social security cards

Congress Set to Roll Back Social Security Gun Ban

Next week, Congress is expected to begin the review and potential repeal of a host of Obama Administration regulations put in place during the last 60 days of Obama’s tenure under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).  Among the regulations specifically targeted for action is the Obama-era Social Security Administration (SSA) gun grab, enacted in the waning days of the anti-gun president’s tenure.

As we reported last month, the rule would for the first time in the nation’s history co-opt the SSA into a gun control apparatus by labeling certain Supplemental Security Income and Disability recipients as “mental defectives” and reporting them to the FBI’s gun ban database. Possession of firearms by these individuals would then become a federal felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The rule, as the SSA itself has admitted, has nothing to do with the individuals’ propensity for violence or self-harm. Rather, the affected persons would be mostly law-abiding individuals singled out because they receive benefits for any of a wide-range of mental disorders (e.g., anxiety, bulimia, obsessive compulsive disorder, etc.) and have a representative payee assigned to help them manage their SSA funds. The Obama White House estimated that some 75,000 people would be reported each year under the new guideline.

While the rule would require reported beneficiaries to be notified of their banned status, it would not give them a chance to defend their suitability to exercise their Second Amendment rights until after they had already been prohibited. At that point, they would be required to file a petition, at their own expense, for “relief from disabilities.” The rule requires petitioners to obtain an expensive and time-consuming mental health evaluation and to disprove risks to the public safety and interest the government never established, or even tried to establish, in the first place.

More than 91,000 comments were submitted on the rule, the overwhelming majority of them in opposition to it. Comments submitted by mental health professionals and advocates for the mentally ill pointed out that the proposal was not supported by evidence or science, added to the stigma of mental illness, and created disincentives for mentally ill persons to seek help and benefits to which they are entitled.

Yet the SSA brushed all these concerns aside in rushing the rule to completion before Barack Obama left office. Confronted with evidence that the rule was illegal, unconstitutional, counter-productive, and would do nothing to further public safety, the SSA simply asserted it was necessary to fulfill a bureaucratic imperative urged on the agency by the Obama Department of Justice.

It’s a shame that the already crowded congressional calendar has to be burdened simply with clearing the minefield Barack Obama intentionally laid to stall and hinder his successor. But it’s encouraging that Congress is taking such swift action to do exactly that.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox praised the move in statements to the press on Wednesday. “Congress’ decision to review the Obama administration’s back-door gun grab is a significant step forward in protecting a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding gun owners,” he said.

You can help by contacting your Congressional representative and urging him or her to vote “yes” on the joint resolution to overturn the SSA’s gun ban rule under the Congressional Review Act. Use the Write Your Federal Lawmakers feature on the NRA-ILA’s website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Steve Schreiner NRA logo

Soldier of Fortune’s Endorsements for the NRA Board of Directors Election 2017

HEAR YE! HEAR YE! SoF’s endorsements for the 2017 election to the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors. Your ballots will be arriving in the mail in the next few days.

Once again, SoF is endorsing a number of highly qualified, experienced individuals to the NRA BoD. I have worked with all these individuals and consider them the best of the best.  Please seriously consider SoF’s recommendations…and share with your friends. Lt. Col. Robert K. Brown, USAR (Ret.)

Steven C. Schreiner, Englewood, Colorado. A vote for Steve is top priority.

Endowment and Board Member. President and founding member, Firearms Coalition of Colorado, an NRA-affiliated grassroots organization, awarded NRA’s Best Volunteer Organization. Led fight in Colorado against anti-gun forces. Successfully fought for/passage of Concealed Carry, Pre-Emption, Shooting Range Protection. Fought against: Semi-auto, Magazine Bans, Anti-hunting, “Safe Storage bills. Registered volunteer lobbyist. Publicly promotes election/retention of pro-gun candidates from both major parties; educates public on gun issues, legislation, campaigns/candidates, works closely with NRA-ILA leadership on same. Serves on NRA’s Grassroots Development Committee. Former Congressional staffer, Vietnam Veteran, Officer, U.S. Army, Airborne-Ranger. awarded Combat Infantryman’s Badge, Bronze Star (with “V” Device) and Silver Star. Combat: 199th Light Infantry Brigade (Sep.);Adviser to Vietnamese and Thai armies. BA/MA, History.

Endorsements: Firearms Coalition of Colorado, Colorado Gun Collectors Association, .50 Caliber Shooters Association, Golden Gun Club, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, and Gary Marbut, President, Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Schreiner

SoF is also endorsing the following:

  1. Thomas P. Arvas, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
  2. John Cushman, Patchogue, New York.
  3. Curtis S. Jenkins, Forsyth, Georgia.
  4. Sean Maloney, Liberty Township, Ohio.
  5. Linda Walker, Newark, Ohio.
  6. Heidi Washington, East Lansing, Michigan.
hands web

Web Scraping: A Means to Push the Anti-Gun Agenda

You may have read recently about a “breaking analysis” that includes numbers derived from a “mass shooting tracker,” which purports to present to the world, real world cases in which mass shootings have occurred.  One problem, this is not actual data nor does it rely upon trusted sources like the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) to report incidents.

Web scraping is a relatively easy way to automatically collect data from the internet for use in any number of applications. Price comparison, travel accommodation research, real estate listings, news and sports feeds, job listings…the list of useful applications of web scraping is bounded only by a user’s creativity. 

These uses are harmless; the biggest risks are missing out on a sale on airline tickets or a house you didn’t know was for sale. The political use of these tools is a threat because it can drive the narrative surrounding an issue. Automated web scraping allows political activists to easily collect data that supports their predetermined conclusion. 

Web scraping tools are ripe for misuse – whether intentional or incidental – when used for political purposes. The results should always be closely examined because these tools are subject to limitations including:

  • User input and biases: activists can easily and even subconsciously taint their findings by using only the common terminology that fits their ideology.
  • Overlooked context: when a web scraper returns a large number of results; the volume of the database is frequently more important than the details.
  • First-report errors: early reports on major issues often include errors and unsubstantiated claims. Breaking news reports on crime are the shining example of this limitation. A lack of follow-up queries also limits the credibility of such automated lists.

