VIDEO: Northwestern University Teaches Students To Fight Shooters With Hole Punchers

NRATV Frontlines correspondent and veteran Army Ranger Chuck Holton joins Dana Loesch to weigh in.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Democratic Voters Rank Repeal of the Second Amendment Among Top Two Issues

NRATV’s Kerry Picket joins Dana Loesch with the latest.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Zhang H on Unsplash.

VIDEO: D.C. Carry Permits Skyrocket After Recent Move From “May Issue” to “Shall Issue”

Washington, D.C. concealed carry permits jump over 1440% since District went ‘shall issue.’

NRATV’s Kerry Picket joins Dana Loesch with the latest.

Indulgences for Hollywood as Movie Studio Buys Gun Offsets

In 2014, Hollywood movie mogul and fierce NRA critic Harvey Weinstein appeared to acknowledge the movie industry might be able to have a positive impact by reducing its glorification of criminal violence. Weinstein explained,

I have to choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be… I know for me personally … I can’t continue to do that. The change starts here. It has already. For me, I can’t do it. I can’t make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite.

To his credit, Weinstein eventually made good on his promise. Following a widely reported sexual harassment scandal, in 2018 The Weinstein Company declared bankruptcy.

In the meantime, the rest of Hollywood has picked up the slack by continuing to churn out depictions of graphic violence. As Weinstein knew, the glorification of violence sells. So one enterprising film company sought to develop a way to quell their moral pangs while continuing the on-screen carnage.

According to an October 25 press release, startup studio Level Forward (a partnership between gun control activist and Disney heiress Abigail Disney and Killer Content) will now only produce content that is “gun neutral.”

The press release explained,

For each prop gun that appears in a production, financiers and producers will add a “GUN NEUTRAL” budget line item to cover the cost of destroying real-world guns and to invest in community-based arts programs targeting youth in the most gun violence-ridden communities. An average of $15 per prop gun will be charged.

As part of the program, Level Forward has pledged the money to destroy 10 guns for every prop gun that appears in one of their productions. And Level Forward does not appear to be toning down the on-screen violence due to budgetary concerns. In its first three Gun Neutral films, 166 prop firearms were used, resulting in a pledge to destroy 1,660 real firearms.

The Gun Neutral concept will remind some of carbon offsets. Carbon offset policy attempts to apply market forces to reduce carbon emissions and can be government mandated or voluntary. In the U.S. in the mid-2000s it became fashionable for elites to purchase carbon offsets to repent for their jet setting high-consumption lifestyles. Critics charged that this hypocritical approach to environmentalism was akin to the medieval practice of buying indulgences for sins.

However, perhaps a comparison to the medieval Catholic Church isn’t fair to the church in this instance.

In order to carry out the Gun Neutral program, Level Forward has partnered with the group One Less Gun. On the One Less Guns website, visitors are told that for a donation of £5 (about $6.50) they too can assure one gun is destroyed. At an average of $15 per prop gun, Level Forward appears to be paying $1.50 per gun purported to be destroyed.

We’re not sure if the Catholic Church ever offered a bulk rate on indulgences.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jamie Lee Curtis Made Sure ‘Halloween’ Only Used Firearms for Self-Defense and Aligned With Her Views on Gun Control

Hollywood hates guns, except in movies like ‘Peppermint’

Gun control advocates turn to Hollywood for messaging help

House Democrats Outline Gun Control Agenda for 116th Congress

With anti-gun Democrats back in control of the House of Representatives come January, now is the time to prepare for a new onslaught on the Second Amendment. Emboldened by the mere thought of controlling the lower chamber, we are already seeing the warning signs of what will come for the next two years.

First, virtually all Democrat leadership positions are likely to be filled by long-time anti-gun zealots, such as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Similarly, key committees will surely be chaired by extremists with long histories of supporting any and all legislation designed to diminish the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

In other words, if you can imagine a new, draconian restriction on guns, gun owners, firearm parts and accessories, or ammunition, expect it to not only be introduced, but to be given a hearing. Also expect the anti-gun legacy media to openly fawn over these efforts. The same goes for any old proposals that have already been introduced and rejected, or even implemented and later repealed or abandoned after proving to be ineffective.

At the top of the list, of course, will be banning semi-automatic firearms. Extremists will try to ban America’s most popular rifle, the AR15, as well as any other semi-automatic rifle. The standard magazines that come with these rifles, as well as any that are sold separately that are deemed “too big,” will also be the target of bans. Most semi-automatic handguns and shotguns will also be swept into these bans.

