Black Friday breaks record with 185,000 gun background checks

, from USA Today, reports:

More Americans had their backgrounds checked purchasing guns on Black Friday than any day in the on record, according to data released by the FBI this week.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System processed 185,345 requests on Nov. 27, one of the largest retail sales days in the country.

“This was an approximate 5% increase over the 175,754 received on Black Friday 2014,” wrote Stephen Fischer, the FBI’s chief of multimedia productions. “The previous high for receipts were the 177,170 received on 12/21/2012.”

Read more.

Lawsuit against Florida Gun Store’s “Muslim Free Zone” Dismissed

Today (November 24, 2015), a Florida federal judge granted a motion to dismiss filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), dismissing a lawsuit filed by CAIR Florida against AFLC’s client, Florida Gun Supply.

In the lawsuit, CAIR alleged that Florida Gun Supply’s refusal to equip Islamic terrorists is religious discrimination in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act.

On July 29th, CAIR Florida filed the lawsuit against Florida Gun Supply because its owner declared in a YouTube video that his retail gun store is a “Muslim Free Zone” following the Chattanooga, Tennessee terrorist attack in which five service members were gunned down.

The owner of the gun store, Andy Hallinan, refuses to equip the next Paris-type terrorist with dangerous firearms.  Consequently, pursuant to its official, written policy, Florida Gun Supply will not serve “[a]nyone who is either directly or indirectly associated with terrorism in any way . . .”

Despite Hallinan’s legitimate concerns about public safety—concerns which have been confirmed most recently with the deadly terrorist attacks in France and the claims by ISIS to engage in similar attacks here in the United States—CAIR Florida sued Florida Gun Supply in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging religious discrimination.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented:

“As our motion and now the court’s ruling make clear, CAIR’s lawsuit was patently frivolous if not outright dangerous.  No firearms dealer or gun range owner for that matter should be required to sell weapons to or train anyone that the dealer or owner has reason to believe is a terrorist threat.  We all have a civic responsibility to prevent the next terrorist attack.  CAIR’s lawsuit was an effort to prevent business owners from doing so.”

In its ruling granting AFLC’s request to dismiss CAIR’s lawsuit, the court stated that it

“must agree that [CAIR] has insufficiently alleged imminent harm.  The Complaint contains only bald, conclusory allegations devoid of factual enhancement.”

The court stated further that

“the general desire of [CAIR] in this case to have Muslims able to access [Florida Gun Supply’s] shooting range someday in the future is insufficient . . .  There are simply no facts grounding the assertion that [CAIR] and/or one of its constituents will be harmed—[CAIR] has failed to allege when and in what manner the alleged injuries are going to occur.”

Consequently, because CAIR could not show any harm or injury, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented:

“This dismissal was yet another AFLC victory against CAIR and its jihadi lawfare against patriotic Americans across the country.  This victory follows on the heels of a recent victory against CAIR in a Michigan federal court where CAIR’s subpoenas were quashed and CAIR’s nefarious client sanctioned for abusive practices.  CAIR was born from a jihadi terrorist conspiracy, and it has done little to distance itself from those bona fides.  CAIR is on notice: if you attempt to use the courts to conduct your civilizational jihad, AFLC will be there to defend law-abiding, patriotic Americans and our nation’s national security.  We will match and defeat your civilization jihad with our constitutional lawfare in every courtroom across the nation.”

Election 2016—The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher by Chris W. Cox

If there was a message I could get to every NRA member and lawful gun owner in America, it would be this: The 2016 election is under way and the stakes couldn’t be higher, so we have to get involved and go to work now!

For most Americans, odd-numbered years are not election years. We get a rest from the barrage of political ads, the omnipresent campaign signs and the never-ending coverage of local and national races by the news media. But this year, we can’t wait to get moving on 2016.

Before we get to next year’s pivotal races, there are five states with elections this year. On Nov. 3, voters in Virginia and New Jersey are electing state legislators; Kentuckians are electing statewide officers, including a new governor; and Mississippi and Louisiana will be electing statewide officers and state legislators.

In Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a strong NRA ally, is up for re-election. In Louisiana and Kentucky, the race is on to replace term-limited governors, and in both cases we have pro-gun candidates ready to step in. Endorsements and NRA Political Victory Fund grades for these races are included in this magazine for members in these states. (Members in Louisiana received their endorsement lists separately in the mail.) I strongly encourage every gun owner in these states to take action to ensure that our allies win these key elections.

In addition, there will be a very important vote this year in Texas, where voters will decide whether the Lone Star State adds the right to hunt and fish to its state constitution. This is a vital action to protect our treasured hunting heritage from attacks by animal rights activists and environmental extremists.

As important as these elections are, we must also look ahead. We all know what’s at stake.

We’ve seen how much damage an anti-gun president can do. Even with our victories beating back anti-gun legislation in Congress, President Barack Obama has used his executive authority to strip Americans of their Second Amendment-protected rights. In previous issues, I’ve described abuses from Obama’s bureaucrats at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration and other agencies.

Enough is enough. In 2016, we have to do everything in our power to elect a president who respects our fundamental freedoms. The good news is that there are many solid pro-gun candidates in the race. Gun owners should start to get informed now on the position each candidate holds on our right to keep and bear arms.

But as important as the race for the White House is, it’s also critical that we keep control of the U.S. Senate in pro-gun hands.

Right now, there’s a pro-gun majority in the Senate, and every member of the majority leadership is a solid, NRA-endorsed, pro-gun ally. But—and this is critically important—the electoral map is not in our favor. Our opponents have far fewer seats to protect than do we.

