West Virginia Governor Signs Second Amendment Preservation Act

West Virginia just passed preemptive legislation to protect citizen’s gun rights.

NRA West Virginia Flag


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/05/west-virginia-governor-signs-second-amendment-preservation-act;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

West Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- West Virginia has joined the list of Second Amendment sanctuaries with the passage of HB2694, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. Governor Jim Justice signed the measure into law, meaning it will take effect on July 9, according to the website of the West Virginia state legislature.

The text of the legislation includes significant barriers to the use of state and local law enforcement authorities for enforcing some of the onerous restrictions that Joe Biden wishes to impose on our Second Amendment rights. For instance, the legislation prohibits “federal commandeering” of state and local law enforcement agencies for the purposes of enforcing any federal firearms law.

In essence, the federal government is prohibited from commandeering, which the legislation defines as “taking control of or seizing the assets, personnel, or operations of an agency of this state, or of a political subdivision of this state, or the employees of an agency or political subdivision of this state without the express authority for the control having been formally given by the state or political subdivision of the state.”

More importantly, the legislation also prohibits local and state agencies from acting against people who are in compliance with state firearms laws, particularly when they may be in conflict with an “inconsistent federal firearms law” or an “inconsistent presidential executive order or action.”

An “inconsistent federal firearms law” is defined as “a federal statute, regulation, or rule relating to firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition that is inconsistent with the laws of the State of West Virginia. Inconsistent federal firearms law also means and includes any federal firearms law which the enactment, enforcement, or execution of which violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” Similarly, an “inconsistent presidential executive order or action” is defined as “an executive order or action issued by the President of the United States relating to the enforcement or execution of an inconsistent federal firearms law.”

The state states that “a federal firearms law which criminalizes the possession of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition for federal purposes when the possession of that firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition would not be, and is not, a violation of the law of the State of West Virginia” is considered to be “inconsistent with the laws of the State of West Virginia.” The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action has a summary of that state’s firearms laws for loyal Ammoland readers to review.

According to Gun Owners of America, the legislation passed by huge margins (72-24 with 4 abstentions in the statehouse, 30-4 in the state senate). The gun-rights group has asked members to “thank or spank” state legislatures, depending on their vote, and to thank Governor Justice for signing the bill into law.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.Harold Hutchison



Proof FBI’s NICS Firearms-Background-Check is Gathering Our Private Info for INTERPOL



SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/proof-fbis-nics-firearms-background-check-is-gathering-our-private-info-for-interpol/#axzz6tWezxsOj


"Instead, we worked our contacts and were able to get a second copy of the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) User Manual from another source that showed the redacted information.

One of the FBI censored sections deals with giving U.S. citizens’ private data to INTERPOL, the international criminal police organization that facilitates worldwide police investigations.

Gun owners have been told background checks are ONLY used to verify a person’s eligibility to buy a gun. This document seems to dispute this assertion. Now you can see why they want Universal Background Checks so bad…"


Democrat Governor of POLICE STATE NJ Pushing for More Radical Gun Control, Hates Your Rights


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/governor-new-jersey-pushing-more-radical-gun-control/#axzz6tQoSf9vD;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- On Thursday, April 15, 2021, Governor Phil “Free Stuff” Murphy announced statewide legislative and executive measures that will assault the freedoms of New Jersey citizens.  New Jersey, with the toughest laws infringing on Second Amendment rights, the new measures will do nothing to curb gun violence, just act as more burdensome laws for responsible gun owners to navigate.

Phil “The Bill of Rights is Above my Pay Grade” Murphy ran on an anti-gun (anti-rights) platform, and it has not been a stretch for him to make good on his campaign promises to the ilk of the Commie Mommies at Moms Demand Action.  Murphy does not mince any words about it, even pretending to be in support of lawful firearm ownership, with him stating during a COVID-19 press release last year that “A safer society, for my taste, has fewer guns and not more guns…”

From a press release, the following areas are what Murphy said are going to be focused on:

Funding Gun Violence Prevention Measures

  • Increasing Violence Intervention Funding: Cities and states across the country have been demonstrating that we can achieve rapid, sustained reductions in shootings by investing in evidence-based, community-driven strategies like group violence intervention, relationship-based street outreach, and hospital-based violence intervention programs. Though the FY2022 budget process, Governor Murphy proposes an additional $10 million in funding for these initiatives in New Jersey.
  • Dedicating $2 million to Rutgers GVRC:  Governor Murphy established the Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University due to the federal government’s failure to dedicate funding to research gun violence as the public health epidemic that it is. The Governor’s FY2022 Budget proposal will dedicate $2 million to help the DVRC collect much-needed data in this area.

