Tag Archive for: NRA

Gun Owners Can Be Arrested For Concealed Carrying After Crossing State Lines — But There’s A Solution

/in , , , , , , , /by

While Americans acquire training to apply for concealed carry permits, Second Amendment groups are pushing Congress to pass concealed carry reciprocity legislation so gun owners are not arrested after crossing state lines.

The Daily Caller went to the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) gun range in Fairfax, Virginia, and attended Live Fire Instruction’s pistol fundamentals course in May.

Participants who complete the class are eligible to apply for a Virginia Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit.

“We were so busy during COVID, we were booked months and months out,” Lisa Paris, founder and owner of Live Fire Instruction, told the Caller. “I probably could have taught a class every single day during COVID, because the level of fear was so high.”

Gun ownership, especially among women, spiked during COVID-19.

Women comprised 71 percent of first-time gun buyers from 2021 to 2024, according to a 2024 report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

Women “woke up” during the pandemic, Paris said.

“I think a lot of people were like, ‘the government, they’re not going to protect me. I’m going to have to do this myself.’ And a lot of women did that,” she added.

The summer of 2020 was embroiled in protests and riots after George Floyd’s death, prompting many Americans to purchase firearms for self-defense.

Gun purchases skyrocketed that year, and the majority of buyers were women, according to Harvard data.

“Over the past five years, a growing number of Americans became first-time gun owners, particularly women, motivated by the desire to protect themselves and their families,” Josh Savani, executive director of NRA General Operations, said in a statement to the Caller.

The majority of U.S. gun owners cited “protection” as the primary reason for having a firearm, according to a 2023 Pew Research study.

However, Americans can face legal troubles while concealed carrying, even with a government-issued permit.

Republicans in Congress are pushing for concealed carry reciprocity with the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

The bill, introduced by Republican North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson, would enable individuals to concealed carry across state lines. The legislation would allow an individual with a valid government permit to carry in another state, providing that state also recognizes concealed carry.

It was introduced in January 2025 and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

In Virginia, individuals must take a “competency class” to obtain a concealed carry license, according to Paris.

“Other states are way more demanding, and then you have other states that are nothing. So, Virginia is kind of in the middle of you have to do something, but it’s not extreme, right?” she told the Caller.

Virginia is a “shall-issue” state, and residents must file permit applications with their county circuit court, according to the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA). Residents need to complete a state-approved course.

Other states have stricter requirements.

New York requires applicants take a safety training course, present four character references, disclose who lives with them and be interviewed by a licensing officer.

West Virginia, a constitutional carry state, has no permit requirement.

Hudson’s legislation would ensure that law-abiding Americans can exercise their constitutional rights in states that allow concealed carry, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) John Commerford told the Caller.

“If you freely travel … today, you will go through states that don’t require a permit,” he said. “You’ll go through states that require a permit but have reciprocity with your current state permit. And then you’ll cross the state line, and you’ll automatically become a felon for conduct that was lawful a mile behind you, but now you cross into New Jersey or New York or Massachusetts, and your right to self-defense went out the window.”

Police have arrested gun owners for concealed carrying in states that did not issue their permit.

Lloyd Muldrow, a Marine Corps veteran, had a concealed carry permit in Virginia. Muldrow claimed he “disarmed a man who was threatening people” in a pub in Baltimore, Maryland. He was arrested because his permit was not considered valid in Maryland.

Muldrow is not the only person to have fallen prey to concealed carry regulations, either.

Commerford pointed to the case of Shaneen Allen. She was pulled over in New Jersey and later arrested for carrying a handgun with a Pennsylvania concealed carry permit, NBC 10 reported in 2017.

She could have faced years in prison, but Allen was ultimately pardoned by then-Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

“[The] Second Amendment doesn’t discriminate on zip code,” Commerford emphasized.

There are various ways for new gun owners to learn the fundamentals of firearms so they can acquire a concealed carry license if their state of residency requires one.

Paris said the two most signicant takeaways for participants in her class are safety and enjoyment.

“Probably the biggest thing from this particular class is safety. You’re not hurting yourself, and you’re not hurting anybody else,” she said. “And then enjoy the sport. Once you love the sport, you’ll come to the gun range and shoot for fun. And then you’ll also be a responsible gun owner, because you’re practicing the sport.”

