Friday, May 26, 2017

Gun Rights

by -
Gun Rights
Will Trump pass the test?

When he addressed the National Rifle Association at its annual convention in Atlanta, Georgia last Friday, Donald Trump did not mince his words. The President declared to a rousing ovation that, “the eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end.” This was welcome news to the thousands of firearms owners, manufacturers and retailers in the audience – many of whom had suffered first-hand as a result of the Obama Administration’s anti-Second Amendment policies during the last eight years.

However, as the saying goes, the “proof of the pudding is in the eating,” and the table has been set for Trump to show America’s 55 million gun owners, including some five million NRA members, that his pro-Second Amendment rhetoric will be backed up by concrete action.

As has been widely noted, Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to speak to the NRA since Ronald Reagan in 1983. While no one expected Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to follow in Reagan’s footsteps, many NRA members did hold out hope that at least one of the Bush presidents – both of whom expressed solidarity with the Association – would have spoken to its members during the 12 years of their combined presidencies.

As it turned out, while both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush voiced support for the Second Amendment and the NRA, their “commitment” to the gun-rights movement amounted to little more than lip service.

The first Bush – angered by an NRA fund-raising letter that was highly critical of the manner in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms handled the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas — made much ado publicly about “resigning” from the NRA.

While his son did not split with the NRA during his tenure in office, his support of legislation backed by the NRA and other gun-rights advocates was less than enthusiastic. To his credit, President George W. Bush did sign into law two important firearms bills – the 2005 “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” which leveled the playing field for gun manufactures regarding liability for product misuse; and the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004,” which (in theory) allows qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across state lines. However, bringing “W” to the table to actually sign these bills was a lengthy and laborious process, and resulted in concessions to moderates that weakened the protections the legislation were intended to provide.

As gun owners, manufacturers and retailers have learned from experience, the real test whether a president truly supports and will defend the right to keep and bear arms is not their words, but their actions. The early indications are that President Trump will act.

In his first 100 days, Trump signed a repeal of a particularly troublesome Obama-era regulation that would have used an immaterial Social Security rule as the basis for summarily barring tens of thousands of Americans from owning firearms. Additionally, immediately upon confirmation, Trump’s new Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, signed an order rescinding a last-minute rule change under Obama that would have phased out the use of traditional, lead ammunition on federal lands. And, we now have a strong constitutionalist – Neil Gorsuch – on the Supreme Court.

But, the real test of a president’s commitment to the Second Amendment is revealed in whether he will actually – aggressively – support meaningful and substantive legislation. There are two pieces of legislation already teed up for the new Commander in Chief to demonstrate his true level of support for the Second Amendment.

The first is the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” already pending in both houses of Congress. This legislation would replace the patchwork of state laws and regulations regarding concealed carry — in which a person can go from law-abiding citizen to potential felon by doing nothing more than crossing a state line with a firearm fully lawful in their home state – with a single national standard. The legislation simply reflects the principle that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of citizenship that a person carries with him or her regardless of where they travel.

Another bill now awaiting action in the House of Representatives, is the “Hearing Protection Act of 2017,” which would expand access to sound suppressors that protect the hearing of hunters, competition shooters, and those who may find it necessary to use a firearm in the home for self-defense.

If Trump actually gets behind these and other pieces of pro-gun legislation – and if he refocuses the ATF to go after criminals with firearms, as opposed to playing a game of “Gotcha” with firearms retailers trying to comply with the record-keeping burdens of federal regulations – the NRA, and all 55 million gun owners will have more to cheer about than rousing speeches.

by -

Barack Obama couldn’t do it, but a hidden video shows how Hillary Clinton will be able to get guns out of the hands of Americans.

James O’Keefe strikes again.

The undercover journalist for Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action released a new video today that shows Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin talking about Hillary using executive order to get rid of guns.

Feingold is running again to win back his Senate seat and during a fundraiser in Palo-Alto California, he admitted that Hillary would use executive orders.

The video was filmed in August at the home of Amy Rao and Harry Plant.

Feingold has connections to the area, he taught at nearby Stanford after leaving his position at the U.S. State Department where he was a part of a “special envoy”.

It is no surprise that Democrats want to go after gun control. Barack Obama tried to push through tough regulations and new laws after Sandy Hook, but he couldn’t get it done.

Feingold lays out the plan for Hillary and the Democrats.

“He did some executive orders with the aspects of waiting periods. But what we all need is the Senate; have her there, and then put pressure on the House. And we might win the House.”

Hillary’s disdain for guns has been made very clear with her hate for the NRA. She is also interested in “Australian-style” gun control.

