact, government does not have the lawful power to allow or deny the exercise of a right in the first place: State government have the Police Power to regulate the USE of arms – when, where, under what safety regulations, under what criteria for self-defense (so long as self-defense is not prohibited) – but under the 2nd Amendment and the prohibition clause of the 10th Amendment, even State governments have no lawful power to ‘regulate’ the right to keep and bear arms.
  •   Article VI of the U.S. Constitution binds the judges to the supreme Law of the Constitution, the laws or Constitution of any State notwithstanding.

People are actually proud of the fact they have met government criteria to allow them to exercise a right government has no authority to allow or deny, when in fact they have waived their right to keep and bear arms AND their right to be secure from interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause AND their right to due process. When government decides to confiscate firearms, gun owners won’t have anything to say about it: They have waived their rights. ALL of their rights under the Rule of Law.

The have rendered the first nation in the history of the planet to establish the rights of citizens superior to the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords irrelevant and moot.

Compelled background checks is and was a stalking horse: Now the next step is being undertaken: Constitutional subversive Michael Bloomberg and his wealthy cronies are going around the country buying voter initiatives to expand these bogus background checks into what they call “Universal Background Checks.” The law is now in effect in Washington State, Oregon and Colorado, and is about to be voted on in Nevada and Arizona and Maine. Once this color of law is entrenched, whether it is enforced or not, the next step will be to require background checks for anyone wishing to speak out against government tyranny. Compelled background checks for anyone wishing to exercise their right to march in a protest rally. Compelled background checks for anyone petitioning government for redress of grievances. You must prove your ideas are not a threat to government, don’tcha know?

Background checks MUST be voted down. And the illegal, bogus, unconstitutional color of law known as the Brady Act of 1993 must be struck down with extreme prejudice. Not one crime has ever been prevented by the Brady Act.

Donald L. Cline


— Seek to blame all gun owners for actions of a lone Dirt Bag

“The President wants to blame an inanimate object — the gun,” [said] Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America. “But that just deflects blame away from the real culprit: gun-control policies that leave people defenseless in the face of evil perpetrators who are never effectively prevented from acquiring weapons.” — Newsmax, June 20, 2015

They’re coming for you.

Anti-gun Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey just announced they want to bring back their toxic legislation stripping Americans of their gun rights without due process of law.

And the President is ready to sign this gun ban into law.

You may recall our battle against the Manchin-Toomey language in 2013. Their legislation sought to BAN private sales of firearms, forcing all gun buyers to run to a dealer and submit to a background check before purchasing a firearm from their neighbor.

Thankfully, Senators Toomey and Manchin failed because Gun Owners of America and its members got in their way. According to the New York Times, and other liberal media outlets, GOA was able to put enough heat on the Senate to defeat this pernicious legislation.

The new Toomey-Manchin proposal will be an infringement of Second Amendment rights, and it will do nothing to stop real criminals from getting guns.

Realize that this background check expansion is just a ploy to erect more obstacles to owning guns. The more that people have to seek permission to buy a gun, the easier it becomes for gun control advocates to find reasons to deny them.

We’ve already seen this in the way veterans have been targeted and prevented from owning guns because they suffer from PTSD — symptoms related to their service for our country.

Ironically, the recent South Carolina shooting demonstrates the FAILURE of gun control. The Charleston gunman bought his gun from a dealer and passed a background check.

The result: Nine people died at the church … from gunfire … in a gun-free zone.

Clearly, more gun-free zones and more background checks are NOT the answer.

But making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed WILL make a difference. That will save lives. And that’s why your Senators should cosponsor S. 498, introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

Please note: While The Washington Post is reporting that Senators Manchin and Toomey want to resurrect a new version of their 2013 legislation, they have not introduced it yet. But Senator Manchin says he won’t bring the bill up “until he is sure he has rounded up the necessary votes.”

So that’s where you come in!

ACTION: Use the provided pre-written letter to urge your Senators to OPPOSE the new Manchin-Toomey gun grab.

Uncomplicated, Freedom-Loving Conservatism

The WTF Files

I don't know if the truth is out there but the freaks certainly are.

Gen Z Conservative

The thoughts of a young conservative on political issues relevant to all ages

Watchmen and Crossroads

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

EDS and Chronic Pain News & Info

Curated News and Information on Chronic Pain and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome


Conservative News, Articles, and Videos


Just another site

Jeremiah Harding Official

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

American Partisan

A vanguard movement of Western Civilization


Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

Republic of Texas (Conservative/Libertarian State)

Free Texas! Give me liberty or give me death

Northeast Intelligence Network

Pursuing the truth to preserve our nation

FFL by Guns2Ammo

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

Covert Geopolitics

Beyond the Smoke & Mirrors

The Zeroth Position

The premier site for libertarian reactionary thought


An online Journal by Bill Buppert devoted to the total abolition of slavery and the State.

Arctic Specter

Always assume you are being watched

Knuckledraggin My Life Away

Where Bad Choices Make Good Stories


Where misinformation stops and you are force fed the truth

Living Freedom

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

Mason Dixon Tactical

Defense and Wilderness Survival Training, Equipment, and Consultation


Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

The Defensive Training Group

Freedom is Worth the Fight!

Something Wicked Comes

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

The Gun Blog Black List

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

Long Range Hunting Online Magazine

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.


Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.


"once more unto the breach, dear friends..."

The Lizard Farmer

"You can't starve us out and you can't make us run 'cause we're them old boys raised on shotguns" -Bocephus

John Lott's Website

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.


Blogging in the Decline of Western Civilization

The Aging Rebel

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

The War on Guns

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

Improving Far Forward Care

John W. Whitehead, Constitutional Attorney

President of The Rutherford Institute, Author of 'Battlefield America' and 'A Government of Wolves'

Free North Carolina

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change



NC Renegades

Don’t get too attached to today; tomorrow it’s gone. Robert Gore


The Blog of Arizona Weaponcraft Solutions


Never underestimate the power of a question

Bills Custom Wood Products

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.

Liberty's Torch

Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.