The NRA provides several firearms training classes, including courses for women.

“As the nation’s leader in firearms safety and training, the NRA is a trusted resource for new gun owners from all walks of life who are seeking top-tier instruction and education,” Savani said in a statement to the Caller.

“With a nationwide network of over 100,000 certified instructors, NRA courses equip gun owners with the skills and confidence to safely handle, store, and maintain their firearms. We’re especially proud to offer programs tailored specifically for women, including our Women on Target® Instructional Shooting Clinics, as well as specialized self-defense and concealed carry training,” he continued. “The NRA is committed to empowering all law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms and the right to self-defense.”

Hudson’s bill is not the only legislation making its way through Congress that could dramatically impact gun rights.

The House of Representatives passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in May, including Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act. That provision would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA).

If the legislation is implemented, it would “be the biggest win for gun owners in my generation,” Commerford told the Caller.

The NFA mandates that suppressors (otherwise known as “silencers”) be registered with the federal government, according to the NRA. The Hearing Protection Act would also remove the $200 tax, and buyers would be subject to a background check instead of an “onerous federal transfer process,” according to the NRA Hunters’ Leadership Forum.

The NFA falls under the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the Trump admin is taking steps to make the agency less hostile to gun owners.

The ATF updated its national policy on federal firearm licensee inspections in May, replacing the Biden administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy.

The ATF previously announced that the bureau, along with the DOJ, will be reviewing two other Biden-era firearms policies.

AUTHOR

Eireann Van Natta

Associate Editor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Second Amendment Groups Urge Congressional Republicans To Kill Decades-Old Suppressor Tax

Army Secretary Reportedly Takes Reins From Kash Patel At ATF

One Forgotten Government Agency Has Tormented Americans For Years — Kash Patel Could Fix It

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

SCOTUS Hands NRA First Amendment Win

/in , , , , , /by

In a victory for First Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided to reinstate a lawsuit brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) alleging that New York state officials had violated the Second Amendment advocacy group’s First Amendment rights.

Following a 2018 school shooting, then-superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria Vullo pressured financial institutions “to punish or suppress” the NRA, due to the organization’s gun rights advocacy. The NRA argued that Vullo violated the First Amendment and overstepped her official bounds, going beyond advising financial institutions and actually coercing them into targeting the NRA. But the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Vullo’s actions “constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement.”

In an opinion penned by typically-left-leaning Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the NRA put forth a strong enough case that its lawsuit should be reinstated. “Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment,” Sotomayor wrote. “Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.”

According to Sotomayor’s summary of the case, Vullo began investigating several NRA-associated insurance programs, finding several minor regulatory infractions. After the February 14, 2018 shooting at a school in Parkland, Florida, numerous companies and financial institutions spoke out against the NRA and some even severed ties with the group. Among those which refused to do business with the NRA were Lockton Companies, Chubb Corporation, and Lloyd’s of London, who respectively administered and underwrote insurance plans for NRA members.

Sotomayor wrote that, after the shooting, Vullo met with executives at Lockton, Chubb, and Lloyd’s and expressed a “desire to leverage [her office’s] powers to combat the availability of firearms, including specifically by weakening the NRA.” She also told executives — specifically Lloyd’s executives — that she had found numerous “technical regulatory infractions plaguing the affinity insurance marketplace,” but indicated “that DFS was less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions” unrelated to any NRA business “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.”

Sotomayor summarized, “Vullo and Lloyd’s struck a deal: Lloyd’s ‘would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business,’ and ‘in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming affinity-insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA, and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.’”

Shortly afterwards, Vullo issued “guidance” letters to New York financial institutions, urging them to fulfill “their social responsibility” by ceasing to do business with the NRA. She and then-Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) hosted a joint press conference reiterating those points. Chubb agreed to stop underwriting NRA insurance policies and Vullo called on others to do likewise. Chubb and Lloyd’s entered into agreements with Vullo and DFS in early May.

“As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York,” Sotomayor explained. “So, whether analyzed as a threat or as an inducement, the conclusion is the same: Vullo allegedly coerced Lloyd’s by saying she would ignore unrelated infractions and focus her enforcement efforts on NRA-related business alone, if Lloyd’s ceased underwriting NRA policies and disassociated from gun-promotion groups.”