“Universal” background checks are also a priority for anti-gun Democrats. In fact, Nancy Pelosi even promised to support criminalizing the private transfer of firearms if Democrats were given control of the House. Pelosi and her ilk will try to exploit all of the recent tragic shootings that have taken place in order to promote “universal” background check while ignoring the fact that none of them would have been impacted by such a scheme. The firearms in all of these horrific crimes were acquired through either the federally-mandated background check, or even more restrictive state systems.

There are many reasons to not trust Pelosi, but when it comes to her pledge to attack law-abiding gun owners, you can take that to the bank.

Democrats who have been chomping at the bit for years to push their anti-gun agenda in the House have made it very clear your rights are fair game, and they have said they will not waste any time once they seize the reins of control.

Along with semi-auto bans and “universal” background checks, expect to see attempts to tax firearms and ammunition out of the grasp of the average American. Through incompetence or malice, these legislative proposals will be so poorly drafted that it will be impossible for law-abiding gun owners to even attempt to comply with their byzantine provisions.

As an example, one need only look to the most recent gun control bill introduced in Congress. H.R. 7115, the so-called “3–D Firearms Prohibitions Act.” Attentive readers will probably notice that the bad drafting started with the title: we live in a three-dimensional world; so all firearms are necessarily “3-D.” Despite the title, the bill doesn’t seem to ban all firearms, however, it’s provisions are so poorly drafted and show such a incredible lack of understanding of firearms that it likely does ban nearly any part intended for use in a modern semi-automatic firearm. Even simple pins and springs seem to fall within the provisions of the bill.

While 7115 is unlikely to move in the current Congress, it will likely be on the agenda next year. But that’s just the start.

Ultimately, the Second Amendment will likely be under a more severe attack over the next two years than perhaps it has ever seen. With some sources showing that as many as one in five likely voters in Democrat primaries would like to see the Second Amendment repealed, it’s likely that some members of Congress will attempt to oblige.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After Gov’t Gun and Knife Bans Fail, Brits Take Matters into Their Own Hands

Trump On Pelosi Speakership: She Can Always Call On Me If She Needs Votes, ‘I Would Perform A Wonderful Service For Her’ 

Gun Rights Groups File Lawsuit Challenging WA State’s Recently Passed Gun Control Initiative 

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Californians Embrace the Second Amendment

John Von Colln: California Gun Store Flooded With New Customers. Even Californians Want to Be Safe.

Owner of Thousand Oaks VC Defense John Von Colln joins Dana Loesch to tell her why.

First Gun Confiscation Death

Why 5:17 a.m. – doesn’t appear to have been an imminent threat – this is ridiculous overreaction by law enforcement in the People’s Republic of Maryland and could happen anywhere.

These Red Flag Laws are also known in Florida as Risk Protection Orders under the Marjory Stoneman Public Safety (gun control) Law. We are the only Red state out of 12 which have instigated such laws. Already in Polk County since Sep 14, there have been 121 cases of gun seizures prior to a hearing. Don’t know how many of these cases were proven or unproven (and guns returned or how long it took) but in cases threat not proved, it is certain to generate unnecessary costs to those accused persons who elect to hire attorney and unnecessary humiliation.

Totally unconstitutional and in violation of Due Process. hard to believe Republican dominated Florida Legislature approved this and Governor Scott signed it.

This has got to be challenged in courts and soon before more innocent Americans are killed or put thru this wringer ignoring their 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights against false search and seizure and due process of being innocent until proven guilty based on someone’s unproven perception they are a threat!

You could predict this would happen in a state with red flag laws.

Breaking: First Gun Confiscation Killing Reported in Maryland

This is absolutely tragic. Police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland arrived at a man’s home to confiscate his guns under the state’s Red Flag law. When he answered the door holding a gun, a fight ensued and they shot him dead.

For months, we have been warning you about the so-called “red flag” bills that are being passed in states around the country. These laws allow family members, friends, and even complete strangers to turn gun owners into police to have their firearms confiscated. It is then up to the gun owner to prove that he or she deserves the right to keep and bear arms. It completely turns the justice system on its head. Under these laws, gun owners are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

On Monday morning, police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland showed up confiscate 60-year-old Gary J Willis’ guns. A family member had called police and asked them to suspend Gary Willis’ gun rights, and the local police department was more than happy to oblige.

When the pounding on the door began at 5:17 am, Gary showed up to his door holding a firearm. When he saw it was police, he put the gun down to talk to them. But then, the officers informed him they were there to confiscate all of his weapons.