To bring this home, consider that they need only five additional seats to make Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) the majority leader of the U.S. Senate! That’s right, one of the biggest enemies of our freedom, one of the most entrenched anti-gun voices of the past several decades, could take control.

We simply cannot allow that to happen. That’s why, when I say that 2016 starts now, it’s because we cannot afford to wait until next fall to get involved. We can’t even wait until the primaries start. There is just too much at stake.

We must work together—starting now—to protect our freedoms, not just for ourselves, but for future generations. Your NRA will do its part and we trust that gun owners throughout America will answer the call to win back the White House, increase the pro-gun majorities in the U.S. Congress and elect pro-gun officials in the states. And I’m confident that, through your efforts, we will succeed.

chris cox nraABOUT CHRIS W. COX

Chris W. Cox has served as the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the political and lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, since 2002.

As NRA’s chief lobbyist and principal political strategist, Cox oversees nine NRA-ILA divisions – Federal Affairs, State & Local Affairs, Public Affairs, Research & Information, Grassroots, Hunting/Conservation/Wildlife, Office of Legislative Counsel, External Affairs (International) and Fiscal. He also serves as president of the NRA Freedom Action Foundation (NRA-FAF), which conducts non-partisan voter registration and citizen education, and chairman of NRA Country, which brings country music artists together with NRA members in support of our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage.

The Dems Should Practice What They Preach

A few weeks ago I was speaking with some neighbors at a community HOA meeting and a gentleman named Jim approached me with some suggestions. Jim was visibly frustrated at the direction of the country under the policies of President Barack Obama and suggested the Democrats should practice what they preach. When I asked him what he meant, he mentioned a series of proposals the Democrats should consider for their national convention. At first, I laughed with Jim, not at him, but then I thought to myself, “Jim is right.”

If the Democrats really believe in the things Jim mentioned, there is no good reason for them to not take a leadership role and implement the following 4 suggestions at their convention:

  1. The Democratic National Convention should be declared a “gun-free” zone. The Democrats have largely coalesced behind a gun-control legislative strategy that makes public safety contingent on a criminal’s adherence to the rule of law. The gun-control wing of the Democratic Party is trying to convince law-abiding Americans that our current set of firearm laws, which criminals ignore, can be supplanted by a new set of firearm laws, which the criminals will surely obey. The Democrats should experiment with this theory at their convention. After all, if criminals are willing to change their behavior through a new government edict then they will surely change their behavior if the very same politicians and bureaucrats get together and declare the convention to be “gun-free.” Although the United States Secret Service, my former employer, is charged with securing the event, they can save the time, and expense, by forgoing magnetometers and leaving their weapons in the office because the “gun-free” status of the event will deter any criminal or terrorist from entering the event with a firearm.                                                                                  
  2. The Democratic National Convention should waive any photo identification requirements for entry to the event. The Democratic Party’s fight against voter ID laws is premised on the idea that voter fraud is a non-existent problem and that being asked to provide an identification at the polls is an unnecessary obstacle. If Democrats believe providing an identification when deciding the future of our country is too high of a hill to climb, then asking for identification at a glorified political rally such as the Democratic convention is completely unnecessary. As a member of the Secret Service assigned to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I received a very expensive and sophisticated credential used to access the event. Looking back on this, I now see what a waste of taxpayer money these credentials were. We should have just followed the lead of the Democratic Party and declared the event an “identification-free” zone.

To read more, click here.

Wasserman Schultz Orders Democrats to Embrace Gun Control

At the Florida Democratic Party Convention, held October 30-November 1, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed, “The Florida Democratic Party is back and better than ever.” Also back, it would seem, is the national party’s misguided emphasis on gun control.

Speaking at a convention event held at the Walt Disney World Yacht and Beach Club Resort, Wasserman Schultz launched into an anti-gun screed aimed at getting members of her party to more fervently pursue gun control. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Wasserman Schultz demanded, “Democrats! We must close the gun show loophole! Democrats! We must require background checks for all gun purchases!” Indulging her penchant for hyperbole, Wasserman Schultz added, “We can’t sit idly by and allow thousands and thousands of lives to be mowed down!”

Wasserman Schultz’ excited rhetoric comes on the heals of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s comments rejecting the Supreme Court’s holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and an endorsement of Australia-style gun confiscation. Together, the pair appear intent on branding Democrats as the party of severe gun controls; a label that has rarely served it well.

Wasserman Schultz and Clinton would do well to heed the warnings former President Bill Clinton. As recently as 2013, Bill warned Democrats, in relation to the gun issue, not to “patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents,” noting that passing the 1994 semi-auto ban “devastated” the party in the House of Representatives.

Bill made this same point in his autobiography, My Life, where he wrote of the 1994 election, “On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946….The NRA had a great night.” Elaborating, Bill wrote, “The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage…” Later in the book, Bill credits the NRA with helping to defeat Al Gore in 2000.

These and other experiences led some to question the national party’s commitment to gun control, and advocate for a more pragmatic approach. In 2005, no less an anti-gun zealot than then Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rahm Emanuel was quoted in a Boston Globe article titled “Democrats Recast Gun Control Image,” as stating that Democratic candidates “[have] got to reflect their districts” on the issue. While running for president in 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama did his best to conceal his anti-gun positions.

Moreover, just this week, a bevy of writers for the Washington Post reflected on the degree to which support for gun control, and the interjection of Michael Bloomberg’s millions, cost the Democrats a majority in the Virginia State Senate.