Supporting Gun Violence Prevention Legislation

  • Requiring Firearm Safety Training: S-2169/A-5030 (Weinberg/Reynolds-Jackson) would modernize firearm ID cards, as well as require completion of a firearm safety course in order to receive a permit to purchase a gun or receive a firearm ID card. Connecticut, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, Maryland and the District of Columbia all have laws requiring individuals to undergo safety training prior to being able to purchase.
  • Mandating Safe Storage of Firearms: Owning a firearm for protection in the home can present a substantial obstacle to safe firearm storage, with individuals often opting to keep weapons loaded and easily accessible. Last legislative session, the Assembly passed A-3696/S-2240 (Downey/Gopal) requiring firearm owners to store the firearm in a securely locked box or container; in a location where a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or to secure the firearm with a trigger lock.
  • Raising Minimum Age to Purchase Long Guns to 21: Under current law, a person 18 years of age and older may obtain a firearms purchaser identification card and a handgun purchaser is required to be at least 21 years old. The bill (A-1141/S-3605, Freiman/Cryan) increases from 18 to 21 the age at which a person is eligible to receive a firearms purchaser identification card used to purchase shotguns and rifles but would still allow for those at least 18 to possess a long gun for purposes of hunting; military drills; competition; target practice; training; or under the supervision of a parent or guardian.
  • Promoting Microstamping Technology: Microstamping technology provides law enforcement with the tools to quickly link firearm cartridge casings found at the scene of a crime to a specific firearm, without having to recover the firearm itself.  The technology essentially creates a “license plate” on cartridge casings to identify the gun that was used to shoot the ammunition.  Last legislative session, S-112/A-1098 (Weinberg/Downey) would require within a year that firearm manufacturers incorporate this technology into new handguns sold in New Jersey.
  • Establishing Electronic Ammunition Sales Recordkeeping: The State Commission of Investigation (SCI) issued a report in 2016 finding that straw purchases of ammunition were unchecked because firearm IDs lacked photo identification.  The SCI also found that sales records were often hand-written into log books — a problem for law enforcement, which should be able to consult an electronic database when it investigates questionable ammunition purchases.  A-1292/S-1481 (Greenwald/Weinberg) would require manufacturers or dealers of handgun ammunition to keep a detailed electronic record of ammunition sales, and report ammunition sales to the State Police.
  • Banning .50 Caliber Firearms: Military-style .50 caliber rifles are banned or restricted in several other states. California has a complete ban on .50-caliber rifles, Connecticut bans specific models and Maryland has some restrictions.  S-103/A-1280 (Gill/Greenwald) would revise the definition of “destructive device” under New Jersey law so that it includes weapons of .50 caliber or greater.
  • Closing Loophole for Importing Out-of-State Firearms: Individuals who move to New Jersey from another state are allowed to bring their legally acquired guns with them without registering the guns according to New Jersey law.  A-3686/S-372 (Vainieri Huttle/Cryan) would close this loophole by requiring firearm owners who move to New Jersey to obtain a firearm purchaser identification card (FPIC) and register their firearms within 30 days of residing in this State.
  • Holding the Gun Industry Accountable: In New Jersey, almost 80% of guns used in crimes are originally purchased outside of the state.  However, the gun industry has failed to take any steps to stem the flow of guns to the illegal market through gun shows, flea markets, straw purchasers, and theft.  The industry has also failed to make its products safer and has engaged in unscrupulous marketing.  A bill recently introduced in the New York Senate would hold gun manufacturers liable for the public harm they cause by amending the state’s public nuisance laws to prohibit the gun industry from endangering the safety or health of the public through its sale, manufacturing, importing or marketing of guns.  Governor Murphy proposes similar legislation.