Those who want to strictly limit our Second Amendment rights rely on web scrapers to compile material they believe supports their agenda. Gun controllers want to present the biggest number possible. Their bots copy any website that mentions their keywords which are, of course, written in their own preferred language. Program the tool to find any mention of “gun violence” or “victim shot” and you won’t see much on defensive uses of guns or the shooting sports. 

The results should be placed into context, but rarely would an organization compromise its own mission so readily. Instead of talking about gang violence, gun controllers recast the same events as “mass shootings.” Instead of talking about the role of drugs or criminal conflicts, they spin the event into a case of gun violence that needs heightened regulation.

Take a quick spin through shootingtracker.com and you’ll see how most of the events described are not what are traditionally considered public mass shootings, at all.  This is agenda-pushing propaganda at its worst.  

Moreover, automated web queries and bots pull reports based on keywords, with no ability to discern fact from fiction. Late-night crime and breaking news reports are well-known to be riddled with errors, but a bot doesn’t distinguish between initial reports and completed investigations. When the web scraper returns an article or posting that says someone was shot, gun controllers chalk that up in their tally. When later investigations find that there is no evidence of shots fired, the perpetrator was a known violent felon, or the victim is a willing participant in the crime itself (as in a gang conflict), the tally may not be adjusted.

When the goal is to get a big number, web scraping gives gun controllers the ability to find the keywords they want and ignore the incidents and context that conflict with their position.  This is precisely what anti-gun advocates are looking for in pushing their narrative.

jeff sessions confirmation hearing

Jeff Sessions’ Devotion to the Constitution Shines Through in Contentious Confirmation Hearing

On January 10 and 11, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held the confirmation hearing for President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for United States Attorney General, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Throughout his distinguished career in public service, which includes 12 years as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions has exhibited the utmost respect for our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and has worked tirelessly to prosecute those who use guns in the commission of a crime. Despite the best efforts of some to disrupt the hearing and promote scurrilous allegations, an image of the real Sessions came through during the hearing – that of a principled statesman devoted to our Constitution.

Since his days as a U.S. Attorney, Sessions has pursued the vigorous prosecution of those who misuse firearms to prey on the public. During his opening remarks, Sessions made clear that he will make the prosecution of armed criminals a priority, noting, “If I am confirmed, we will systematically prosecute criminals who use guns in committing crimes. As United States Attorney, my office was a national leader in gun prosecutions every year.”

Later in his opening remarks, Sessions spoke of the importance of the Constitution, stating, “The Justice Department must remain ever faithful to the Constitution’s promise that our government is one of laws, not of men. It will be my unyielding commitment, if I am confirmed, to see that the laws are enforced faithfully, effectively, and impartially.” Given the prior administration’s propensity to stretch federal statute beyond its plain or intended meaning, gun owners should find such devotion to the rule of law a refreshing change.

From the outset, many of Sessions’ Senate colleagues were effusive in their praise of the nominee. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) noted that Sessions “is a man of honor and integrity, dedicated to the faithful and fair enforcement of the law who knows well and deeply respects the Department of Justice and its constitutional role.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) stated, “I can vouch confidently for the fact that Jeff Sessions is a person of integrity, a principled leader, and a dedicated public servant.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Sessions, “You’re a good and decent and honorable man. You’ve got an outstanding record that you should be proud of, and I know you are and you should be.”

Pointing to NRA-supported Project Exile, Cornyn went on to ask Sessions, “Can you assure us that you will make prosecuting those people who cannot legally possess or use firearms a priority again in the Department of Justice?” Sessions responded “I can,” adding that Project Exile “highlighted the progress that was being made by prosecuting criminals who use guns to carry out their crimes.” Sessions further noted that as a result of the strict enforcement of federal gun laws against armed criminals “Fewer people get killed,” and that “we need to step that up. It’s a compassionate thing.”

During his time, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed out some of the dangerous and partisan actions taken by the DOJ under Barack Obama – including Operation Fast and Furious and Operation Chokepoint – and asked whether Republicans, having taken control of the executive branch, should respond in kind by using the DOJ to “advance political preferences favored by the Republican party.” Sessions replied “No,” and explained that such partisan actions have “a corrosive effect on public confidence in the constitutional republic of which we are sworn to uphold.”

Anti-gun Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) questioned Sessions on the topic of gun control, asking, “Will you rigorously enforce statues that prohibit purchase of guns by felons or domestic abusers or drug addicts and use the statues that exist right now on the books to ban those individuals from purchasing guns?” Sessions responded adeptly, explaining, “Congress has passed those laws, they remain the bread and butter enforcement mechanisms throughout our country today to enforce guns laws. The first and foremost goal I think of law enforcement would be to identify persons who are dangerous, who have a tendency or have been proven to be law breakers and been convicted and those who are caught carrying guns during the commission of a crime.”

Despite the fact that, if confirmed, Sessions would be moving from a law-making capacity to enforcing the laws created by Congress, Blumenthal went on to ask Sessions if he supported so-called “universal” background check legislation for firearm transfers. Sessions dismissed the notion as impractical in many circumstances.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) used his time to ask Sessions to share his thoughts on the Second Amendment. Sessions responded with a staunch defense of the right to keep and bear arms, stating, “I do believe the Second Amendment is a personal right. It’s an historic right of the American people, and the Constitution protects that and explicitly states that. It’s just as much a part of the Constitution as any of the other great rights and liberties that we value.”

As befitting his character, Sessions was not fazed by repeated attempts to disrupt his confirmation hearing. Some of the professional agitators that could be seen in the crowd have previously protested and attempted to disrupt NRA events and business. During the Sessions hearing, one such provocateur from Code Pink was removed from the hearing while carrying a sign that in part read, “Support Civil Rights.” The scene will strike many gun rights supporters as bizarre, given that the protestor’s group has a history of opposing the natural right to self-defense and the corresponding right to keep and bear arms.

In closing the first day of the committee hearing, Grassley told Sessions, “You’re imminently qualified to serve as attorney general and I have every confidence that you’re going to do a superb job.” Grassley is right. However, whether due to petty partisan politics, or attempts at personal political profit, there are still some who seek to derail Sessions’ confirmation.