Imagine how you would feel. You wake up out of a sound sleep to pounding on your door. You grab a gun in case it is a criminal, but it turns out that the police are there to confiscate your guns without even accusing you of committing a crime…

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Bruno Martins on Unsplash.

Voters Recoil at House Gun Agenda

California’s Nancy Pelosi (D) has been waiting to get her hands back on the House speaker’s gavel for nearly a decade. Now that she might, it’s obvious how she plans to use it: as a hammer on the values of everyday Americans.

Democrats have to know how voters feel about their radical social agenda. (If they didn’t, this week’s polling ought to make it quite clear.) Everyone from party bosses to the mainstream media blamed it for Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016. But with the keys of half of Congress within reach, liberal leaders just can’t seem to help themselves.

Pelosi was already quite clear about one of her first priorities: ending religious freedom and privacy as we know it. “It isn’t in our ‘For the People’ agenda,” she explained, “because it doesn’t get that specific, but there’s one more because it’s personal for me that I really want to do, and it’s called the Equality Act.” Considered the most radical piece of pro-LGBT legislation ever introduced in Congress, this bill would force Americans’ conformity on everything from sexuality to transgenderism. It would make what’s been unfolding in Target bathrooms look like a Sunday school picnic. Under this bill, anyone who objects to same-sex marriage or gender-specific policies would be severely punished by the government. That includes schools, businesses, food banks, adoption agencies, homeless shelters, faith-based ministries, and government offices.

As if that weren’t offensive enough, the prospective speaker wants to give voters a hefty dose of gun control. On CNN Thursday, Pelosi confirmed what most Americans fear. “I do believe, because in this Congress…there is bipartisan legislation to have common sense background checks to prevent guns going into the wrong hands. It doesn’t cover everything, but it will save many lives.” This, she said clearly, “will be a priority for us going into the next Congress.”

In a party that doesn’t know the meaning of the word “moderation,” this kind of ideological whiplash might backfire. It certainly did in 2010 and 2016. When voters entrusted the House to Democrats, it wasn’t an endorsement of their radical social agenda. If you don’t believe me, read the exit polling. Tuesday’s election was as much about the GOP’s inability to get values bills passed as anything else. This is where you will play a critical role in educating your senators, especially Republican senators, that they’re now the firewall between Nancy Pelosi and common sense American values.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida Dems: Steal Going Strong?

A Washington Post Mortem on SPLC

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO Colion Noir: Exposing ’60 Minutes’ Sensationalistic Reporting

Colion Noir, host of NRATV’s NOIR, joins the program to discuss and help expose 60 Minutes piece on the AR-15 as they vilified the popular sporting rifle. Colion also shares a preview of his latest episode of NOIR where he takes a look at the public safety issues that are affecting citizens in Albany, New York.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The AR-15: Americans’ Best Defense Against Terror and Crime

Department of Homeland Security states AR-15 Rifles “Suitable for Personal Defense”

VIDEO Colion Noir: Exposing ’60 Minutes’ Sensationalistic Reporting

Missing the Marx: Gun Control’s Future is … Communism?

After every high profile crime committed with a firearm of any sort, there are always calls for gun control. But one particular proposal this week managed to distinguish itself amid the usual din, if only for its audacity and what it reveals about the mindset of people who wish to disarm their fellow Americans.

In a lengthy article in Washington Monthly, private equity investor William V. Glastris, Jr. pitched a plan under which the federal government would obtain the means of handgun production, ban handgun importation, and target the current private handgun stock with a massive, nationwide “buyback.” The plan’s ultimate goal would be for “the government to significantly lower the supply—and thereby raise the price—of handguns … .”

Glastris admits the proposal is “not modest” but insists “Americans deserve broad, sweeping reforms,” rather than “years of painstaking incrementalism … .” He also dismisses the more conventional gun control agenda of banning semiautomatic rifles and “high capacity” magazines, closing the “gun show loophole,” and imposing categorical prohibitions on certain criminals. “[I[t is hard to argue that these reforms, even if they all went into effect, would do much more than put a modest dent in the problem,” Glastris writes.

There will come a time, Glastris speculates, when “Democrats control both the White House and Congress.” He continues, “When that moment arrives, wouldn’t it be better if, instead of debating marginal fixes, there were new ideas on the table to actually address the root of the problem by substantially reducing the number of guns in circulation?”

Of course, there have been other “visionaries” who have dreamed of common ownership of the means of production. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin come to mind.

And while Glastris is admittedly limiting his proposal only to the means of producing handguns, it still suffers from the inherent problems that have doomed similar ideological projects throughout history.