Background checks are one thing, but making guns illegal for self-defense is outright dangerous for America. That is what Hillary wants, she doesn’t want guns in America.

Correction, Hillary doesn’t want guns in the hands of American citizens, just police, military and security details. Only with that plan, only criminals would keep guns, literally and that is the scariest part of it all.

What are your impressions from the secret video by Project Veritas Action? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
gun show

Federal law enforcement is working with local law enforcement to monitor gun show attendees with controversial techniques.

In 2010 the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency devised a plan to record license-plate numbers of everyone at the gun shows in Southern California.

The license plates were recorded with special devices that can read and record all numbers of passing cars.

The agents then took the information collected at the gun show and looked for those cars crossing the southern border into Mexico.

Other than criminals, privacy advocates are furious at the new tactics.

Collecting information on all the people attending a gun show could be useful to law enforcement.

Stopping guns from crossing the border isn’t a bad thing, but government generally takes good programs and corrupts them.

Imagine a list of gun owners in the hands of the people that want to get rid of guns. If you start with a list of your enemies then you most likely have the advantage.

Looking at this from another angle, why are the police monitoring citizens in order to stop guns from going into Mexico? Shouldn’t they be worried about the guns coming into America?

So it comes down to this question…

Do you want your freedoms or do you want to feel a little bit safer? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

by -
Matt Damon

Guess which actor is promoting a movie with incredible scenes of gun fights but wants Americans to have their guns confiscated all at once?

We’ll give you a few hints.

This actor is worth over $115 million dollars.

This actor is the leading character in an action espionage franchise that has made over a billion dollars worldwide.

This actor played one of the founders of the CIA in The Good Shepherd with Robert De Niro.

That’s right, Matt Damon, also known this summer as Jason Bourne, is making headlines for his comments on gun control.

Damon was in Australia over the 4th of July weekend promoting his new Bourne movie when he was asked about gun control in America.

“You guys did it here in one fell swoop, and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly.”

In 1996 Australia banned guns and that is what Matt wants to happen here.

It it’s ironic to Matt Damon that he portrays a character who kills people on screen and is paid about 1600 times more than the average American, but he doesn’t want us to have to have guns to protect ourselves.

It is like the Democrats who staged the dramatic sit-in in the House of Representatives last month to demand a vote on gun control while they had armed guards outside protecting their lives.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Do you agree with Matt Damon that the government should take away all our guns at once? Are you going to support Matt Damon’s movies in the future knowing this is how he feels? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

by -
FBI Database

Want to be treated like a criminal and added to an FBI database? All you have to do is buy a gun in the state of Hawaii and you will be added.

Hawaii Governor David Ige signed a law into place that will allow police to add anyone registering or buying a new gun will be added to an FBI database called “Rap Back” that monitors criminal activities of Americans who have been under investigation.

The new law treats gun owners like criminals, literally.

The Democrat from Hawaii was inspired by the sit-ins held by the Dems in the House.

This isn’t the first time that the Hawaii Governor has tired to enforce gun control. He signed a law that would limit gun ownership to people in sexual crimes and stalking.

The governor also created a law that people with mental illnesses must surrender their guns.

The truth is, if you want to be a gun owner that isn’t watched by the FBI and treated like a criminal, then you better not live in Hawaii.

The scary thing is that this might become a trend. Hawaii is the first state to add gun owners to the FBI watch list, but will it be the last?

Depending on how the law works out, we might see other states with Democrats as governors do similar things.

This law could become a new trend, and good, honest gun owners all over America will be treated like criminals.

Do you think gun owners should be added to the FBI criminal watch list? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
concealed weapon

After 27 years in the Army and working at a location that is under a terrorist threat, New Jersey told this man he can’t have a concealed weapon.

Lt. Col. Terry S. Russell has spent 27 years in the Army and has helps run the Picatinny Arsenal in Wharton New Jersey. The arsenal has been under a terrorist threat and could be a big target for domestic terrorists to get their hands on weapons.

Lt. Col. Terry has more experience, education and training of firearms than 99% of the people living in New Jersey but it wasn’t enough for the state to say that he could get a concealed carry permit.

In New Jersey you have to show a reason you need to have a concealed carry permit. There has to be a real threat to your safety in order to get one.

Since the place where Terry works is under threat but he isn’t personally, the state didn’t see it wise to give this man permission to carry a concealed weapon.

The judge in the matter made a statement about not having a “justifiable need”.

“None of these threats appear to specifically relate to this applicant — he is in no different position than any other person who is assigned to that facility.”

So if you want to be able to carry a concealed gun in New Jersey you can’t do it until you have a threat against you. By then it might be too late.