That is why it is vital that gun owners take the time to urge their Senators to confirm Sessions as U.S. Attorney General. NRA has made it easier than ever for gun rights supporters to contact their elected officials. To help ensure Sessions is the next U.S. Attorney General please use the following link to register your support: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170105/urge-your-senators-to-confirm-jeff-sessions. You can also call your U.S. Senators via the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

jeff-sessions-800x430

Gun Rights Organization: ‘Call Your Senators To Confirm Sessions as U.S. Attorney General’

BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is today encouraging its members and supporters to contact their U.S. Senators and urge them to confirm Sen. Jeff Sessions as the next United States Attorney General.

Jeff Sessions is a man who clearly understands the Second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He doesn’t merely ‘support’ the Second Amendment with lip service, he has defended it against erosion by anti-gunners during his Capitol Hill career.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will take up Sessions’ nomination Tuesday morning.

“Senate confirmation of Jeff Sessions as our next Attorney General will bring about much-needed change at the Department of Justice,” Gottlieb continued. “Instead of promoting or defending schemes that impact law-abiding Americans, his track record shows that he will go after genuine criminals.

“Senator Sessions has fought proposals that sought to ban firearms,” he added, “and he also opposed the nominations of both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because of their anti-Second Amendment records.”

Gottlieb recently suggested that the next Attorney General appoint an assistant whose job will be to seek out and challenge state and local gun laws that infringe on the Second Amendment.

“The nation is in serious need of an attorney general who knows the difference between civil rights and criminal wrongs,” Gottlieb concluded.

The U.S. Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. To reach your senator via e-mail, log onto http://www.senate.gov/general/contacting.htm

ABOUT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Black Leaders Who Support Jeff Sessions: ‘He Is a Good Man, Let That Be Heard’

The Real Reason for the Left’s All-Out Assault on Jeff Sessions

united-states-ft-lauderdale-shooting-joe-raedle-getty-640

Readers respond to the Ft. Lauderdale attack and Guns: Here are Your Answers

We asked our US readers: Is there a way to ensure terrorists can’t carry out attacks in airports while allowing legal weapons into airports?

Clarion Project asked our American readers the following question:

Is there a way in future to ensure terrorists can’t carry out attacks in airports, while allowing citizens to legally bring weapons into airports?

Here are some of the 80 answers we received.

We urge our readers to get involved in educating the public and taking political action against radical Islam. Clarion’s full-length documentaries are all available to be screened – privately, for a group in your house or at a community function.

Get involved! For more information, please contact info@clarionproject.org.

My opinion is we can’t over react to every event.  Yes, analyze if we can improve, but not at the expense of freedoms. You can’t make every pubic place risk free.

M

At the end of the day, the non-secure section(s) of an airport are no different than any other public space, such as a mall. I am not sure that protecting people in these public spaces is more important than any other.  Are travelers more important and/or more vulnerable than shoppers at malls or fans at a sporting event?

RP

Terrorists will use something else to kill if guns are banned.  

JM

Since criminals don’t obey laws, the solution is to stop the idea of these areas of the airports from being gun-free zones.

RK

One thing that would help is to allow law-abiding citizens to conceal carry handguns in such places. Had there been one or more such person when this criminal began to act, there would have been hope he would have been stopped! But, when guns are banned, criminals rule!

RK

I’m sorry but gun control is not needed, what is needed is to remove all gun-free zones. Our people can take care of themselves. When flying with checked firearms, the owner should have to pick up that firearm at an authorized location outside of baggage claim. A waiting time maybe warranted to pick up the fire arm.

JP

Good thing this didn’t happen in Dallas/Ft. Worth or anywhere in Texas where everyone in the state can carry a gun or dead would be tripled!!

CB

I’m all for our 2nd Amendment Rights, but there should be other measures put into place such as turning guns and ammo over to security. Security then places them in some secured box in the planes holding compartments. Once the individual gets to his destination, security retrieves the gun and ammo, escorts the individual out of the terminal before turning over the gun ammo. Maybe not 100% fool proof but pretty close.

MW

We are an unprotected population. The police show up after they are called to an event. I spent time in France this summer, and I saw groups of three armed guards everywhere I went. They wore camouflage uniforms and held machine guns in their hands. I felt safer there because of their presence.

CR

Ohio just enacted legal concealed carry in non-secure airport areas.   You can’t make all areas perfectly secure.   Best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

KK

Place officers both uniformed and plain clothes in public non-secure areas. Also, someone picking up a checked weapon should be required to leave the premises immediately under the supervision of an officer. Another solution is that all weapons should not be shipped with ammunition except those for authorized law enforcement personnel. No loaded clips, boxes etc. The airlines would love this — they could charge them more.

CS

I think it would be ok if people pick up the weapons in a secure and more controlled environment.  Maybe need to restrict the ammo.

RH

Aren’t guns brought into airports by travelers supposed to be unloaded?  And, what is the difference between a shooting at an aiport vs. a shooting at a mall? People are injured in both situations. The difference is the location.  

C

All guns and ammunition should be checked, catalogued and stored separately from other luggage. They should then be delivered to a specifically designed, security-controlled area outside the perimeter of the airport for collection by the owners.

AB

Checking guns in for travel isn’t the problem. If someone wants to shoot and terrorize at an airport, or anywhere for that matter, all they have to do is walk in the front doors and begin shooting. Criminals don’t obey regulations and certainly do not read signs prohibiting such activities. Allowing all people to carry concealed weapons in any public area would most likely have stopped such a mass shooting. shortly after the first bullet had been fired.

SF

Ft. Lauderdale baggage area is totally unprotected, totally lax. Anyone can enter from outside. Guards should be posted at all entrances. Luggage should be sealed with tape at trip outset, and the tape only allowed to be removed outside the airport, or under supervision of armed security. If the luggage contains firearms, it should be so labelled.

RA

Why not fear for shopping malls, football games, beaches, all dance halls and music venues, the grocery stores, parades, schools, starbucks and coffee bean, etc. The problem isn’t the location — it’s the people. Profile or lose America and world freedom to the ambitions of the globalist socialists who adamantly refuse to see truth because it conflicts with their ambitions.  The paranoia at airports relates to bringing down planes. But that doesn’t apply here

RX

I’d opt for not allowing weapons to be checked baggage and have people ship them to their destination in advance via Fed Ex or other common carrier.

DV

This is a no-brainer. Citizens with guns do not belong in airports, and if they want to transport firearms they can find a different, more suitable way. We need sensible and better gun control or we will continue to see these attacks.