Glastris argues that his plan could be implemented “without infringing on Americans’ right to bear arms,” yet the whole point is to reduce the availability and raise the price of what the U.S. Supreme Court has called “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” If the same plan were implemented with regard to books, no one would dare claim that it did not violate the First Amendment.

It would also discriminate against the poor, who often live in the areas where police protection is stretched the thinnest and the need for self-defense may be especially acute.

Needless to say, the proposal would inevitably generate a massive federal registry of handgun purchasers, and with government controlling production, bureaucrats could require “safety” features long coveted by those who hate guns and shunned by those who actually own and use them. Besides “smart gun” gadgets that supposedly limit firing to “authorized users,” these could conceivably include monitoring or even remote override “features” that would give the government ultimate veto power over the gun’s use.

There is also the risk of corruption inherent in any government-run rationing scheme. This is a regular feature of regimes under which the government treats access to handguns as a state-granted privilege, rather than a fundamental right. Look no further than New York City, which has seen multiple prosecutions in recent years related the city’s pay-to-play issuance of handgun licenses.

Leave it to a left-leaning private equity investor to assume that Americans’ fundamental rights are merely one more type of commodity that can be bought and sold in a highly-manipulated market. Of course, left-leaning oligarchs regard American democracy itself that way, as something that can be had for a price and then used to suit their personal ends and preferences. And, they’ve spent heavily to ensure their chosen party controls Congress after November 6 and will no doubt be expecting a return on their investment in the form of public policy that meets their approval.

Gun owning Americans will have the chance to prove them wrong this Election Day.

And every firearm owner should go to the polls understanding the gun grabbers are dreaming big.

Big enough even to suggest one of history’s most destructive and sinister political and economic ideologies as the template for civilian disarmament.

RELATED VIDEO: Jacob Sullum: ‘Commonsense’ Gun Control Makes No Sense.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Former ATF Agent Pulls Mask Off Giffords’s Plans for Federal AR-15 Registration

Republican Mayor Survives Recall Effort After Twitter-Checking David Hogg

Tennessee: Governor Signs Multiple Pro-Gun Bills into Law

A Special Message from Wayne LaPierre and Chris W. Cox

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

TAKE ACTION: California DOJ Continues Efforts to Expand Application of Illegally Adopted ‘Assault Weapon’ Definitions

As reported last July, DOJ withdrew its attempt to expand the application of their illegally adopted definitions for terms used to identify “assault weapons” for the purposes of registration, the same definitions which are currently being challenged in a lawsuit supported by NRA and CRPA. But following a recently published notice, DOJ appears to be pressing forward with the same proposal in spite of its serious flaws.

According to the notice, DOJ has amended its “Initial Statement of Reasons” for their previously withdrawn regulation by purportedly clarifying what DOJ relied upon in drafting the definitions at issue. Should the proposal be adopted, all definitions DOJ adopted for the purposes of registering a newly classified “assault weapon” under SB 880 and AB 1135 will now also be applicable in terms of enforcement of California law. California gun owners and members of the public have until 5:00 P.M. on November 6, 2018 (election day), to submit comments on DOJ’s proposal which DOJ will be required to respond to.

We encourage all our members to do so.

Any regulation must generally be necessary for implementing the law, adopted pursuant to proper legislative authority, be easily understood, and not conflict with other laws. We ask our members to review DOJ’s definitions for themselves (such as “ability to accept a detachable magazine,” “disassembly of the firearm action,” “flash suppressor,” and “semiautomatic”) and provide comments as to whether they are easily understood by our members or will help them identify a particular firearm as an “assault weapon” under California law.

Be sure to submit your comments no later than 5:00 P.M. on November 6, 2018, to the following:

Kelan Lowney
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816-0487

Email: regulations@doj.ca.gov

NRA and CRPA attorneys are also reviewing the recently amended documents and will be submitting a letter of comment on behalf of NRA and CRPA and their members. Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight web page for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Washington Bishops Endorse Gun Control Initiative

NRATV correspondent Kerry Picket joins Dana Loesch with the latest.

EDITORS NOTE: This video with images is republished with permission.

Pro-gun Senate Majority is Crucial to Protecting the Second Amendment

The fate of our freedom hangs in the balance in this November’s elections for the U.S. Senate. The good news is that gun owners can once again make the difference in the fight for our rights. The bad news is that if we don’t—if we just sit on the sidelines and leave the battle to others—we will lose our rights for generations to come.