Do you think New Jersey is right or wrong by not allowing Lt. Col. Terry S. Russell to have a conceal carry permit? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
Gun Rights

The 2nd Amendment is under fire from every direction right now. Obama is creating his own executive actions to change gun laws. The Supreme Court battle is primarily over the 2nd Amendment and the support a replacement to Scalia will have for our right to bear arms.

There is another threat, more close to home. These seven states are trying to steal your gun rights.

These states are trying to change the laws and limit your right as an American citizen to keep and carry a gun.

Is your state on this list? We hope not!

Check out the seven states that will try and steal your gun rights in 2016


by -
Assault On Guns

The sudden death earlier this month of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was an unapologetic supporter of firearms rights, has thrust the 2nd Amendment into the forefront of the burgeoning debate over who might replace him on the Supreme Court. While this is indeed a topic worthy of robust debate, what often is overlooked in such public discussions of the 2nd Amendment, are the many ways this Administration has chipped away at the Amendment outside the scrutiny of the courts.

Since assuming office in 2009, Barack Obama has employed the resources of numerous agencies and departments — most of which have no colorable jurisdiction over firearms – in an often unnoticed drive to weaken the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to “keep and bear arms,” without openly attacking the 2nd Amendment.

This approach most recently was on display last month, when Obama unveiled a list of “executive actions” to “curb gun violence.” At a carefully-orchestrated CNN “town hall meeting” a few days later, the President hogged the microphone and repeated over and over that he “respects the Second Amendment,” and that his only goal is to take “sensible” and “common sense” steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; not to limit the ability of others to obtain and possess firearms. Were it only so.

The reality is, many of the firearms-related measures this President has taken during his seven years in office, bear no relationship whatsoever to “common sense,” or to his avowed goal.

For example, an Administration initiative begun in 2013 employed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – yes, the FDIC – to intimidate banks into severing ties with companies that dealt in firearms, because the FDIC now considered such businesses to be “high risk.” The FDIC’s actions were backed by no less an enforcement arm than the United States Department of Justice. This thinly-veiled effort to enlist an agency with no firearms-related jurisdiction whatsoever into punishing companies dealing lawfully in firearms, is a perfect example of Obama’s modus operandi.

Although congressional oversight of the FDIC’s “Operation Choke Point” forced the Administration to back down somewhat, the message was clear – “if you are an industry regulated by the federal government, we can and will use that regulatory power to limit your ability to engage in lawful firearms transactions.”
An even longer-running component of this strategy involves pushing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to expand its reach far beyond “diseases,” to regulate firearms on the theory that “gun violence” constitutes a “public health issue” (the same basis by which federal agencies have regulated tobacco). The Department of Health and Human Services? The Administration has enlisted them, too, in its gun control crusade. The State Department as well. The list goes on and on.

All of these efforts are in addition to the manner in which Obama regularly has employed the one federal agency with explicit jurisdiction over firearms – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) – to expand its reach beyond that which Congress or the Constitution intended or contemplated.
Which brings us to the most recent presidential “executive actions” announced last month. Most important was a move to expand the universe of firearms transactions subject to the federal background check. The way Obama is attempting to circumvent federal law – which clearly and explicitly does not require the occasional, non-commercial transfer of a firearm from one person to another to be run through a federal database – reveals the insidious manner in which this Administration operates.

Obama knows he cannot legally alter the definition in federal law of who is a “dealer” in firearms. And he realizes that unless the make-up of the Congress changes drastically, Congress will not pass such legislation. So, what he once again has done is to obfuscate and intimidate. The 15-pages of presidential “guidance” for gun sales, clearly is designed to intimidate anyone — other than someone regularly engaged in the business of buying or selling firearms, and who is therefore a “dealer” under the law — who contemplates selling a firearm (at a gun show or elsewhere) into believing they are. The Administration’s hope is to cause such individuals either not to sell the firearms, or convince them to register with ATF as a dealer even though they are not required to do so currently.

There is much more to this craftily concocted scheme by Obama to make it increasingly difficult to purchase, sell, or even possess a firearm lawfully; we’ve just scratched the surface here. John Yoo and Dean Reuter with the Federalist Society have recently edited and published Liberty’s Nemesis – The Unchecked Expansion of the State; a book that offers a much more comprehensive (and frightening) exposition of the myriad ways in which this Administration is using executive power to limit individual liberty and circumvent to will of the Congress.

by -
Gun Rights

The right to bear arms is as American as apple pie, but some places that serve apple pie don’t want you to bear your arms in their restaurant. This election year, gun rights are being attacked and many businesses are turning their back on freedom.