NRA is nonpartisan, and therefore supports politicians of any political party who demonstrate a legitimate respect for the right to keep and bear arms. However, if history is any guide, Wasserman Schultz and Clinton’s insistence that their party advocate against the Second Amendment rights of the American people could once again lead Democrats down the road to ruin.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hillary Continues Gun Control Gambit but Tempers Her Message for the Masses

NRA Statement on Decisive Victories in 2015 Elections

McAuliffe Joins the 40% Liars Club, Loses Big On Election Day

Woman Who Illegally Bought Gun Used to Shoot Cop Sentenced to One Year of Probation

Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Nomination of Operation Choke Point Overlord

VIDEO: How to Stop Violent Crime

In a strongly worded five-minute video, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre is calling on Barack Obama and other politicians to help stop violent crime by focusing on prosecuting violent criminals—not further restricting law-abiding gun owners.

“We’ve lived through the Clinton administration’s utter lack of federal gun prosecutions, and the Obama administration is following suit, while the country suffers,” LaPierre said. “And we know that a second Clinton administration will just mean more of the same.”

LaPierre added that gun-banners—whether politicians or media—won’t silence the men and women of the NRA.

“No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA,” he said. “And in the face of mounting political and media pressure to demean, shame and silence us … we will fight.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Georgia Became a Haven for Violent Illegal Immigrants

Congress Shouldn’t Ground Air Marshals Amid Current Threats, Their Boss Says

Florida: The Truth about Open Carry — Erroneous Claims Exposed

Many folks remember that during the fight to pass Florida’s Concealed Carry law, the Florida Sheriffs Association opposed concealed carry.  They literally said they didn’t like “hidden guns.”

At the time, open carry was legal in Florida and had been for decades.  They said if people were going to be allowed to carry guns, they needed to carry them openly so law enforcement officers could see them and know who had guns — they claimed it was a matter of officer safety.

Now, they have reversed positions.  They claim concealed carry is fine and they don’t mind concealed guns.  BUT, open carry is dangerous. They claim they won’t know the good guys from the bad guys, and one sheriff (now retired) said law enforcement would have to “draw down” and anybody carrying openly.  You’ve probably heard or read most of the rhetoric.

They always lead off saying they are strong Second Amendment supporters then proceed to explain why they OPPOSE Second Amendment rights.

The Constitution guarantees your right to keep and bear arms and it certainly doesn’t say you can only exercise your rights if your sheriff agrees with it.

Below are the facts about open carry — it is a rebuttal of some the latest claims.  You may also click here The Truth About Open Carry to download a copy for the fact sheet to share with others.

The Truth About The Open Carry Bill & the 45 States that Allow Open Carry

In recent Palm Beach Post Blog articles and a Tampa Bay Times Blog article, the Chairman of the Florida Sheriffs Association’s Legislative Committee (FSA) is quoted with some erroneous claims regarding the proposed open carry bill in Florida (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz and HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz).

In recent Palm Beach Post Blog articles and a Tampa Bay Times Blog article, the Chairman of the Florida Sheriffs Association’s Legislative Committee (FSA) is quoted with some erroneous claims regarding the proposed open carry bill in Florida (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz and HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz).

Below are some of those claims and our responses.

FSA CLAIM: “The bill as currently drafted is extremely broad, lacking limits on when, how or where firearms could be carried.”

FACT: The same provisions and restrictions that apply to concealed carry also apply to open carry (s.790.06).  Only a person with a license to carry concealed will be able to carry openly. Additionally, the improper exhibition of firearms law (s.790.10) applies whether carrying concealed or openly.

Further, because of these and other erroneous claims, a clarification amendment, to stop open carry opponents from continuing to make such false claims, was added to the bill in Senate Criminal Justice Committee the morning of 10/20/15 – We know the spokesman made that claim even AFTER the clarification amendment was added because the spokesman made reference to an amendment “that didn’t pass” in the same committee meeting.

Since the FSA spokesman obviously doesn’t want to believe the NRA’s data, the following data was provided by Florida Carry, Inc. – and their data confirms ours.

FSA CLAIM: “The bill’s proponents claim that 45 other states already allow open-carry. But that’s not really accurate.”

FACT:  To the contrary, it is accurate.   Forty-five (45) states allow open carry of firearms.  Varying restrictions on open carry in some states does not alter the fact that 45 states allow open carry.

  • 15 of 45 open carry states require a license to carry concealed or openly.
  • 30 of 45 open carry states do not require any license to carry openly.
  • 0 of 15 of the concealed carry license states require additional training to carry openly.
  • 0 of 45 states offer a separate “open carry” license.
  • 2 of 45 states require an open carry holster.  On 1/1/16 Texas will require a holster.
  • 0 of 45 states require a retention holster.
  • 5 of 15 are “may-issue” states where law enforcement issues licenses.
  • 15 of 15 states require the license holder to produce the license on lawful demand by a law enforcement officer.

FSA CLAIM: “… most open-carry states have strict rules about … producing the permit on demand.”

FACT: This is a red herring.  FLORIDA law already requires license holders to produce a license on demand by a law enforcement officer.  And for the record, all 15 states that require a license, require producing the license on lawful demand by a law enforcement officer.

FSA CLAIM:  “…[I]t’s ‘intellectually dishonest’ to say open carry laws are working in the 45 other states because there are so many variations in the laws and the demographics.

FACT: The open carry laws are working in 45 states. Opponents have presented no evidence to the contrary – no evidence that it isn’t working in any state and no evidence of problems in any state. These are just baseless allegations.  Simply because different states have variations in their laws does not in any way alter the fact that open carry is allowed and that it’s working.