If any gun owners question the importance of having a pro-gun majority in the U.S. Senate, one need only consider that Justice Neil Gorsuch now sits on the Supreme Court and anti-gun Judge Merrick Garland does not. Without a doubt, the long-term impact of a pro-freedom Supreme Court cannot be overemphasized. And the only way to maintain and expand the number of justices who respect the Second Amendment is with a pro-freedom Senate.

But in addition to the Supreme Court, much more is at stake in the make-up of the Senate.

First and foremost, a loss for pro-gun incumbents and challengers means that Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would be the majority leader. And as we all know, Schumer has made a career of fighting to eliminate our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Additionally, we would lose key chairmanships that are vital for gun owners. On the Judiciary Committee, we would exchange Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a Second Amendment champion, for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a sworn enemy of gun owners.

… gun owners can be the grassroots force that protects our freedoms.

With this much to lose, protecting our pro-gun majority must be a top priority in this election.

Toward that goal, I am including information on a number of key races that gun owners can focus on this November. We will be providing additional information on other key Senate races in the coming weeks. These races will determine the future of the U.S. Senate and, with it, the future of our freedoms.

As mentioned earlier, a number of races are still awaiting the results of primary elections, and we will update you on those in the coming weeks. In the majority of these races, there will be a clear choice between a strong pro-gun candidate and a demonstrated opponent of our rights.

Just as in past elections, gun owners can be the grassroots force that protects our freedoms by helping pro-gun candidates achieve victory in November. Please go to the NRA-PVF website at nrapvf.org for crucial information and endorsements, so that you can take action to assist the pro-gun candidates in your area. Your efforts in this election will make the difference in keeping a pro-gun Senate majority and securing our rights.



Missouri:

AG Josh Hawley

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) is running for re-election, and this is a race where gun owners can absolutely make the difference. McCaskill is “F”-rated by the NRA’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) and has proven to be an enemy of the Second Amendment.

Her opponent will most likely be Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R). Hawley has earned an “A” from the NRA-PVF, is a strong advocate for the Constitution and has fought in the courts to protect our liberties.

With such a stark contrast in candidates, the choice for Missouri gun owners this November is clear.


Ohio:

Rep. Jim Renacci

Incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) is one of the most anti-gun politicians in Washington, D.C. He has voted against our rights time and again. His opponent, Rep. Jim Renacci (R), has earned an “A” rating from the NRA-PVF. Renacci has served in the U.S. House of Representatives for four terms, during which he has demonstrated his support for our Second Amendment rights. Replacing Brown with Renacci would be a major victory for gun owners.


Indiana:

Mike Braun

In Indiana, NRA members and gun owners have a choice between current U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D) and businessman Mike Braun (R). Unfortunately, Indiana NRA members and gun owners have not been able to count on Donnelly to fully support our Second Amendment rights. Braun, on the other hand, will be a strong vote for our constitutional freedoms, as demonstrated by his pro-gun voting record in the Indiana Legislature.


West Virginia:

AG Patrick Morrisey

In 2012, Sen. Joe Manchin (D) promised West Virginia NRA members and gun owners that he would strongly support their Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, he has not kept his word. Challenging Manchin is Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), a solid supporter of our right to keep and bear arms. Morrisey has signed legal briefs strongly supporting the Second Amendment, greatly expanded reciprocity agreements for holders of carry permits and stated his support for the constitutional carry legislation that became law in his state. West Virginia gun owners deserve an honest, consistent Second Amendment supporter in the U.S. Senate.


Montana:

Matt Rosendale

Another senator who has failed to keep his word to NRA members and law-abiding gun owners is Jon Tester (D) in Montana. Tester has opposed our rights, including voting for the confirmation of anti-guSupreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. In addition, he voted against Gorsuch. His opponent, former state Senate Majority Leader and State Auditor Matt Rosendale (R), is a true friend to Montana gun owners, so the choice in this race is clear.


Tennessee:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn

Tennessee gun owners can help to maintain a pro-gun majority in the U.S. Senate by supporting U.S Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) in her bid to replace Sen. Bob Corker (R), who is retiring. Blackburn has a long history of supporting the Second Amendment, co-sponsoring national reciprocity legislation as well as legislation to remove antiquated and unnecessary restrictions on interstate firearm businesses. In contrast, her opponent, former Gov. Phil Bredesen (D), twice vetoed NRA-supported restaurant carry legislation and cannot be trusted to support our right to keep and bear arms.


Pennsylvania:

Rep. Lou Barletta

This November, Pennsylvania gun owners will have a clear choice between anti-gun incumbent Sen. Bob Casey (D) and Rep. Lou Barletta (R).