“One can reasonably infer from the complaint that Vullo coerced DFS-regulated entities to cut their ties with the NRA in order to stifle the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy and advance her views on gun control,” Sotomayor continued. She further explained:

“To state a claim that the government violated the First Amendment through coercion of a third party, a plaintiff must plausibly allege conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff ’s speech. Accepting the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities into disassociating with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.”

“The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of intermediary strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted to target the NRA’s advocacy,” Sotomayor explained. “Such a strategy allows government officials to expand their regulatory jurisdiction to suppress the speech of organizations that they have no direct control over.” She concluded, “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.”

The court’s decision was unanimous. Justices Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Biden-appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote concurring opinions. This comes as the Supreme Court deliberates over a case regarding the federal government and its agencies pressuring or coercing social media entities into censoring American political speech online.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

11 Incidents in Which Lawful Gun Owners Made a Difference

/in , , , , , , /by

As the Supreme Court continued its decadelong silence in protecting the Second Amendment, Americans last month nevertheless proved that they understand the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.

The FBI conducted a record-high 3.9 million background checks for firearms sales and transfers in June. The previous record of 3.7 million was set just this past March.

It is little surprise that, during these difficult and uncertain times, many Americans who never before considered the prospect of gun ownership are coming to appreciate their Second Amendment rights. Even in “normal” times, Americans often rely on their firearms to protect themselves and others.

According to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times a year. There’s good reason to believe that most of these defensive gun uses never are reported to police, much less make the local or national news.

Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today. But what side are you on? And how can you sharpen up on how to defend your position? Learn more now >>

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article detailing some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read accounts from 2019 and 2020 here).

The following examples of defensive gun use represent only a small portion of the stories we found in June. You can explore more examples in The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database.

  • June 1, Edinburg, Virginia: A Virginia pastor drew his handgun to protect himself from five trespassers who assaulted him on his property. Police said the pastor had noticed two of them apparently disposing of large items illegally in a dumpster at an apartment complex he owns, and asked the two to leave. They became angry and returned with three others, surrounding the pastor. The five threatened him with racial slurs, and one head-butted him. The pastor defended himself with his handgun and called 911. After an unfortunate mix-up in which police initially detained the pastor, officers arrested the threatening individuals and charged them with hate crimes.
  • June 4, Gustavus, Ohio: A homeowner spotted a man underneath a car in his driveway late at night, and grabbed a shotgun to confront him. The man, who police suspect was trying to steal car parts, rushed at the homeowner, who shot and wounded him. Investigators later discovered that the would-be thief possessed several power tools and had put a jack under the homeowner’s car.
  • June 5, Dudley Shoals, North Carolina: When two armed men tried to rob a convenience store, the clerk drew his own gun and fired at them until they fled. The store’s security camera captured the drama, police said.   
  • June 6, Lake Elsinore, California: A store owner intervened with his firearm to protect a woman from an assailant, police said. The store owner had seen the man punch and kick the woman. The attacker left when the store owner attempted to stop him, but returned minutes later holding a metal object. When the store owner stood between the man and the woman, the assailant pushed him to the ground and began to beat the woman again. The store owner retrieved his firearm and shot the man, who fled. Police later arrested him.  
  • June 13, Ogden, Utah: A vengeful ex-boyfriend drove to the residence of his former girlfriend shared with her new boyfriend and, after an argument, opened fire on them. The woman, who police said was the past victim of domestic violence by him, drew her own handgun and fired in self-defense. Police later arrested the man and charged him with numerous felonies.
  • June 14, Rome, New York:  A good Samaritan with a shotgun came to his neighbors’ rescue when he realized their apartment had been broken into by an armed intruder, police said. The intruder entered through a bedroom window and pistol-whipped a woman. The neighbor went into the apartment and fired at the intruder, who fled.
  • June 16, Delta Township, Michigan: A concealed-carry permit holder intervened to defend himself and other motorists when a mentally distressed man began firing a handgun at cars on a highway. Emergency dispatchers received at least 10 calls about the man before he jumped in front of the permit holder’s car and pointed a gun at him, police said. The permit holder, who had been on his way to enjoy a round of golf, shot and killed the man.   
  • June 20, Turner, Maine: A homeowner held two suspected burglars at gunpoint until law enforcement could arrive and arrest them. The homeowner, who had noticed a back door was forced open and a lock ripped off, saw the two leaving the residence with items in their hands. He drew his handgun, detained them, and called police.
  • June 23, Spokane, Washington:  An armed mother used her firearm to protect her teenage son after a meet-up to buy a cellphone turned into an attempted robbery. Her son had agreed to meet the[MK1]  sellers in a grocery store parking lot, but the cellphone was not as advertised. When he declined to buy it, the men assaulted the teen and tried to take money from his pocket. Police said the boy’s mother, who had parked nearby, saw what was happening, drew her firearm, and fired at the men—who promptly got into their vehicle and fled.
  • June 27, Louisville, Kentucky: When a man opened fire on a crowd protesting the police shooting of Breonna Taylor in her apartment, armed bystanders fired back, wounding the shooter. Eventually, several protesters were able to hold the shooter at gunpoint and convince him to drop his weapon. Police said the shooter had been arrested twice in previous weeks on riot-related charges. Earlier that day, other protesters had asked the man to leave because of his “disruptive behavior.”
  • June 29, North Freedom, Wisconsin: Parents shot their adult son in self-defense after he fired rounds at their home and broke in during the early morning hours.  Police said the parents called 911 to report that someone was shooting at their bedroom windows. They attempted to retreat to the basement when their son entered the home, but ultimately shot and wounded him. Police charged the son with attempted murder and other felonies. He already was facing charges for other violent offenses.