FSA CLAIM:  “In Pennsylvania, for example, cities can opt out of its open carry law and some, including Philadelphia, do just that, Gualtieri said. Florida cities don’t have the option to opt out of a state law.”

FACT:  Pennsylvania DOES NOT allow cities to opt out of its open carry law. Pennsylvania does not require a license for a person to carry openly.  Philadelphia cannot “opt out” of the state open carry law.  Pennsylvania state law allows the city of Philadelphia (and only Philadelphia) to require a license to carry openly in Philadelphia.

FSA CLAIM:  As for demographics, “You can’t compare Sioux Falls, S.D. to downtown Miami or downtown Tampa or downtown Orlando,” Gualtieri said.

FACT: This argument is illogical and perhaps intentionally misleading. Seventy percent (70%) of the American public live in open carry states from all regions of the country.  Many of the 45 open carry states have large and diverse cities just like Florida and where you live geographically, whether it’s Trilby, FL or Fanning Springs, FL, you have the same constitutional rights as citizens who live in Miami, Tampa, or Orlando.

FSA CLAIM: “…the state’s trespass law gives businesses the right to ask anyone openly carrying a weapon to leave their property,” but they … “will be reluctant to tell a person wearing a .45 to leave.”

FACT: Posting signs prohibiting open carry inside a business establishment is a simple solution.  Proper notification will stop citizens from even entering the establishment.  Property owners already must post trespass signs to notify the public to stay off private property.

Businesses have the right to refuse service and evict anyone they wish unless it’s done on the basis of race, gender, or religion.  Further, it is common to see signs that say, “No shirt, no shoes – no service.”  Why are they reluctant to post signs saying, “No open carrying of firearms?”

FSA CLAIM: “..if you are McDonald’s you won’t be able to exclude somebody from putting their gun on the table and sitting there and eating.”

FACT: Again, any business may evict a customer for behavior they deem to be offensive, dangerous or inappropriate.   Further it is a criminal offense under s.790.10 to exhibit a firearm in a rude or careless manner.

Schumer Puts Military at Risk by Playing Politics with Their Sidearms

In 1995, Bob Dole said of Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), “[t]he most dangerous place is between him and a camera.” Last Friday, Schumer publicly announced a plan to require bidders for a $580 million Department of Defense contract to supply the U.S. Army with handguns to submit to questioning regarding efforts to push a gun control agenda. The fact is, Schumer’s attempt to subject the vital fighting equipment of our nation’s servicemen and women to petty politics is nothing more than a cynical attempt to indulge his lust for press coverage, and is a reckless and dangerous threat to the safety of our service men and women.

The sole intent of the DOD procurement process should be to equip our fighting men and women with the best arms for their mission. To factor in the supplier’s willingness to kowtow to Schumer’s gun control demands alongside criteria such as accuracy and reliability risks supplying our troops with inferior equipment. Our soldier’s lives rely in part on the functional capability of their weapons, and to suggest that these soldiers should be used as a political pawn to enact gun control the Senator cannot achieve through our democratic process is reprehensible.

The specifics of the proposal are outlined in a letter from Schumer to Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh. Schumer is encouraging federal agencies to require that bidding manufacturers only sell firearms to the civilian market through dealers that do not transfer a firearm where (in his words) there has not been a “completed” background check. Of course, all gun dealers are already required to conduct a NICS check prior to transferring any firearm. However, if the FBI delays a transfer for further research into a transferee’s background, but after three days is unable to determine whether the person is eligible to possess firearms, the dealer may transfer the firearm. This is an important safety-valve that restricts the federal government from arbitrarily barring individuals from acquiring firearms by delaying them in perpetuity. In the rare case that a firearm is transferred to an individual after the safety-valve period and they are later found to be prohibited, ATF routinely sends people out to retrieve the firearm.

Further, Schumer wants federal agencies to “require all participating bidders to lay out a plan for the development and sale of smart or childproof guns and accessories.”

Unfortunately, Schumer isn’t the first to put forward such a careless proposal. Back in 2000, the Clinton administration tried to strong-arm firearms manufacturers into carrying out their gun control wish list by promising lucrative local police contracts to those who signed onto an agreement with several gun control provisions. Notably, then-Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary and current Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo threatened defiant gun companies if they did not comply. Cuomo made clear to one industry member that they risked business by defying the administration, stating, “I have a lot of push with these Democratic mayors.” A more recent attempt to influence gun companies through government contracting was carried out by Jersey City, N.J. Mayor Steven Fulop.

In a press release, Schumer said that his recent proposal is “a smart way to use the federal government’s market power to force gun makers to change.” Odd, those whose lives depend on the proper functioning of their firearms when their lives are in the balance seem to think this strategy is decidedly wrong-headed.

An April 2000 Los Angeles Times article detailed the pressure the Clinton administration attempted to exert on local police forces to purchase from certain manufacturers. Capt. Garry Leonard of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department told the paper, “Politics aren’t going to enter into how we choose our firearms… When you think of what we do for a living, we just can’t take chances.” President of the Fraternal Order of Police Gilbert G. Gallegos also made clear that “’Adherence to a particular political philosophy’ shouldn’t play a part in gun purchases.”

Even billionaire gun control bankroller Michael Bloomberg seemingly knows better than to play politics with the vital equipment of those who protect us. When asked in 2011 about a proposal to use the NYPD’s handgun purchasing power to boycott a particular manufacturer, then-Mayor Bloomberg brushed-off the idea, stating, “The trouble is, if we boycott one, you probably have to boycott all of them and then you go back to the days when the crooks had better guns than the cops. We don’t want our cops out-armed, out-gunned.”