During his career in the Senate, Casey voted to ban commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines. He supports further restrictions on lawful firearm transfers as well as raising the age to purchase certain firearms to 21 from 18. He also voted for anti-gun Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan—and against Gorsuch.

In contrast, Barletta voted for national reciprocity legislation, voted to end Obama’s anti-gun Operation Choke Point and co-sponsored legislation to remove antiquated and unnecessary restrictions on interstate firearm businesses. He is a strong supporter of our right to keep and bear arms. Pennsylvania gun owners have a clear choice in this Senate race.


Texas:

Sen. Ted Cruz

Texas is another state that could decide the fate of the pro-gun majority in the Senate. Sen. Ted Cruz (R) has earned his “A+” rating by being a champion for gun owners, while his opponent, Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D), has earned an “F” rating for opposing our rights.

O’Rourke supports banning guns and magazines, imposing new restrictions on lawful firearm transfers and voted against national reciprocity. He has been a vocal critic of the NRA and our members. He would be a consistent vote against our constitutional freedoms.

In contrast, Cruz has a proven record of supporting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. He has sponsored NRA-supported national reciprocity legislation, worked to fix problems with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and sponsored legislation that sought to end the Obama administration’s anti-gun Operation Choke Point.

Cruz’s seat is one that anti-gun extremists would love to win. We can expect millions of dollars from those opposed to the Second Amendment to flow into the state. It is critical that pro-gun Texans work to ensure that Cruz is re-elected to continue his strong defense of our rights.


Nebraska:

Sen. Deb Fischer 

In Nebraska, Sen. Deb Fischer (R) faces challenger Jane Raybould (D). Raybould, a Lincoln city councilwoman, has stated her support for renewing the 1994 federal ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms.

Fischer, on the other hand, has long demonstrated her support for the Second Amendment. While serving in the Nebraska state Senate, Fischer earned an “A+” from the NRA-PVF. Her support for our right to keep and bear arms has not wavered since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012. She has voted against banning commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines and signed a letter opposing the anti-gun U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Her re-election to the U.S. Senate is critical to defending and expanding our firearm freedom.


Nevada:

Sen. Dean Heller

In Nevada, Sen. Dean Heller (R) is a staunch defender of our right to keep and bear arms, which has earned him an “A” rating from the NRA-PVF. His opponent, Rep. Jacky Rosen (D), has earned an “F” rating.

Rosen has made her opposition to the rights of law-abiding gun owners a key plank of her campaign, supporting a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines and expanding restrictions on lawful firearm transfers. She has voted against legislation that would create national reciprocity for Right-to-Carry permits, showing her contempt for the right to self-defense.

Heller, on the other hand, opposes gun bans and supports the right to self-defense. He stood with the NRA in support of Gorsuch’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nevada is a key swing state. If gun owners hope to keep a pro-gun majority in the U.S. Senate, it is critical to re-elect Heller.

Chris W. Cox

BY CHRIS W. COX

NRA-ILA Executive Director

Follow This Contributor

Chris W. Cox has served as the executive director of the Institute for Legislative Action, the political and lobbying arm of NRA, since 2002. As NRA’s principal political strategist, Cox oversees eight NRA-ILA divisions: Federal Affairs; State & Local Affairs; Public Affairs; Grassroots; Finance; Research & Information; Conservation, Wildlife & Natural Resources; and Office of Legislative Counsel. Cox also serves as chairman of NRA’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF), the Association’s political action committee; president of the NRA Freedom Action Foundation (NRA-FAF), which focuses on non-partisan voter registration and citizen education; and chairman of NRA Country, an effort to bring country music artists together with NRA members in support of our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage.

Halloween II

No, our recent article on the latest installment in the Halloween movie franchise, and lead actress Jamie Lee Curtis’s confusing, empty rhetoric about her “support” for the Second Amendment, will not lead to unending “sequels,” like the Halloween series. But with the movie’s release last Friday adding some details about the film’s portrayal of firearms use, and considering Curtis defended her support of repressive gun control policies while trying to maintain that she is not anti-gun, it seemed appropriate for at least this follow-up.

As we pointed out two weeks ago, before the movie had been released, there was some discussion in the media pointing out what some might consider a conflict with Curtis promoting anti-gun policies while appearing in a film that had what seemed to be a considerable focus on the use of firearms and their value for self-defense. With the movie now in theatres, however, there seem to be even more questions regarding the actress’s original comments.