Sometimes, lawful gun owners get it wrong and end up in the national news for using their guns irresponsibly. But more often, they get it right and few of us hear about it.

Many of us don’t hear about mothers defending their sons, or good Samaritans coming to the rescue of innocent neighbors.

Many of us don’t hear about the protesters whose Second Amendment rights saved the lives of those exercising their First Amendment rights.

Many of us don’t hear about the countless others whose lives and livelihoods were protected because of lawfully owned firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

As the silence from the Supreme Court reaches deafening levels, we promise to keep telling these stories and highlighting the importance of protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

COMMENTARY BY

Amy Swearer

Amy Swearer is a senior legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Trump’s Law and Order Agenda Is Making Black America Safer Again

Ted Cruz: It’s ‘Racist’ to Defund the Police

In America, the System Trends Toward Justice

These are trying times in our nation’s history. Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today, with polar opposite viewpoints on public policy and the government’s role in our lives.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation asked world-class speaker, educator, and researcher David Azerrad to walk you through his research and outline the differences between the “two regimes” in our society today—conservatism and progressivism—and their primary differences.

When you get access to this course today, you’ll learn key takeaways like what it means to be a conservative, what “modern progressivism” is, how a conservative worldview differs from a progressive one, and much, much more.

You will come away from this online course with a better understanding of the differing points of view, how they align with your principles, and how to defend your beliefs.

Don’t wait—start taking “The Case for Conservatism” course online now.

GET YOUR FREE ACCESS NOW »

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gun Sales In 2020 Are Absolutely Crushing Records

/in , , , , , , /by

2020 keeps seeing gun sale records beaten month after month, with an all-time high 3.9 million NICS firearm background checks being conducted in June alone, according to FBI statistics.

So far in 2020, three months have sported over 3 million NICS background checks, more than any previous month since the FBI began recording the statistics 22 years ago in 1998. March saw 3.7 million checks, May say 3.1 million, and June 3.9 million.

The sales come amid massive unrest across the country incited by the death of George Floyd at the hands of former Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin.

June saw the rise and fall of the so-called ‘Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone’ in Seattle (CHAZ), in which protesters took over a six-block area in the downtown area that police were forced to abandon. Several news outlets reported that CHAZ had a peaceful atmosphere, but residents said otherwise, with violence frequently breaking out after sunset.

Conservative Pundit Meghan McCain argued the spike in gun sales was thanks to the violent riots coupled with protesters calling for the end of police.