Schumer’s radical idea to compromise the safety of our service members in furtherance of his own political agenda should be rejected out of hand. The U.S. Army is no place to conduct dangerous political experiments with proposals that the people and the legislatures have repeatedly rejected.

63% of Americans Blame Mental Health—Not Guns—for Mass Shootings​

In another hit to the prospects of gun controllers, this week the Washington Post published the findings of a recent survey conducted by the Post in conjunction with ABC News. The results show that Americans overwhelmingly understand high-profile shootings as pointing to a problem with the country’s mental health system, rather than a lack of gun control laws.

The survey, carried out October 15-18, asked respondents, “Do you think that mass shootings in this country are more a reflection of (problems identifying and treating people with mental health problems) or (inadequate gun control laws)?” 63 percent of those questioned understood that these events are a result of improperly addressing those with mental illness. A mere 23 percent believed that a lack of gun control is the cause, while 10 percent answered that both were to blame.

Unfortunately, the wisdom of the American people is lost on much of the political class, who reflexively turn to decades-old gun control proposals as the solution to this exceedingly complex issue. Which is why, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton rail against guns and gun owners, each touting restrictive legislation repeatedly rejected by the American people and their representatives, NRA is working towards an actual solution.

In August, NRA announced its support for Senator John Cornyn’s (R-Texas) S.2002, or the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015, and applauded U.S. Representative Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) when she introduced the House version (H.R. 3722) this month. Both bills would encourage the states to forward prohibiting mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Further, in order to protect the rights of all Americans, including those who have experienced some form of mental health treatment, the bill includes safeguards on the types of records states may send to NICS; ensuring that prohibiting records comport with the due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, the bill would remedy the Veterans Administration’s long-standing practice of reporting non-dangerous beneficiaries, who are simply assigned a fiduciary to help manage their finances, to NICS as prohibited.

It is important to note that the mentally ill should not be stigmatized as violent, as mental health officials recognize that mental illness alone is not predictive of violence. However, it is encouraging that the American public understands that this is a complex issue and that the focus of any policy to address high-profile shootings should not be about addressing the inanimate tool used by the perpetrator, but instead about the individual that carried out the violent act.

Florida Sheriffs Continue to Speak Out in Support of Open Carry [VIDEOS]

Bradford County Sheriff Gordon Smithspoke passionately about the Open Carry bill (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz) in Senate Criminal Justice Committee on 10/20/15.  Watch his testimony:

Wakulla County Sheriff Charlie Creel was represented at a press conference in support of the bill that was held in the Capitol 10/06/15.

Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey has been very outspoken and testified in support of the Open Carry bill in the House Criminal Justice Committee on 10/06/15.  Watch his testimony:

Additionally, Sheriff Ivey has recently written an OpEd article in support of Open Carry.  Read it below.

As more Sheriffs continue to speak out in support of the constitutional right to carry and the right of self-defense of their constituents, we will continue to make you aware of where your Sheriff stands.

You may thank these sheriffs for their support by email.  They are supporting you and your rights — and they deserve your support and your thanks.

Gordon_Smith@BradfordSheriff.org
,
Wayne.Ivey@bcso.us
,
CCreel@wcso.org


http://www.guns.com/2015/10/22/florida-sheriff-my-support-of-open-carry-goes-even-deeper/

Florida Sheriff: “My support of Open Carry goes even deeper”
Opinion by Sheriff Wayne Ivey

As each of us watches with astonishment at what is currently taking place across our country, we struggle to find solutions to reduce the potential for the next active shooter or violent crime that could take place in our own communities.  Shootings and mass killings at churches, movie theaters, schools, malls, military bases, and even colleges have forever changed the game and have left Law Enforcement and law abiding citizens scrambling for an answer to prevent the next critical incident.

While there are many opposing opinions, personal views and empirical data reflecting respective positions, there is only one undisputed fact: the best law enforcement agencies in the country have response times in minutes and bad people with evil intentions act in seconds.

Like each of you, I strongly support our Constitution and have unwavering support for the 2nd Amendment.  There is no doubt that historians and legal minds often disagree on the intentions and interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, however, most will agree that the true essence of the 2nd Amendment was to allow people the right to bear arms to protect themselves.

While the Constitution lays the foundation for “the right to bear arms,” my support of Open Carry goes even deeper.  Our jobs as Law Enforcement Officers is to prevent, investigate, and solve crimes while doing everything we can to legally protect our citizens.  We stress to our citizens every day the importance of making themselves, their homes, and their businesses “hard” targets so that criminals will not target them or their families.  Violent criminals are opportunists, who look for an easy or “soft” target to victimize.

For decades Law Enforcement agencies have instructed citizens to put alarm signs out front of their homes and businesses to deter criminals. In fact, most agencies will even instruct citizens to prominently place an alarm sign at their location even if they don’t have an alarm.  Why? Because we are trying to make their homes and businesses hard targets and not soft targets.

The same theory applies to open carry when we are trying to protect our citizens.

I don’t want our citizens to have to defend an attack that could have easily been avoided had they been able to clearly demonstrate to a waiting criminal that they are a hard target and not a soft target.  To emphasize this point, I ask you to consider that each and every day across our country we investigate robberies at restaurants, banks, drug stores, gas stations, convenience stores and homes, but what we don’t see are armed robberies at pawn shops and gun stores.  The reason why is very simple—because criminals know what awaits them on the other side of the counter!