AS

I suppose you will get many letters saying “take away all guns” and “guns kill people.” Well, Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and the most murders. Guns kill people.  Yes, and cars kill people.  And trucks kill people.  So… take away all cars?  Or trucks? We need an entirely new approach. What we have now is not working. 

LT

Law abiding citizens with lawfully owned firearms are guardians of the peace. You have never heard about a mass shooting at a gun show have you? These attacks always happen in “gun-free” ones only. If guns were the problem, the number of shootings in Wyoming would far surpass Chicago — as every vehicle in Wyoming has at least one firearm in it.

KS

This is an easy fix.  When my children were under age and flew alone, I paid $100 or so extra to check them in with an airline escort.  Weapons could be the same way.  Arrange beforehand to take a weapon.  Contact a contractor outside the airport.  Pay the fee and the certified contractor brings the weapon to the correct flight.  On pick up, it would be the same.  Get your weapons outside from the contractor. A little inconvenient but very secure.  Make it so that people enter the physical building after passing security.

GA

Perhaps all guns should be mailed separately.

M

I have a solution to stop any more terrorist attacks like the Ft. Lauderdale terror attack. Do not allow ammo to be checked in or transported while flying. Allow weapons only! No ammo allowed in  airports period.

JH

Banning the ability for passengers to carry firearms in checked luggage will not eliminate airport shootings.  The killer could just as easily have shot up the airport in Anchorage where he lived, or driven south with the loaded gun and shot up any other airport or public place.

B

The answer is simple, allow and especially train folks to carry in those areas. Totally eliminate “gun-free” zones, for they are magnets for those who would do us harm.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Should Parents Ransom Their Children From Terrorists?

How Edward Snowden Helped Terrorists Succeed

House Homeland Security Chair Backs Brotherhood Ban

U.S. Islamist Group: Fake Friendship with Non-Believers

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a young woman running behind a police officer as they seek cover outside the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International airport after a shooting took place near the baggage claim on January 6, 2017. (Photo: © Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

jeff-sessions

Sen. Jeff Sessions will fight for the Second Amendment

For the last eight years, Americans who care about the Second Amendment and our right to self-defense have faced an administration intent on dismantling those freedoms. The gun control lobby, funded by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, tried to turn the 2016 election into a referendum on the Second Amendment — and they lost. Now, due in no small part to the efforts of the National Rifle Association and our members, law-abiding gun owners can look forward to a president who respects our rights. In that regard, we should all be happy about President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be the next attorney general.

Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch’s politicization of the Department of Justice over the last eight years will not be reversed overnight. But in Jeff Sessions, we can look forward to an attorney general who will focus the Department’s attention on prosecuting violent criminals and getting them off our streets. He will make our cities and communities safer.

Unlike his predecessors, Sessions knows that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. He strongly supports our Second Amendment freedoms and will work tirelessly to protect them. This is in marked contrast to Holder and Lynch, who constantly attacked America’s gun owners. Operation Choke Point, for example, was an organized effort to suffocate legitimate firearms retailers by denying them banking services. And who can forget Operation Fast and Furious, the gunrunning probe that allowed thousands of weapons to flow across the border into Mexico and end up in the hands of drug cartels?

The office of attorney general is of the utmost importance. This position is head of both the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the agencies tasked with enforcing federal gun laws. Over the last 10 years, America saw a dramatic decline in the number of federal firearms convictions – by nearly 35%. What’s more, President Obama pardoned criminals imprisoned for gun crimes.

Sessions has repeatedly called out anti-gun lawmakers for this hypocrisy. For decades, he has focused on the need to enforce existing laws, rather than pushing for new regulations that only affect the law-abiding. He is a constitutional lawyer with a deep understanding of the law, who believes in a justice system that is fair and equitable to all Americans.

Throughout his time in the U.S. Senate, Jeff Sessions has been a strong leader for our rights. In 2005, for example, Sessions argued on the Senate floor for passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act, to protect firearms manufacturers from predatory lawsuits. In addition, he led the charge against the U.S. Supreme Courtnominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both of whom had anti-Second Amendment records.

Sessions has voted to prohibit firearms confiscation during a declared state of emergency, and has opposed bans on America’s most popular firearms, calling them “the essence of gun ownership today.” He has also voted in favor of a national right-to-carry amendment, which would remove the confusing patchwork of state gun laws that often ensnare law abiding gun owners when they travel from state to state.

Finally, and importantly, Sessions supports programs such as Project Exile, which ensure that violent criminals who misuse firearms are sent to federal prison. When implemented in Richmond, Virginia back in the 1990’s, Project Exile caused the crime rate in that city to fall dramatically. Sessions knows what he is talking about. As a U.S. Attorney, Sessions prosecuted criminals who used guns.

Sessions’ strong record in support of Second Amendment rights and his focus on prosecuting violent criminals make him the right person to serve as our next attorney general. All Americans should support his nomination, and encourage their U.S. senators to do likewise.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column by Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, originally appeared in USA Today. The featured image of Senator Jeff Sessions is by Gage Skidmore. To learn more about Senator Sessions click here.

miss-sloane-film

Miss Sloane: America Votes ‘NO’ Once Again

“You can’t win them all,” as the old saying goes, but when it comes to the Second Amendment, gun control advocates can’t even come close. Such is clearly the case with Miss Sloane, the latest of Hollywood’s repeated attempts to push a gun control narrative on the American people.  Of course, they didn’t see this coming, any more than they saw a Donald Trump victory coming.  But that’s because they refuse to acknowledge the basic simple truth about the American people when it comes to our firearms freedom.  Well, we’ll say it again, the American people aren’t buying your anti-gun narrative.  

Miss Sloane features Jessica Chastain as a Washington lobbyist who takes on “the establishment” to push for passage of gun control in the U.S. Congress.  As reported by Stephen Gutowski at freebeacon.com, the “political thriller” opened last weekend to much buzz and fanfare among gun control groups, but tanked completely at the box office, making one industry list of the worst openings of the past 35 years for a movie with a national release.

Incredibly, Gutowski reports that a representative of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence actually said, “… I can tell you that its production alone, with our input, is the success.”  In other words, it is of little consequence that nobody wants to see a movie that pushes for gun control, its mere existence is what matters. 