COLUMN BY

ANDERS HAGSTROM

White House correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s National Guard ‘Surge’ Allowed George Floyd Protesters To ‘Demonstrate Safely,’ White House Says

‘I Want To Hang Him From A F**king Tree, Like He Do Us,’ Protester Yells At New York Cops

‘Defunding … Means Defunding’: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Not Satisfied With Cutting NYPD By $1B

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Libertarian VP Candidate William F. Weld Continues to be Anti-Gun

/in , , , , /by

As governor of Massachusetts, William Weld supported various gun control schemes, including a ban on semi-automatic firearms.  Unfortunately, and despite being the Libertarian candidate for vice president, Weld continues his anti-gun ways.

In July 2016, while NRA and other groups concerned with civil liberties were hard at work fighting legislation that would have stripped Americans of their Second Amendment rights without due process based merely on their placement on a secret government watch list, Weld expressed support for such measures.

In an interview with the Washington Post Editorial Board, Weld said of watch list gun control legislation:

I think the Susan Collins stuff looks good. I mean, it’s hard for me, uh, having proposed this super-duper task force getting bits of information from all over to say, it wouldn’t lie with good grace in my mouth to say ‘no, don’t use the terrorist watch list as a source of such information.’ So I would go with that.

In an August interview with Revolt.tv, Weld reiterated this position. When asked about what can be done “to control this flow of guns,” Weld responded, “you shouldn’t have anybody who’s on a terrorist watch list be able to buy any gun at all.”

At another point in the interview Weld characterized commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines as potential weapons of mass destruction. Displaying a level of ignorance usually attendant to politicians carrying the endorsement of the Brady Campaign, Weld told the interviewer:

The five-shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle. The problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon. And those are independent criminal offenses. That’s when they become essentially a weapon of mass destruction.

Weld went on to suggest to the interviewer that both handguns and AR-15s are a “problem,” stating, “The problem with handguns is probably even worse than the problem of the AR-15.”

This latest episode reveals that when pressed on firearms issues, despite any assurances he has given to voters, Weld’s political instincts are to abandon gun owners and embrace gun control.

RELATED ARTICLES:

If You’re On the Fence About Your Vote, This Pastor Clarifies How the Very Future of America Is At Stake by JIM GARLOW/SKYLINE CHURCH, SAN DIEGO

NRA Statement on Governor Christie’s Conditional Vetoes of Anti-Gun Bills

Massachusetts Attorney General Unilaterally Bans Thousands of Previously Legal Guns

The Terror Watch List And Due Process Of Law

Americans Oppose Unilateral Actions, Wary of Federal Government Gun Control

/in , , , , /by

Despite a highly-publicized speech and a multi-week media blitz aimed at convincing the American people of the importance and legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s executive maneuvers on gun control, the American people remain unpersuaded. Polls show that Americans are unconvinced about the effectiveness of further gun control measures and are in opposition to Obama’s decision to work outside the traditional political process. An additional poll offers important insight in to one of the reasons the public has repeatedly rejected new federal gun controls.

A poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily on January 4-7 asked if stricter gun control would “hinder self-defense, protecting family” or “reduce crime/keep guns out of criminals’ hands?” Only 42 percent of those surveyed responded that stricter controls would stop criminals from acquiring guns. Moreover, the poll found that more members of the public believe an increase in gun ownership would lead to an increase in safety rather than an increase in crime. The poll also found that the vast majority of Americans agree that the Second Amendment “will always be a relevant and necessary safeguard against tyranny,” including 52 percent of Democrats.

Similarly, a Rasmussen poll conducted January 6-7 revealed that Americans question the efficacy of Obama’s executive actions, but it also showed the public is skeptical of the legitimacy of Obama’s decision to act unilaterally. Survey takers were asked, “Will the president’s new executive order further extending federal government oversight of gun sales reduce the number of mass shootings in America?” A mere 21 percent believed that measure would be effective, while 59 percent answered that it would not. Further, indicating that at least half of Americans didn’t sleep through grade school civics, when asked, “When it comes to gun control, should President Obama take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed or should the government do only what the president and Congress agree on?” a majority of 58 percent answered that the president must work with Congress.

Part of the reason the Americans lack an appetite for gun control is revealed in another Rasmussen poll conducted January 10-11. The survey asked, “Do you trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws?” A staggering 59 percent of those polled do not trust the government to enforce gun control laws fairly. A mere 28 percent trust the government with this task, while 13 percent were undecided.