A historical survey performed by the University of Massachusetts and funded by the U.S. Department of Justice
  gives great credibility to the above philosophy and concept.  The survey involved the interviews of over 1,800 violent inmates from 10 different states including Florida who were asked questions concerning target selection and how they picked their victims.  To this day it is still considered to be one of the most comprehensive studies conducted with criminals who gave firsthand accounts of what criminals consider when committing crimes.  The study revealed the following:

  • 81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
  • 74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings because of fear of being shot.
  • 57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
  • 40% of the felons said that they have been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.
  • 57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
  • 34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.

Based on this government-funded research, it would appear that known armed citizens do represent a direct deterrent effect on crime.  Our citizens deserve the right to demonstrate that they have the ability to protect themselves.  At the very least they deserve the choice to reveal themselves as a hard target and not a soft target.  I challenge you to find a single Law Enforcement Officer or Sheriff in our state that doesn’t believe that a criminal is less likely to target a victim whom they know is armed and prepared.  If you know in your heart this is a true statement, then how can we as law enforcement leaders deny a citizen the right to demonstrate that they have the ability to protect themselves?

Lastly, there are 45 other states in our country that have “some” form of open carry.  There is no question that “Open Carry” will eventually occur in Florida.  The overall design and intent of HB 163 and SB 300 is to mandate the same statutory requirements, regulations, qualifications and restrictions that currently apply to the Florida Concealed Carry Permit such as safety training, weapon handling proficiency, background check, permitted areas of carry, and psychological well being.

I personally believe it is imperative that we as law enforcement leaders express a clear and convincing voice in the design and potential impact of this bill.  By sitting at the table with the various groups that want to discuss this important issue, we can work together to draft legislation that is designed to protect our citizens, our protectors and our Constitutional Rights.

To simply stand idly by and say we either agree or disagree does absolutely no service for our employees and citizens. We as law enforcement leaders should be standing and proudly voicing our desire to ensure that all legislation meets the number one priority of government, to protect its citizens.  By not only having a voice, but exercising that voice in the drafting of this bill, we can make sure we create positive laws that are in the best interest of our citizens and our Law Enforcement members.

EDITORS NOTE: The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the position of Guns.com.

Trustworthiness Issues? Politifact Calls Out Clinton Deception

That there are apparently still people (though, increasingly few) that find Hillary Clinton at all trustworthy is becoming more and more incredible. Late last week, Politifact took Clinton to task over comments she made about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to Politifact, at a campaign event in Iowa, Clinton remarked “[p]robably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability… They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” Politifact properly branded the statement “False.” That Politifact has been known to skew their work in favor of gun control advocates, shows just how patently false Clinton’s characterization of the PLCAA was.

The PLCAA was enacted to protect the firearms industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, gun control advocates, big city politicians, and trial attorneys teamed up in an attempt to use the courts to bilk the gun industry for untold millions and force them to agree to gun control measures that gun control supporters were unable to enact in Congress. The suits sought to hold members of the industry liable for the criminal behavior of those who misused their products.

These suits, though they were of little merit, posed a grave threat to the industry; and in turn, America’s gun owners. In 1998, Executive Director of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors was quoted by the New York Times as stating, “[t]he lawyers are seeing green on this issue… they think they can bring the gun industry to its knees.” One of those attorneys “seeing green,” John Coale, was quoted in a 2000 Washington Post article remarking, “[t]he legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.”

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005, the PLCAA merely prohibits lawsuits against the gun industry for the criminal misuse of their products by a third party. Suits against the industry for knowingly unlawful sales, negligent entrustment, and those predicated on traditional products liability grounds are still permitted.

Further, the Politifact item makes clear that the gun industry isn’t the only industry for which Congress has limited tort liability. The piece cites similar protections given to vaccine makers, telecommunications companies, and aircraft manufacturers.

Clinton can’t seem to stop lying about guns and gun control. Earlier this month, we detailed how Clinton has hidden her true position on the Second Amendment; that it does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, on the same day that Politifact issued their “False” rating, the Washington Post gave Clinton three pinocchios for stating the thoroughly debunked myth that 40-percent of firearms sales occur without a background check.

With her trustworthiness rating going down the tubes, one would think that Clinton and her campaign flunkies would be working overtime to make sure she sticks to the facts. That’s of course assuming they would even know how.

Clinton, O’Malley Say Americans Are Their Enemies

In the days since last week’s debate between candidates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, some commentators have suggested that Americans have seen enough, that no additional Democrat debates are necessary. In one respect, those commentators are right. In just a few seconds during the debate, the two candidates who harbor the most extreme views on guns showed why they shouldn’t be entrusted with our country’s highest elected office.

It happened when the candidates were asked, “which enemy are you most proud of?”

Of the five candidates onstage, the only supporter of the right to arms, former U.S. senator and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb—who had already answered a question about gun control by saying that people have the right to defend themselves—said that the enemy he was most proud to have had was the one who wounded him with a grenade during the Vietnam War. Webb didn’t elaborate, but he was referring to an occasion on which, as a Marine Corps 1st Lieutenant, he led an attack against a communist bunker system, an action for which he was awarded the Navy Cross “for extraordinary heroism.”

However, the other four candidates—gun control supporters one and all—reflexively associated the word “enemy” not with America’s overseas adversaries, but with other Americans.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee tempered their answers, at least, Sanders saying only that “Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry . . . do not like me,” Chafee saying that the “the coal lobby” is a group he’s “at odds with.”