First, let us recall that Curtis claimed to “fully support the Second Amendment,” but also stated her support for banning arguably the most popular firearms in America—those semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns she inaccurately labels “assault weapons.” She also went on to state that she is fine with people owning firearms, provided they have navigated a litany of government mandated obstacles. Her definition of “fully support” must be different than ours, as well as everyone else who doesn’t completely embrace the anti-gun extremists who promote the same policies as Curtis.

The government controls she says all potential law-abiding gun owners must submit themselves to before being deemed acceptable for possessing firearms include background checks, training, licensing, and waiting periods. And, of course, they simply cannot be trusted with semi-automatics. So, let’s see how this plays out in the movie.

Well, the character Curtis plays, Laurie Strode, doesn’t use any of those awful semi-automatics she calls “assault weapons.” This was apparently a mandate from Curtis, who said producers of the movie “knew that Laurie was going to be someone who used firearms.” She went on to state, “And I think there were myriad types of firearms that could have been used in the movie. I was very clear with the filmmakers that she used the weapons (that) were intended for self-defense for her and her family.”

So, in spite of the fact that millions of Americans own these types of firearms specifically because they know they are exceptionally useful for self-defense, Curtis insisted they be excluded.

But she’s not anti-gun.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the character, Laurie Strode, has been preparing herself over the last 40 years for a final confrontation with Michael Myers; a homicidal maniac that has exhibited the ability to withstand incredible amounts of physical damage that seems to barely slow him down. One characteristic about the semi-automatic firearms the character Strode does not use is that they are generally designed to hold more rounds of ammunition than those firearms she did use. As folks who are not stridently anti-gun know, they are also designed to be reloaded more quickly.

So, a woman who has spent 40 years preparing to face off against a homicidal psychopath who appears to be virtually indestructible has seemingly gone out of her way to avoid an entire class of firearms that might increase her chances of surviving the conflict? We understand that this is only a movie, and the suspension of disbelief is necessary for most of Hollywood’s output, but Curtis seems to have decided to eschew logic, thus creating an unnecessary flaw to the movie, in order to make a political statement against certain firearms.

But she’s not anti-gun.

Moving on to the gun control policies she supports other than banning guns, does the movie stay true? It doesn’t appear to.

Curtis says she supports background checks, which we can only presume she means for everyone. When her character gives firearms to family members for their use, who ran the background checks? The movie is set in Illinois, where anyone who possesses a firearm must have a state-issued Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. Perhaps we are to simply presume everyone has one. Even if that were the case, however, that simply would not satisfy what most within the anti-gun community promote, which is a government-run background check on all firearm transfers.

But the actress also states that she supports mandatory training before anyone may possess a firearm. In discussing the movie, Curtis says that when her character doles out the firearms, she “specifically says what each weapon does and why you would choose that weapon in self-defense.” Is that what she feels should qualify for government-mandated training? That’s certainly not what those who share her promotion of gun control would advocate.

She also promotes mandatory licensing. Perhaps it is the FOID card presumption mentioned previously that she feels qualifies for her support of licensing. Then again, if these family members went through the trouble of obtaining a FOID card, wouldn’t they already have firearms of their own? Why does Strode need to supply the guns? While it is not unheard of for Illinois residents to obtain a FOID card without owning firearms, it is fairly uncommon. But, you know, suspension of disbelief, right?

The one aspect of gun control Curtis supports that conflicts with the movie, though, is her support for waiting periods, which she quaintly refers to as a “pause button.” Strode simply hands over the firearms. Of course, one can certainly understand her not wanting her family to undergo a waiting period, considering the impending threat of Myers at the time. This puts a spotlight on one of the primary reasons NRA has long opposed arbitrary waiting periods. When a law-abiding citizen finds that he or she needs a firearm for personal protection, any waiting period is simply a period of time when that person is vulnerable. At least the character Strode gets this, even if her portrayer does not.

So, we are to presume Laurie Strode is a determined, well-trained, and lawful Illinois firearm owner, because that is what Curtis promotes. We are also to presume that Strode’s family members fit the same description. Why on earth would we be expected to presume that such a well-prepared, well-trained, law-abiding person would ignore an entire class of legal firearms that are arguably the most effective tools available to ensure her survival against such an imposing threat? We wouldn’t, of course, unless we are to also simply presume that Curtis wanted to make a political statement by leaving them out of the movie.

But she’s not anti-gun.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pro-gun Senate Majority is Crucial to Protecting the Second Amendment

CNN Denies Reality of Gun Confiscation to Attack President Trump

Republican Mayor Survives Recall Effort After Twitter-Checking David Hogg

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

EXCLUSIVE: Radio host speaks out after PSU says he can’t concealed carry

  • Portland State University’s College Republicans chapter invited conservative radio host, Lars Larson, to speak at the university.
  • The university demanded that Larson, a Second Amendment advocate, state that he would not concealed carry on campus.