These results are in line with broader measures of trust in the federal government. Since the 1970s, Gallup has routinely conducted a poll asking “how much trust and confidence do you have in our federal government in Washington when it comes to handling [domestic problems] – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?” Under Obama, the federal government has breached Watergate-era lows in trust.

With a severe distrust of the government’s ability to fairly carry out gun control policies, the widely-opposed decision by Obama to go it alone on guns is unlikely to bring about the sort of togetherness across the political spectrum that Obama purports to seek. Those currently running for the Presidency that hope to reverse the climate of distrust with Washington might do well to exhibit trust in the American people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and their ability to make decisions through their elected representatives.

RELATED VIDEOS:

In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that, with his latest executive actions on gun control, President Obama has once again chosen to engage in political grandstanding instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Rep. Schweikert Introduces D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act

Anti-Gunners Endorse Hillary Clinton for President

Poll: 61% Believe NRA’s Firearms Policies Make America Safer

/in , , , /by

In this News Minute video from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that a Rasmussen poll released this week found that 61 percent of Americans agree that the NRA’s position on gun rights protect them.

RELATED VIDEO: President Obama’s last act against America will be a massive push to strip away Second Amendment rights. Video by Bill Finley:

VIDEO: How to Stop Violent Crime

/in , , , , , , /by

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

ACTION ALERT: Verizon Drops NRA Outdoor and Sportsman Channels

/in , , /by

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

/in , , , , /by

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

Israeli Minister: “Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism”

/in , , , , , /by

Recent reports out of Israel show that that Israeli civilians aren’t taking a recent spate of terrorist violence lying down, they are arming themselves to fight back. Further, the Israeli government is cooperating by taking measures to ensure that more citizens will have access to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their communities.

In recent weeks, Israel has experienced a wave of attacks, primarily stabbings, carried out by individual Palestinians against Israeli civilians. According to the Washington Post, as of Wednesday, eight Israelis had been killed and dozens injured in this latest round of violence.

The Israeli government has taken drastic measures to combat the attacks, calling up reservists and deploying troops in cities. However, with the unpredictable nature of the violence, civilians are turning to private gun ownership for safety.

In describing the clamor for arms, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported “[c]ars are double- and even triple-parked outside a gun shop in Israel’s coastal city of Tel Aviv. Inside, customers jostle each other as they wait to be served.” The report goes on to quote store owner Iftash Ben-Yehuda, who said, “[t]he last time the shop was so busy was probably in the 1970s. I’ve never before seen such stress or panic.” The article also notes that applications for firearms licenses have risen “by tens of percent” in only 10 days.

Some seeking arms recognize that the effects of carrying go well beyond their own personal safety. Jerusalem resident Netanel Oberman told Bloomberg News, “I want a gun not so much because I’m worried for my own safety, but because I’ll be better prepared to protect other people from attack.”

Israel Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan seems to agree with this assessment. In a statement Wednesday, Erdan noted, “[i]n recent weeks, many citizens have helped the Israel Police subdue terrorists. Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism. Therefore, I have worked to ease conditions for obtaining firearms.”

Further, on Wednesday, the Ministry of Public Security issued relaxed guidelines on who is eligible for a firearm license. The move makes it easier for those on active or reserve military duty to acquire a license, as well as civilians who have completed a requisite security guard course.

Israel typically has very stringent firearm licensing requirements that have gotten progressively stricter over the course of the last two decades. However, just last year, government officials were forced to ease restrictions on carrying firearms following a brutal terrorist attack that resulted in the murder of four Orthodox Jewish men in a West Jerusalem Temple.

Unfortunately, as the Bloomberg News article makes clear, some law-abiding civilians are unable to get a firearms license even with the relaxed rules. Segev Gorbitz of Jerusalem told the outlet, “[i]t’s not right… I want a gun to defend myself and my family, and if you’re an Israeli like me who served in the army and have no criminal record, you should be able to get one.”