This very telling admission provides great insight into the base motive and method of those in the gun control movement and their view of policy-making in the United States.  What the American people want is irrelevant, gun control elites know better, and they will continue to push their message through all available means.  They certainly have willing accomplices in the media and entertainment industry.

But we will warn those in the gun control movement not to take box-office losses lightly.  Because Hollywood does not.  Lest anyone forget, it is middle-America that provides the means which afford so many in the entertainment industry extraordinary wealth and lavish lifestyles.  

While Hollywood elites may joke about “flyover country” at haughty cocktail parties, they do understand that the proverbial golden goose, in their case, are those whose lifestyle and culture they often openly disdain.  Or, at least those who hold the purse-strings understand.

Yet evidence from this week appears to suggest that the continued tantrum over Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election is unlikely to abate any time soon.  A group of actors, led by Martin Sheen, produced a video which attempts to convince members of the Electoral College to reverse the results of the election when they meet next week. 

This brazen attempt to undermine the results of the presidential election is without a parallel in modern history.  Moreover, the appeal includes references to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in establishing the Electoral College as a means to protect the American people.  Can anyone say hypocritical and Hollywood in the same sentence?  Remember, Hollywood and media elites routinely attack many of the protections of the U.S. Constitution, or at least the Second Amendment, as “the dead hand of the past,” and promote the idea that the Constitution should be a “living, breathing” document that should be interpreted through a present-day lens.  It is remarkable they would so cynically turn to what the Founders intended when it serves them to do so.

Whether Hollywood ever gets it remains to be seen. In the meantime, those who cherish freedom can and should continue to exercise sound judgement in deciding how to spend their hard-earned dollars when it comes to entertainment and leisure. For Hollywood, that message will eventually be heard loud and clear.

ohio-flag

Ohio Concealed Carry Bill Passes Assembly with Impressive Majority

Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauds the Ohio General Assembly for its overwhelming support of legislation that expands the rights of concealed carry permit holders in the Buckeye state.

“Crimes can happen anywhere, at any time. Gun free zones don’t deter criminals, they create victims,” said Amy Hunter, Ohio spokesperson, NRA-ILA. “This important piece of legislation will make people safer. If enacted, concealed carry permit holders will be able to exercise their rights in places where they are currently left defenseless. Additionally, this bill awards military members – who are already among America’s most trusted citizens – more freedom to employ their Second Amendment freedoms.”

If signed by Gov. John Kasich, Senate Bill 199 will expand the list of places a concealed carry permit holder can have their firearm. For example, SB 199 would allow permit holders to store their firearms in their vehicles when parked at work. Additionally, SB 199 will allow members of the military to carry concealed without a permit.

The bill overwhelmingly passed the General Assembly early Friday and now heads to the governor’s desk to await his signature.

“This legislation would make Ohio a safer place. It’s as simple as that,” concluded Hunter.

nra-watchlist

New ‘Watchlist’ Sends Outspoken Academics into a Tailspin

A new “watchlist” is ruffling feathers in the academic community, with critics calling it “Orwellian,” “grotesque,” “an assault on academic freedom,” and even “the right’s new McCarythyism.”

Oh, we’ve been there, too. NRA has long warned of the dangers of using secret government blacklists to deny people their Second Amendment rights without due process, transparency, or oversight.

Gun control advocates (including the Obama White House), on the other hand, believe the use of black lists to curtail Second Amendment rights is a “common sense step.” They also argue that the government should run a background check any time a lawfully owned firearm changes hands, even between neighbors, friends, and relatives. It’s a “no-brainer,” they’ll tell you. 

But watchlists and background checks are not so popular with Obama and his fans in other contexts. 

When used to screen out job applicants with criminal histories, for example, background checks are said to be discriminatory, even if the same hiring standards apply to all. It’s not “common sense,” apparently, to favor a law-abiding person to handle a business’s merchandise or money over someone who has recently been convicted of fraud or theft. 

And it’s REALLY not common sense, according to a growing roster of anguished media accounts, to aggregate a list of online news stories about academics who publicly espouse certain political points of view, as in the case of the recently launched “Professor Watchlist,” a project of Turning Point USA.

As described on its website, “This watchlist is an aggregated list of pre-existing news stories that were published by a variety of news organizations.” Its editors will “accept tips for new additions on our website,” but will “only publish profiles on incidents that have already been reported by a credible source.” They also state that they “will continue to fight for free speech and the right for professors to say whatever they wish” but that they believe “students, parents, and alumni deserve to know the specific incidents and names of professors that advance a radical agenda in lecture halls.” 

The site is searchable by professor name and employing institution. It is said currently to contain about 200 entries and includes stock photographs of the listed academics, summaries of their purportedly “radical” statements, and links to the underlying sources. The website does not suggest how browsers should use its information, nor advocate for any specific action against the listed individuals.

One entry, for example, concerns Alvin Lee, a human resources training specialist at Purdue University. According to the linked story from The College Fix website, Lee teaches a Management 301 course in which he labels various phrases as “microaggressions” and dismisses the idea of a meritocracy.  The phrases he subjects to criticism include asking a person where he or she is from, suggesting “[e]veryone can succeed in society if they work hard enough, “ and believing “the most qualified person should get the job.”

Several of the entries on the watchlist specifically mentioned the professors’ statements about NRA and its members.

James Pierce, an adjunct professor at Southern State Community College, is cited for a Facebook post in which he wrote, “Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors.”

Erik Loomis, a history professor at the University of Rhode Island, is singled out for a series of anti-NRA tweets in which he blamed NRA for the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. “I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick,” he wrote. He also claimed “the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children” and asked if NRA membership could count as “dues contributing to a terrorist organization?” 

Journalism professor David Guth, of the University of Kansas, earned his spot on the list with his own tweet after another high profile mass murder. “The blood is on the hands of the #NRA,” he wrote. “Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you.” When representatives of the Campus Reform website later asked Guth about the tweet, he acknowledged writing it and expressed no remorse. “I do not regret that Tweet,” Guth stated. “I don’t take it back one bit.”

College is of course a very expensive proposition these days. Parents and potential students have to weigh a multitude of factors in choosing the right institution for their needs. And alumni are perpetually solicited for money to promote the values and educational programs of their former schools. The Professor Watchlist could be considered one more data point for decision-making in these circumstances. One could even think of it as an informal background check on those tasked with influencing the minds and values of America’s rising generation of adults.