Conservative radio host Lars Larson compared campus gun culture to National Lampoon in an exclusive interview with Campus Reform after Portland State University told him he could not carry on campus.

The school’s College Republicans chapter invited a local pro-Second Amendment radio host, Lars Larson, to live stream his show at their Second Amendment Celebration event planned for Monday. Portland State, however, has a policy prohibiting anyone from bringing firearms on campus, and as a result, the school ruled that the invitation would be rescinded if Larson chose to conceal carry a firearm.

“We are requiring you to affirmatively state that you will not intend to and will not carry a firearm on PSU’s campus, either openly or concealed, during the event hosted by the Portland State College Republicans on October 22, 2018,” PSU General Counsel Cynthia J. Starke said in a letter to Larson.

“If your group invites a guest to campus, and you know your guest inten[d]s to violate any PSU policy, your group would go through SALP community standards, and in addition, your individual group leaders who assisted with the event planning may go through the conduct process with the Dean of Student Life Office,” PSU College Republicans advisor Virginia Luka said in an email exchange with the group’s student leadership.

The College Republicans told Campus Reform that its members saw this as a threat of academic sanctions, group defunding, and pulling recognition from the group entirely if Larson were to show up to the event armed.

“It’s like National Lampoon,” Larson told Campus Reform. “‘Buy this magazine or we’ll shoot this dog.’ Come to campus, and we will, metaphorically, shoot these students.”

“What the university says is, in effect, you have the right to carry, and if you do, we’ll kick you out,” the radio host said. “It would be like saying ‘Yeah! You have a right to practice whatever religion you want, but you Muslims? Leave your niqabs at home. Don’t cover your face.’”

“I just think the University was being jerks,” Larson added.

[RELATED: Portland State seeking prof with commitment to abortion rights]

The group ultimately did not hold the event. By Larson’s account, the school disinvited him, but by the school’s account, as Kenny Ma, PSU’s Director of Media & Public Relations, told Campus Reform, the group canceled the event themselves.

Larson asserted that PSU’s firearm policy is contradictory to Oregon state law.

“The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power,” The State Right to Bear Arms in Oregon states.

Larson went on to cite the Oregon state court of appeals ruling made in 1995.

“Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly,” the statute says.

Larson referenced an incident pertaining to gun rights in Oregon.

Western Oregon University suspended a student in 2011 for carrying a gun on campus. The case progressed to higher courts, which eventually ruled that licensed concealed carry holders are permitted to carry on public school grounds.

“The Oregon Constitution, the wording of it, is even stronger than the 2nd Amendment to the federal Constitution,” Larson said. He emphatically claimed that what the school is doing is unconstitutional and illegal and that no public institution can infringe one’s right to bear arms.

The radio host tried inviting the group to his studio, but this was allegedly limited by a month-long waiting period necessary to register a student group field trip.

“[The school] is gonna find a way to stop [the event] through other mechanisms of threatening the students for having done it,” Larson said, referring to that development. “And I think that’s an evil thing for PSU to do.”

When asked why he wouldn’t just leave his firearm at home to avoid trouble, he asserted that doing so would set a precedent.

“It would be the height of hypocrisy, for me to say ‘I’m going to go talk to these kids about the importance of their Second Amendment rights,’ while voluntarily forfeiting mine,” the radio host told Campus Reform.

He compared it to “coming up [to campus] to talk about Christianity but [the school says] take your cross off and don’t you dare bring the book.”

Larson stressed that he would hate to see a student’s education ruined over him coming to an event, explaining why he would not break PSU’s rules by concealed carrying at a College Republicans event.

He filled Campus Reform in on his plan of action moving forward, as well.

“Later this week, my producer and I will walk up, sit down in the student union, and I’m gonna do five or ten minutes on a Facebook live-stream, explaining the entire background,” Larson said. “I cannot speak to the students unless I give up my civil rights, I cannot do the broadcast that I wanted to do, and the students have been threatened.”

Larson told Campus Reform that he plans to conceal carry his firearm when he live-streams from the school.

COLUMN BY

Kenneth Nelson

Kenneth Nelson

Intern. Twitter: 

RELATED ARTICLES:

PSU students stage ‘die-in’ to demand disarming of police

Course combines feminist concerns with environmental activism

Johns Hopkins rejects demand to cut ties with ICE

Petition supporting Clarence Thomas gets 10 times more signatures than opposition