Remarkably, even given the present dire situation, Israel’s anti-gun activists are still out in force. The AFP article quoted a leader of an Israeli anti-gun coalition called Gun Free Kitchen Tables, who told the outlet, “[i]n the long run it is obvious that more weapons creates more danger, not more security but the opposite… Encouraging civilians to use firearms on the street could lead to very unfortunate results.” Similarly, according to Bloomberg, Galia Wallach of NA’AMAT, which holds anti-gun positions, protested her countrymen’s increased access to the tools of self-defense, telling a radio program, “I’m very concerned that easing licenses for guns might escalate violence.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Thirty Israeli students attacked during visit to Joseph’s tomb

Democratic Debate “Race to the Bottom” on anti-gun posturing

Hillary Clinton Calls us her Enemies, While Dan Gross Calls us Terrorists!

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

Summer 2015: New Record for Gun Sales?

/in , , /by

Data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) indicate that firearm acquisitions set a new record during June, July and August, and are on track to finish the year higher than any year except 2013, when firearm acquisitions soared in reaction to President Obama’s push for gun control.

There were more than 2.6 million firearm acquisition-related checks during June through August 2015, a figure 100,000 higher than was achieved during the 2013 surge, and well above the figures for any other year since NICS’ inception in November 1998.

For the first eight months of 2015, January through August, the number of firearm acquisition-related checks was the second highest on record, at 7.7 million, well behind the 9.3 million tallied during the 2013 surge, but running 365,000 ahead of the number achieved last year.

In addition to checks conducted on customers at gun stores and FFL customers in other venues, other NICS checks are conducted for purposes of obtaining firearm purchase permits or carry permits, the latter of which in some states exempt the holders from redundant NICS checks when acquiring firearms.

NICS check numbers are not a precise measure of the number of firearms acquired, of course. They indicate only the number of checks conducted. However, viewed over time, they indicate that gun control supporters are off-base in claiming that firearm ownership is on the decline. To the contrary, the long-term trend in firearm ownership is indisputably on the rise.

Gun owners should never allow the anti-gun media to diminish their hope or expectations that our fundamental rights will be fought for and protected.  Our numbers are growing and our resolve is unquestionable — the misinformation of Michael Bloomberg, Barak Obama and the mainstream media notwithstanding.

VIDEO: Liberals and Teaching Children Gun Safety

/in , , , /by

We have turned our children over to idiots! Time for some sanity and gun safety education.

Florida Campus Carry: An Interview with Rep. Greg Steube

/in , , , /by

Reporter Lee Williams with the Sarasota Herald-Tribune conducted a special TV interview with Rep. Greg Steube on the campus carry issue and the bill (HB-4001) he has re-filed for the 2016 Florida Legislative Session.  The interview link accompanies his blog article.

Excerpt from blog article: 

“During the last legislative session, Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel-Vasilinda broke ranks and supported the campus carry bill. The Tallahassee Democrat gave moving testimony about how she used a pistol to stop an assault while she was a college student.”

“Asked if Steube’s bill represents a choice between campus carry and campus rape, Hammer said, ‘I would not argue with that.’

“As a mother who raised three daughters, and as a grandmother raising a granddaughter now in college, I would certainly not argue with that,’ Hammer said. And I would suggest to you, that Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel-Vasilinda would not argue with that either.”  

Click Here to watch the TV Interview.

CAMPUS CARRY COMMENTS by Lee Williams

Few bills have been subjected to more myths and misconceptions than Rep. Greg Steube’s campus-carry legislation, which he recently re-introduced.

Opponents act as though the three-term state rep will be handing out Glocks during freshman orientation.

Mike Young and I invited the Sarasota Republican to a special edition of The Gun Writer TV, to explain his reasons for the legislation — his legislative intent.

For Steube, it’s about making sure that concealed-carry licensees are not stripped of their right to self defense, and removing another gun-free zone, which are magnets for trouble.

While his bill has garnered some opposition, it’s received even stronger support.

Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and a past president of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports the campus-carry legislation.

“A gun-free Campus creates a Sanctuary campus and safe haven for rapists and criminals. Don’t you think it’s odd for the League of Women Voters to engage in this anti-women, anti-self-defense movement?” Hammer said.

“Not only are opponents of license holders having guns on campus engaging in a war against the Second Amendment and self-defense, they are engaging in a war against women who need to be able to defend themselves against rape and physical violence on a college campus.

“Women should not be required to surrender their constitutional right of self-defense and they clearly should not left defenseless against a rapist.