Sometimes you just want to go to dinner in a crowded, fun restaurant with your gun on your hip to protect you from all the crazy people in the world. If that is how you feel, then don’t try eating at one of these famous eateries.

Also, if you live in New York, Illinois, South Carolina, Florida or California then you don’t have to worry about freedom since you can’t open carry anywhere in public.

If you live in the capital of American freedom, Washington DC, then don’t even think about showing a gun in pubic. The consequences could be dire.

The home of what was once called the people’s house and open to citizens is now a city where you can’t even carry your own gun.

There are great places in this beautiful country where you can still open carry inside your favorite restaurant, unless your favorite restaurant doesn’t believe in you having the right to bear arms… at least in their establishment.

Here is the list of 9 restaurants that have banned open carry.


by -

Keeping his promise to attack the gun rights of law-abiding Americans in the wake of the Islamic terrorist attack that killed 14 people attending a Christmas party in San Bernardino last week, President Barack Obama is moving to ban 47,000 people whose name appears on the No-Fly List from buying guns, owning ammunition or even keeping their firearms.

The president’s opening gambit to redefine what a “prohibited person” is under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) follows his Sunday address to the nation on domestic terrorism – a move that would not have stopped Islamic terrorists in California from committing their crimes.

If Obama uses an Executive Order to expand the “prohibited person” definition used by NICS to approve gun sales – a power he does not have under federal law – and is not stopped by Congress or the courts, people ranging from U.S. Marines and Congressmen to journalists and even federal air marshals could be stripped of their firearms. In his Sunday address, the president said:

“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a No-Fly List is able to buy a gun.” “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to but a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

What the president doesn’t seem to understand is that the law is the law. The No-Fly List – which is secret, riddled with errors and makes it difficult to appeal the decision to add them to the list – was created to protect the flying public from terrorist attacks, not to strip people of their gun rights.

In fact, according to a piece on the No-Fly List published in The Washington Post:

“Thousands of people have been mistakenly linked to names on terror watch lists when they crossed the border, boarded commercial airliners or were stopped for traffic violations…”

“When questions arose about tens of thousands of names between December 2003 and January 2006, the names were sent back to the agencies that put them on the lists, the GAO said. Half of those were found to be misidentified…”

Security experts, civil libertarians and consumer critics charge that the federal list process contains many errors and relies on an overly broad standard of reasonable suspicion.

One famous example involved the late Senator Ted Kennedy, an ardent advocate of gun control in Congress, who was added to the No-Fly List in error. Under the standard Obama wants to implement, Sen. Kennedy would be barred from purchasing a firearm. At the time, Kennedy asked then-Homeland Security undersecretary Asa Hutchinson:

“If they have that kind of difficulty with a member of Congress, how in the world are average Americans – who are getting caught up in this thing – how are they going to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”

Another example occurred just last year when Fox News contributor Steve Hayes was listed in the federal terrorist database after he traveled to Istanbul for a cruise.

“When I went online to check in with Southwest, they wouldn’t let me. I figured it was some glitch,” he said. “Then I got to the airport and went to check in. The woman had a concerned look on her face.

She brought over her supervisor and a few other people. Then they shut down the lane I was in, took me to the side, told me I was a selectee and scrawled [something] on my ticket.”

Hayes was later informed by Southwest Airlines that his name appeared on the government’s terrorist watch list.

In what is perhaps one the most bizarre examples of No-Fly List errors involved members of the Federal Air Marshal Service. Air Marshalls said they were blocked from boarding planes in 2008 after their names appeared in the database. One marshal told the Washington Times that it was “a major problem, where guys are denied boarding by the airline.”

“In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the airline employees were adamant they would not fly,” said the air marshal, who requested anonymity due to the nature of his job. “I’ve seen guys actually being denied boarding.”

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., commenting after the president’s address told CNN on Sunday that most people on the No-Fly List don’t even belong there:

“These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism. … The majority of people on the No-Fly List are often times people that just basically have the same name as somebody else who doesn’t belong on the No-Fly List.”

If President Obama gets his way, the government will be able to target individual Americans and take away their Second Amendment gun rights by adding their names to the No-Fly List. Once your name appears on the list, federal law enforcement could show up at your home and confiscate any firearms you may own.

While the president plan would only strip 47,000 people of their gun rights, it could just be the beginning. In time, soldiers retiring from active duty after deployment overseas, people being treated for stress or anxiety and other classes of people deemed ineligible to own firearms by politicians will follow – the Second Amendment be damned.


Residents of Cypress, Texas, Pastor Lorenzo Martinez and his family were subjected to a home invasion by an unknown man in only his underwear....