By stark contrast, however, Hillary Clinton and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, far and away the most extreme gun control supporters running for president, showed no such restraint. O’Malley said his enemy is the five million member “National Rifle Association.” Clinton went further, naming not only “the NRA,” but also the health insurance companies, the drug companies, Republicans, and only one group of people who are not Americans, “the Iranians.”

How things have changed. In 2004, during the keynote speech at the Democratic Party National Convention, then-Illinois state senator Barack Obama said, albeit with questionable sincerity, “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.” In 2007, presidential candidate Obama claimed that he wanted to unify the country and break it out of what he called “ideological gridlock.”

Today, tempted with the opportunity to indulge herself in the deadly sin of hate before a national TV audience, the leading candidate for the same party’s presidential nomination did so without hesitation or remorse. She gleefully said that she considers tens of millions of Americans to be the “enemy.” She equated the NRA, American business interests, and Republicans with those whose signature chant is “Death to America.” And the party faithful in the debate hall cheered her with the same enthusiasm Obama’s “one America” speech received 11 years ago.

It was an ugly moment, but it shouldn’t define the character of our political disputes going forward. In deciding to whom to entrust the presidency of the United States between now and Election Day 2016, all Americans, regardless of viewpoint, should hold candidates to a standard higher than what Hillary Clinton appears capable of delivering.

Poll: NRA Viewed Favorably, No New Gun Controls, and Right-to-Carry Makes Us Safer

Earlier this month, we brought attention to Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about how the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and just how wildly of step her view is with that of the American people. Polling data released this week from Gallup and ORC International/CNN further underscores the chasm between Clinton’s anti-gun rhetoric and the views of most Americans.

During the October 13 Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton proudly declared the NRA as one of the political enemies she is most proud of. A Gallup poll conducted October 7-11 asked “Is your overall opinion of the National Rifle Association very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable?” Repudiating Clinton’s radical answer, 58-percent of those polled had a favorable opinion of NRA.

Moreover, in a piece accompanying the results, Gallup notes that the recent data shows “the highest recording of ‘very favorable’ opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989.” Broken down further, 56-percent of self-described political “moderates” had a favorable opinion of NRA. Among the non-gun owners polled, more held a favorable view of NRA than an unfavorable view. Recent measures of Clinton’s overall favorability, and that of her party, are significantly lower.

As for the overall state of the American public’s willingness to embrace new gun controls, those numbers aren’t encouraging for the candidate either. An ORC International/CNN poll conducted October 14-17 asked respondents “Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?” 52-percent answered that they oppose stricter laws. One wonders how lopsided the results would have been if respondents were asked if they support a Clinton-endorsed gun confiscation scheme.

Last May, at the national conference of the National Council for Behavioral Health, Clinton targeted the Right-to-Carry during a question and answer session. Clinton remarked, “We’re way out of balance. I think that we’ve got to reign in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.” Clinton went on to further proclaim the dangers of people “carrying guns in public places.”

October 7-11, Gallup asked respondents “Suppose more Americans were allowed to carry concealed weapons if they passed a background check and training course. If more Americans carried concealed weapons, would the United States be safer or less safe?” 56-percent of those polled responded that more people exercising their Right-to-Carry would make the country safer. Among independents, that total was 59-percent.

Sophisticated gun control supporters are aware of this political reality, and therefore try to obscure their true goal of civilian disarmament whenever possible. In recent days, at least one member of the anti-gun press, Paul Barrett of Bloomberg Businessweek, has taken issue with efficacy of Clinton’s direct attacks on NRA. Whatever Clinton’s current strategy might be, her position on the topic is now, and has been, abundantly clear and is fiercely at odds with the American people.

ACTION ALERT: Verizon Drops NRA Outdoor and Sportsman Channels

Act Now and Demand Access to the Best in Outdoor Television!

Verizon Fios has dropped Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel – television networks geared to tell compelling outdoor lifestyle stories and strong advocates for all areas of the shooting lifestyle. The networks are home to many of the NRA programs including Friend of the NRA, NRA All Access and Life of Duty.

By their actions, Verizon is marginalizing a segment of society – 130 million strong, loyal and passionate purveyors of the outdoor lifestyle including the millions of NRA members – because they don’t live, breath and work in the same space that we do. Their actions send a clear and dangerous message to our segment of society, as well as other segments of society that differ in the way they view life and live within those views.

The message is clear: If you differ in opinion about certain issues and lifestyle choices, Verizon doesn’t want your business. Would Verizon feel the same way if outdoor lifestyle and shooting enthusiasts decided to take similar actions against the company’s phone and internet services?

We’re calling on all NRA members to contact Verizon and DEMAND Verizon return Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel to their television line-up.  If you are a Verizon customer, you can also send a strong message to Verizon by choosing another provider of phone, internet, wireless or television service.

Go to www.KeepMyOutdoorTV.com or call 800-710-1922 to find out all the details and let your voice be heard.

The Evil of Gun-free Zones

One thing worse than supporting bad policy is knowingly supporting bad policy.

Worse still is knowingly supporting bad policy and shielding yourself from its destructive effects — while visiting that policy on children.

There has been much debate recently surrounding so-called “gun-free zones,” places such as schools, where law-abiding people won’t carry guns. But really there should be no debate. This is because it’s plain that even the zones’ defenders — liberals — don’t really believe they’re a good idea.

For evidence, consider a largely forgotten video made in 2013 by Project Veritas (PJ) after The Journal News in Westchester, N.Y., printed the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in its coverage area.

Posing as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence,” PJ operatives visited the homes of Eric Holder and various liberal journalists to ask them if they’d “support the cause” and post on their lawns a sign stating “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE.”