“Those who oppose self-defense by women don’t have the facts on their side. When they can’t back up their political views with facts and reality, they resort to emotional rhetoric and predictions of doom,” Hammer said.

The Florida League of Women Voters has said they plan to oppose the bill, again. The League has a history of anti-gun activism, which began in 1990 with “support of banning assault weapons, requiring all dealers to run criminal background checks at gun shows, and opposing laws that grant special protection for the gun industry.

”The League’s activism continues to this day. Last week, Chuck O’Neal, the League’s First Vice-President, filed suit to stop the statewide bear hunt. The League also opposed the removal of the ban on using suppressors for hunting in Florida.

When the ban was lifted, they filed suit against the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and lost. They also opposed campus carry during the last legislative session.

Bloomberg proxy group Everytown for Gun Safety has also voiced their opposition to Campus Carry in Florida last month.

During the last legislative session, Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda broke ranks and supported the campus carry bill. The Tallahassee Democrat gave moving testimony about how she used a pistol to stop an assault while she was a college student.

Asked if Steube’s bill represents a choice between campus carry and campus rape, Hammer said, “I would not argue with that.”

“As a mother who raised three daughters, and as a grandmother raising a granddaughter now in college, I would certainly not argue with that,” Hammer said. “And I would suggest to you, that Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda would not argue with that either.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Seattle Moves Forward with “Gun Violence Tax” on all Guns and Ammo

Response to Tallahassee Democrat Op-ed on ‘Docs v. Glocks’ by Marion P. Hammer

/in , , , /by

Below is Marion P. Hammer’s response in the Tallahassee Democrat to anti-gun editorials attacking the courts on the “Docs v. Glocks” issue.

It’s not about the First Amendment

By Marion P. Hammer,

My View 4:57 p.m. EDT August 4, 2015

The column “Free Speech does not threaten gun ownership” (Aug. 3) by Howard L. Simon of the ACLU is a smokescreen.

Twice now federal judges have ruled that the so-called “Docs & Glocks” law does not violate First Amendment free speech rights of doctors and medical personnel. The law stops pediatricians and other physicians from prying into our personal lives, invading our privacy and straying from issues relating to disease and medicine into questioning children or their parents about gun ownership and guns in the home.

Read, “Free speech is no threat to gun ownership,” by Howard L. Simon posted  in the Tallahassee Democrat on August 4, 2015.

In both rulings, the court made it clear that the law is an appropriate regulation of professional speech. The state has a duty to protect the rights of vulnerable patients against doctors who use their examining rooms to interrogate parents and children about gun ownership for the purpose of delivering their anti-gun political messages.

If a patient answers questions like, “Do you own a gun?” or “Do your children have access to guns in your home?” or “Did you know that having a gun in your home triples your risk of becoming a homicide victim?,” the patient is likely to be given the “Advice to parents” the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends on their website: “Never have a gun in the home. Do not purchase a gun. Remove all guns present in the home.” That is not medical care. That is politics.

That political motivation has nothing to do with the health care and medical treatment we seek for our children and for which we are paying when we enter a doctor’s office.

Read, Federal court says state can enforce ‘doc vs. glocks’ law by Gary Fineout in the Tallahassee Democrat posted on July 29, 2015.

Further, these questions are ethically wrong. Any doctor who asks them is committing a form of unethical conduct known as an “ethical boundary violation.” Any doctor who commits an ethical boundary violation can and should be disciplined. We need to be able to trust our doctors. Doctors who intentionally step over that ethical and legal boundary clearly cannot be trusted.

Other ethical boundaries don’t allow doctors to take advantage of vulnerable elderly patients and question them about property and assets they own, allow them to encourage these elderly patients to make gifts of cars, jewelry or other assets to the doctor, or make the doctor a beneficiary in a will.

Additionally, entering the answers to gun ownership questions into medical records and computer databases is a de facto form of registration of gun owners and is already prohibited by law.

Any pediatrician truly concerned about gun safety is free to hand out gun safety brochures to all parents. The First Amendment smokescreen that is being used to excuse unethical and political abuse of patients privacy rights needs to stop and doctors should stick to medical care.

ABOUT MARION P. HAMMER

Marion P. Hammer is a past president of the National Rifle Association and current executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida.

RELATED ARTICLE: Seattle Approves New Tax on Guns, Ammunition