But despite inapt comparisons to 1984 and McCarthyism, the effort does not employ the heavy hand of government coercion or official disapproval. It is distinguishable, in that regard, from such efforts as the infamous “Rightwing Extremism” report issued by Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security. That report indicated that mainstream and widespread political views, such as opposition to gun control and concern over illegal immigration, were contributing to a rise in “radicalization” and “recruitment” among antigovernment groups. This activity, DHS warned, could “result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities” and “lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.” It’s also distinguishable from the government-maintained Terrorist Watchlist and No-Fly List at the center of various gun control proposals.

The principal behind the private non-profit Turning Point USA is 23-year-old political activist Charlie Kirk. Explaining the motivation behind the watchlist, Kirk stated, “Everyday I hear stories about professors who attack and target conservatives, promote liberal propaganda, and use their position of power to advance liberal agendas in their classroom.” He continued, “Turning Point USA is saying enough is enough.  It’s time we expose these professors.” 

And, after all, isn’t exposure of his or her ideas what every principled and ambitious academic seeks?

In any case, private groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have been doing similar things for years, appointing themselves curators of this or that list of groups or people who don’t meet their approval for one reason or another. SPLC, for example, maintains its “Extremist Files,” which in some cases include groups that do not advocate violence or lawlessness but which have political or cultural views that diverge from those of the SPLC. Far from being decried by the mainstream press as Orwellian or McCarthyist, however, SPLC is often cited as if it were an authority on the subject of extremism.

Whatever one might think of Turning Point USA’s efforts, it’s hard not to detect more than a hint of hypocrisy amongst an academy and press that revel in pointing condemning fingers at others but shudder with indignant horror when the spotlight is turned on those with whom they identify.

RELATED ARTICLE: What gun groups want from Trump

keith-ellison

DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is an Anti-Second Amendment Radical

It appears that those gun rights supporters hoping that the leaders of the Democratic Party would engage in a moment of self-reflection following their historic defeat in the 2016 election may be left wanting. Despite having been routed in contests throughout the middle of the country, Democrats are on the verge of electing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), an avowed opponent of gun rights, to Chair the Democratic National Committee. Ellison has made clear that he believes the Democratic Party should not only pursue a litany of severe gun control measures, but that the party should also directly attack the Second Amendment.

During an appearance on the March 21, 2014 episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Ellison explained his position on firearms. During a discussion on the efficacy of gun control, Maher challenged Ellison on the Second Amendment, which resulted in the following exchange:

View Related Articles

Maher: Then why doesn’t your party come out against the Second Amendment? It’s the problem.

Ellison: I sure wish they would. I sure wish we would.

Maher: Really? Because I never hear anybody in the Democratic party say that. But they say, ‘I am also a strong supporter.’

Ellison: You’ve got to check out the progressive caucus. We have come out very strong for common-sense gun safety rules.

The lawmaker went on to further characterize the type of gun control he supports by telling Maher, “what it means is that if you want to have grandpa’s shotgun, have it, but get rid of the crazy military-style assault weapons.”

Ellison’s long history of working against the rights of gun owners stretches back to the time he spent in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003-2007.

In 2003, Minnesota became a Right-to-Carry state with the passage of the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act. This was accomplished when the Minnesota House amended a Senate natural resources bill by adding Right-to-Carry language. The bill was subsequently approved by the Minnesota Senate and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Ellison voted against the House amendment that added the Right-to-Carry language and the entire bill. Further, during Minnesota’s 2003-2004 legislative session, Ellison served as an author, or was the chief author, of numerous bills to encumber the Right-to-Carry, along with legislation to repeal the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act entirely.

Following passage, opponents of Minnesota’s new Right-to-Carry law filed suit, claiming among other things that the addition of the Right-to-Carry language to a natural resources bill violated the Minnesota State Constitution’s requirement that legislation be limited to a single subject. After a lower court struck down the law, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in April of 2005.

In response to the court ruling, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a new Right-to-Carry law in May, 2005. Making clear that his opposition to the 2003 legislation was not a principled stance for the Minnesota Constitution, but rather an expression of his disdain for the right to keep and bear arms, Ellison opposed the new Right-to-Carry legislation at every turn.

As the 2005 legislation was making its way through the Minnesota Legislature, Ellison attempted to weaken the bill by offering an amendment that would have prohibited carry at various locations, including sports facilities, convention centers, and movie theaters, unless “expressly permitted by the management or operator of the facility.” Ellison also voted in favor of an amendment that would have permitted business owners to prohibit lawfully possessed firearms from parking areas, an amendment that would have forced business owners who did not prohibit firearms on their premises to post a “conspicuous sign at every entrance” notifying the public that that they allow firearms on the property, and yet another amendment that would have undermined Minnesota’s firearms preemption statute.

Of course, Ellison also voted against final passage of the 2005 Right-to-Carry bill.

In 2006, Ellison was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Since joining the U.S. Congress, Ellison has cosponsored a wide array of anti-gun legislation and has acted as a fierce advocate for harsh gun restrictions.

Ellison has supported bills that would ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, ban popular types of ammunition, require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and expand the categories of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms.

Ellison is also a cosponsor of H.R. 3830, the “Reducing Gun Violence in our Neighborhoods Act of 2015.” This misleadingly-titled bill would impose an additional $100 tax “upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any firearm.” This legislation also threatens the privacy of gun owners by forcing them to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement for inclusion in a federal database.

Of the numerous gun control measures Ellison supports, three in particular serve to illustrate the severity of Ellison’s anti-gun fervor.

Ellison is a cosponsor of H.R. 3411, the “Fix Gun Checks Act of 2015”, and H.R. 3051, the “Background Check Completion Act.” H.R. 3411 would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by forcing individuals to conduct nearly all firearms transfers through a Federal Firearms Licensee and subject to a background check. H.R. 3051 would eliminate a vital protection that permits a gun dealer to transfer a firearm to a prospective transferee three business days after a NICS background check has been initiated, as long as the FBI has not notified the dealer that the transferee is prohibited. This safeguard prevents the federal government from indefinitely suspending a firearm transfer without proper reason.