Not one accepted.

At the home of The Journal News’ Greg Shillinglaw they were told, “In this neighborhood that nobody puts out stuff like that” (except maybe at the schools?). The person at the Shillinglaw home concluded with, “I do believe in it, but I think I’ll pass on it.”

Translation: he believes in it for others.

Next was the Journal’s Mike Meaney. A woman answered the door and tersely said “I’m sorry, I can’t help, but good luck. …I have other reasons [for refusal] I can’t get into right now.” But, hey, they just needed to speak to ol’ Mike personally — I’m sure he’d snatch one of those signs up quicker than Hillary Clinton changes personalities.

The next one, the Star Ledger’s Bob Braun, offered tremendous support. Without missing a beat he said, “I agree with you and I am on your side on this, but I’m just wondering if that’s not an invitation to somebody with a gun!” as he emitted a chuckle. His wife chimed in, “I agree with you, but I’m not sure about the sign.” Braun then said moments later, “The problem in this town is, you know, somebody driving around here might think it’s a — seriously — might think it’s an invitation to come barging in.” But Braun did offer this consolation: “Well, if the sign said “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” without “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE,” I would put the sign up.”

Because a Gun-free-zone is a bad idea.

Except at schools.

Because the people who might drive around and barge into Braun’s house in Elizabeth, N.J., could never drive around and barge into schools in Elizabeth, N.J.

Or maybe it’s that children in Elizabeth, N.J., are bulletproof?

Now, it apparently took Braun — smart liberal that he is — all of two and a half seconds to figure out that putting a gun-free-zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Logically translated, it amounts to advertising, “We’re defenseless.” Yet he presumably supports them “in principle”; after all, he didn’t say, “Look, I support gun control, but not these zones.” So what’s the story here? Was this the first time he pondered the matter for two and a half seconds? When advocating policy, did he only consider it for 4/10ths of a second?

Clearly, these liberals either never thought their policies through or just couldn’t care less as long as their laws only hurt others. So take your pick: gross negligence or callous disregard.

Delving a bit deeper, we’re witnessing a typical leftist phenomenon: style over substance, image over reality. These liberals want to be seen as “good” people in their milieu; they want to appear enlightened in their echo chamber of effeteness. And achieving this has nothing to do with action. All their fellow travelers, that caponhood of hypocrisy, are as two-faced as they are. It’s all about what you say — all about posturing.

It’s reminiscent of some NYC liberals — in a gentrifying Brooklyn neighborhood fittingly called “Dumbo” — up in arms because “diversity” has come home: they’ve learned that their kids may be forced to attend school with poor minorities. One Dumbo parent actually said, “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children.” Yes.

And it’s more complicated when it’s about your own lawn.

Except that it really isn’t. It just seems so when it’s the first time in your life the realities of your ideology are brought home to you. Much like the youngster I once heard wonder why problems of poverty couldn’t be solved by just making more money, things can seem very simple to a child; they can also seem simple to a childish person, someone content to operate on emotion like a child or too self-centered — like a very young child — to consider how his actions, attitudes and advocacy affect others. This is the way of the overgrown juvenile masquerading as an adult that we euphemistically call a liberal.

But here’s the reality. Saying the politically correct thing — such as supporting gun-free-zone policies for schools — when you wouldn’t apply the same to your own home because you realize it’s a dangerous idea, doesn’t at all make you a good person. It makes you scum.

You’re willing to imperil American children nationwide just so you can strut around, puff up your chicken-chest and say “Look at me! I have the correct ideology!”

Don’t misunderstand me. Eliminating gun-free zones is no panacea. No doubt, maniacal mass murderers who target schools are to a degree motivated by the copycat factor and the maximized media attention attacking schools brings. Yet schools’ being gun-free zones does make them more attractive targets. And, no, it’s not necessarily because the perpetrators don’t have to fear harm, especially since these individuals often accept that their crime will be a suicide mission. But think about it: if your goal is to massacre a large number of people and go out in a blaze of notoriety, you want to ensure you won’t be stopped before your deed is done. Gun-free zones virtually guarantee this.

As for the “gun-free-zone for thee but not for me” liberals, I’m firmly convinced that some (not all, of course), on some level, aren’t all that troubled by school shootings. After all, it provides a great opportunity to beat the gun-control drum for people to whom “the cause” is everything. I mean, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. And what does it matter as long as the egg isn’t the egghead in the mirror, right?

Of course, there’s generally no such thing as being truly insulated from the consequences of your bad decisions. You know those gun-free-zone signs you think are such a bad idea that you wouldn’t put them in front of the home in which your child lives?

They could be in front of the school in which your child studies.

I’m talking about those signs that mean “We’re defenseless. Commit your massacre here. You’ll get 9 or 10 before the guys with guns arrive and stop you.”

Not that this will change many liberal’s hearts (forget the minds). The chances of a given liberal’s only child being killed in a school massacre are extremely slim. But the chances of getting that proud, self-satisfied, warm and fuzzy feeling from mouthing the right position and being accepted by the right people are 100 percent.

But if it does happen, perhaps you can console yourself with the knowledge that you took one for the cause, can rage in the media and maybe even appear in front of Congress. I just wonder, will you think it was all worth it?

As for legislation creating gun-free zones, I’m game. Really. But with one condition written in: any politician voting for the bill must put a “Gun Free Zone” zone sign in front of his home. After all, Mr. Compassionate Liberal, if it’s good enough for America’s children, it’s good enough for you.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com