Ellison supports these background check measures despite being a staunch critic of the federal government’s ability to conduct accurate background checks. On August 2, 2013, Ellison introduced H.R. 2999, the Accurate Background Check Act, which sought to place safeguards on FBI background checks conducted for employment purposes. In a press release that announced the legislation, Ellison lamented, “Up to 600,000 Americans are wrongfully denied a job every year simply because the information on their background checks is wrong.” Explaining a provision of the legislation that provided a safety valve for prospective employees, Ellison stated, “Under the ABC Act, the FBI will have ten days to find missing and incomplete information on rap sheets. If they can’t find final outcomes of arrests and court orders, the FBI will be required to remove the information from the background check.”

In June, Ellison participated in the widely-publicized gun control “sit-in” on the House floor. A purported goal of the protest was to force a vote on unconstitutional so-called “no fly, no buy” legislation that would permit the federal government to eliminate an individual’s Second Amendment rights without due process of law based on their placement on a secret government list. Minneapolis-based online newspaper MinnPost quoted Ellison as saying, “If law enforcement has deemed you to be so dangerous that you can’t get on an airplane, then maybe you shouldn’t be able to go get a gun… I’m happy to suspend your right to get a gun to sort out whether you should be in that program or not.”

Ellison is acutely aware of the problems inherent in using secret government lists as a tool to restrict rights, as he authored an April 9, 2014 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson that took issue with the accuracy of the federal government’s secret watch lists and the lack of opportunity for redress. In a news release that accompanied the letter on Ellison’s website, the congressman acknowledged that his own constituents have faced difficulties stemming from their placement on a secret government watch list.

The fact that Ellison seems to understand the problems attendant to government background checks and secret government watch lists in certain civil liberties contexts, but not as they pertain to Second Amendment rights, underscores the congressman’s anti-gun zealotry.

Ellison’s radical anti-Second Amendment positions will not win the Democratic Party favor with the American people. Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Recent surveys have also revealed that majorities oppose a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and understand that more Americans exercising their Right-to-Carry makes the country safer.

Following past defeats, the more rational leaders of the Democratic Party worked to steer the party away from the gun control issue in order to improve the Democrats’ electoral prospects. Choosing Ellison to lead the party would be doubling down on an anti-gun strategy that has failed time and time again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Keith Ellison’s Disinformation Campaign by Steven Emerson – IPT News

Jewish opposition grows to Keith Ellison’s bid to head Democratic National Committee

make-america-again-45-automatic

3 Ways Trump Can Advance Gun Rights In His First 100 Days

Now that the election is over, we need to start looking ahead; moving forward not only as a party, but as a nation. One of those bright spots not too far off on the horizon is the topic of gun rights. With a Republican president, Senate, and House, gun rights activists can breath easy that their wishes will be upheld in Washington DC come January 20th, 2017.

Or can they?

Let’s take a look at a few key things a Trump administration could do in the first 100 days to ease tension and reassure the NRA card carrying members that all is well.

Appoint A Supreme Court Justice Sympathetic To Gun Rights

The passing of Justice Scalia was a hit to the conservative movement as a whole, not just the gun rights lobby. However, an important way for Trump to earn their trust would be to put gun rights front and center in the conversation about who to appoint next. While gun rights is arguably not the most crucial issue facing the country, appointing a solid, conservative judge that is pro-gun would definitely help protect the 2nd amendment for the next generation.

Stand Up And Allow Carry on Military Bases

Every time there is a shooting on a military base we have the same discussion: Why can’t our men and women in uniform carry their own weapons on a military base if they are trained to use them while in the military.

Since the Fort Hood attack in 2009, we’ve had more than a dozen additional shootings on military installations in the United States. These tragedies are hard to predict and even harder to stop once they have started; the most likely outcome is that the damage is done well before any law enforcement arrive. Many believe that the prohibition of carry by service members helps encourage these types of attacks on military bases.

Get Involved In Gun Sports To Show His Support

One of President-elect Trump’s sons is very active in outdoor sports, shooting, and general adventure however the billion dollar Businessman himself isn’t quite as active. He claims to have a concealed carry license but isn’t as strong of a supporter of the 2nd amendment as some would like.

The problem?

Well, there isn’t one really. As long as he passes and approves legislation that helps those who hold their firearms near and dear to their heart he will be fine. The sentiment remains, however, that seeing him “walk the walk” a bit more would be nice.

While these three options certainly aren’t a comprehensive list, they would be a great start to help sooth the tensions of some of American’s staunchest proponents of the right to bear arms. In addition to more widespread use of guns, another important thing Mr. Trump should focus on is working on some national gun safety campaign. Most people who support the 2nd amendment are very sober in their understanding of guns; guns are very dangerous. Mr. Trump may add some legitimacy to his stance on both sides by taking a look at things that can be done to increase gun safety at the federal level.

a-miguel-diaz-de-la-portilla_0

Florida Republican who killed pro-gun bills loses seat, gives hope to 2A advocates by Chris Eger

A powerful south Florida state senator who repeatedly sidelined popular gun rights legislation lost his seat Tuesday, opening the door for campus carry and open carry in the Sunshine State.

Florida State Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, chairs the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and in 2015 refused to hold hearings on a bill to allow legal concealed carry on public colleges and universities. Diaz de la Portilla was also a fly in the ointment when it came to derailing an emergency concealed carry bill the year before and in 2016 was key in killing bills on campus carry and open carry, refusing to even meet with advocates.

However, even though he was supported by a $85,000 ad campaign paid for by Everytown, state Rep. Jose Javier Rodriguez, a Democrat, beat Diaz de la Portilla in this week’s election.

While the loss of his seat was balanced out in the Senate by Democratic Sen. Dwight Bullard’s defeat by Republican Rep. Frank Artiles, sustaining the GOP with a 25-15 majority in the chamber, gun rights advocates argue the vanquished lawmaker simply reaped what he sowed.

“Senator Diaz de la Portilla broke his word,” Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and a former National Rifle Association president, told Guns.com Wednesday. “He betrayed gun owners and bragged about it. People know not to trust a man who not only breaks his word but then brags about being deceitful. He engineered his own defeat.”

Further, with Diaz de la Portilla out of the mix next year, open carry advocates see the upcoming session as a bright one provided the state’s high court hasn’t already stricken an ongoing lawsuit against the prohibition.

“Betrayal of gun owners is not the way for a Republican to win re-election,” Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, told Guns.com. “Assuming that the Florida Supreme Court has not ruled yet on the Norman case before the legislative session, we will be back with the same open carry bill that passed the Florida House last year.”

Those in support of dropping gun free zones at the state’s public colleges and universities also see hope with Diaz de la Portilla’s Tallahassee privileges revoked.

“We are in a very advantageous political position this year, especially now that Diaz de la Portilla cannot block our efforts,” Bekah Hargrove, a member of the board of directors for Florida Students for Concealed Carry, said in an email to Guns.com. “The people have shown they do not appreciate politicians who lie and advance their own agenda, while ignoring the wishes of their constituents. We have been planning a major effort for this the upcoming session and with this news, our supporters will be even more energized to fight for the rights of Floridians.”

The regular session of the new Florida Senate convenes on March 7, 2017.

police

Florida Right-to-Carry Permit Holder Saves Deputy Sheriff from Violent Attack

Law enforcement is at its best when police can rely on the support of the communities they serve to assist in their fight against crime. This cooperation between citizens and police can come in many forms, however, this week witnessed a profound instance of citizen support for law enforcement when a Right-to-Carry permit holder came to the defense a law enforcement officer in Lee County, Fla.

On the morning of November 14, Lee County Sheriff’s Deputy Dean Bardes and members of the Florida Highway Patrol were tending to an accident on Interstate 75 when a motorist nearly struck Bardes with his vehicle. The near miss prompted Bardes to pursue the motorist until he stopped at an off ramp.

Upon conclusion of the chase, the motorist exited his vehicle and physically attacked Bardes. During the altercation, the motorist tackled Bardes to the ground and got on top of him. As striking images of the encounter show, the driver then proceeded to viciously beat the officer. A witness to the assault described the scene to local media outlet WINK News, stating, “He threw the officer to the ground so violently. I mean it just it was awful. And he just started punching him and hitting and hitting and hitting. I thought he was going to kill him.”

As Bardes cried out for help, an armed Florida Concealed Weapon License holder happened upon the scene. The Right-to-Carry permit holder drew a gun and rushed from his vehicle to Bardes’ defense. The armed citizen repeatedly ordered the motorist to cease his assault. When the motorist continued to beat the deputy, the Right-to-Carry permit holder shot and killed the attacker.

Following the incident, Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott issued a statement commending the actions of the Right-to-Carry permit holder. Scott noted, “My deepest and sincere appreciation goes to the citizen who engaged the crazed assailant and stopped the imminent threat of great bodily harm or death to our Deputy.”

Those who follow NRA’s long running Armed Citizen column will know that this is nowhere near the first instance in which a law-abiding gun owner has come to the aid of a law enforcement officer. In fact, in 1996 NRA compiled a number of such instances into a booklet titled, “Armed Citizens & Police Officers: Partners in Fighting Crime.”

More recent examples of armed citizen support for police abound.

In July, Right-to-Carry permit holder Dylan DeBoard was granted a Citizen’s Award for Valor by officials in Mount Vernon, Ohio for his part in helping an officer in distress. A month earlier, Mount Vernon Police Department Cpl. Michael Wheeler was attempting to restrain a meth-addled homeless man when he was overpowered and pinned on his back. According to reports, Wheeler’s attacker attempted to get control of the officer’s sidearm.

DeBoard came upon the altercation and was able to distract the homeless man with his own firearm long enough for Wheeler to regain the upper hand in the fight and handcuff the vagrant. Following the incident, Wheeler remarked on how there were several other bystanders who offered no assistance, saying of DeBoard, “I wish a lot more of society would do what he did. There were people standing around, but they were just watching. I kept wondering why people didn’t do anything.”

In February, an armed citizen came to the defense of an officer under attack in the Philadelphia suburb of Upper Darby, Pa. A police officer was attempting to break up a fight outside Upper Darby High, when he was attacked by one teen and surrounded by a group of others. A nearby resident witnessed the altercation, retrieved a gun, and ordered the group to stop.

Describing the incident, Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood told a local media outlet, “There were 40 kids. If it wasn’t for the good Samaritan stepping forward, he’d have been dead meat… There’s no doubt they would have attacked him.” Chitwood also noted, “If this guy didn’t come out and come to the aid of the officer, this officer would have had significant problems.”

In May 2015, an armed citizen aided an officer in Oklahoma City, Okla. In this case, rookie Oklahoma City Police Officer Adam Eller pursued, then was attempting to arrest a suspected burglar when the suspect attacked. During the altercation, the suspect obtained control of Eller’s baton and repeatedly struck the officer in the head with it. An armed citizen witnessed the attack and rushed to the officer’s defense, ordering the suspect to cease his assault. 

Of course, in addition to instances where armed citizens have come to the assistance of an officer in peril, the Armed Citizen column is replete with examples of where law-abiding gun owners have assisted police in the apprehension of wrongdoers.

It is logical that gun owners and law enforcement routinely find themselves working in concert, as these groups are natural allies. As a group, Right-to-Carry permit holders have demonstrated the utmost respect for the law, with permit revocation data showing that they are more law-abiding than the general public.

In a decision characteristic of an individual responsible for such a noble deed, the armed citizen that came to Bardes’ aid wishes to remain anonymous. This anonymous hero deserves our admiration, and their actions will stand as another sterling example of the important bond between law-abiding gun owners and law enforcement.

trump-nra

VIDEO: Our Time is Now!

On November 8th, you made history. Your commitment and determination helped lead tens of millions of gun-owning voters to the polls, and your heroic efforts ended Hillary Clinton’s political career and sent Donald Trump and Mike Pence to the White House. It’s an achievement you can be proud of for the rest of your life.

Since Election Day, I’ve been bombarded with phone calls, letters, and emails from members across the country, all wanting to know how this election will impact our freedoms and where we go next. To answer your questions – and to say thanks for all your hard work – I’ve made a short video that you can watch right here.

You deserve the gratitude of every freedom-loving American. I hope you’ll watch my videoand stand tall with NRA in the weeks ahead. Together, we’ll get freedom back on the rails and reclaim the precious ground we’ve lost these past eight years.

I’ve never been more proud of you, and I’ve never been more proud of this great Association!

Wayne

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association