Additional Measures

  • Regulating School Shooting Drills: New Jersey schools currently are required to conduct active shooter exercises but guidelines are vague on how drills should be conducted. Governor Murphy proposes authorizing the Department of Education to establish trauma-informed and age-appropriate standards for lockdown drills including encouraging preparation over simulation; barring use of simulated gunshots; advanced notice to parents about planned drills; durational limits; training; and prohibiting rewarding children for fighting off potential gunmen during a drill.
  • Reconvening Historic “States for Gun Safety” Summit: New Jersey was poised to host a multi-state summit in Newark last year on gun-safety issues — a first-of-its-kind event organized by a coalition of states that formed three years ago in response to persistent inaction on gun control at the federal level.  The all-day summit was expected to draw governors and officials from New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, but was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The multi-state effort has involved a sharing of data among the member states, including the exchange of information about illegal trafficking and about those disqualified from owning firearms.  Governor Murphy intends to reconvene the Summit in the Summer of 2021.
  • Announcing Nominations to the Personalized Handgun Authorization Commission: Governor Murphy today announced that he will soon file nomations to the so-called “Smart Gun Commission.” The commission aims to bring together industry experts, business representatives, and advocates for discussion of gun violence in New Jersey.

The fact of the matter is these are all just fluff.  None of the proposals will do anything to stop violent actions and or actors.  These are just feel good, “look at me I’m doing something” policies that not only will not help stop so-called gun violence but further infringe on the responsible gun owners in the state.  The constitutionality of many of these proposals is quite questionable, even under a progressive laissez-faire way of doing things, especially given the questions asked and answered in Heller.

To cherry-pick some of the proposals:

The funding measures they want to take are just more examples of cronyism and trying to prove something is being done by throwing money at it.  Nothing of any value has come from the Rutgers GVRC.  Let’s see the reports and data…Smart guns?  How’s that working out for ya?  Obviously not too well since Murphy announced the nominations for a “smart gun” commission.

On the legislative end, all we are being provided are infringements.  Mandatory training for a fundamental right is patently absurd.  As a firearm trainer myself (as in I would financially gain from such a law), I advocate that everyone that owns firearms should get training, but it should not be a requirement.  The state of New Jersey already has mandatory storage laws for keeping children from accessing firearms.  If there are bad actors that are not following the current law already, what makes the legislature think the same people will follow a new law?  The proposal to make it so that those who are 18 can no longer buy a firearm is a gross infringement.  This is coming from the same people that want to allow 16-year-olds to vote.  Microstamping is going to be similar to the first smart gun law in New Jersey – AN ABYSMAL FAILURE!  The technology does not exist.  .50 Cal ban?  To quote a meme from social media I read the other day “Note to self, do not rob a store with a .50 rifle.”  To even suggest that a .50 firearm is a real threat is showing how out of touch the legislature and Murphy truly are, lets get a statistic on the number of .50 firearms used to do anything illegal, showing the true carnage through facts.  I’ll wait….

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs sums this situation up quite well in their recent press release:

“Phil Murphy announced a sweeping new package of gun control proposals in an orchestrated press event featuring anti-gun lawmakers, clergy, and civic leaders. Despite stating that most gun crime occurs in NJ’s major urban centers,

Murphy went on to announce proposals whose focus is to restrict legal gun owners statewide, rather than severely punishing gun criminals.”

I also spoke to Dan Grdovic, the president of the Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners and this is what he had to say about the announcement:

“Again, the governor is proposing additional gun laws that will do absolutely nothing to curb violence (of any kind) and instead is furthering additional laws designed to make lawful gun ownership more difficult. We also note that the governor had surrounded himself with groups whose only mission is too stamp out all legal gun ownership.”

AmmoLand News is going to continue to follow these items as they develop.  Much attention needs to be drawn to the infringements that New Jersey is looking to impose on the peaceful responsible gun owners of the Garden State.  One thing is for sure Phil Murphy treats gun owners as 2nd class citizens, and his prejudice towards this civil right is downright criminal (this is not how you are supposed to treat minorities sir!).

Feel free to contact the Governor’s office and let them know your feelings on all this.

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

John Petrolino
John Petrolino

Democrats Pushing a Truly Radical Gun Ban Agenda in 2021, & You’re the Target


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/democrats-pushing-radical-gun-ban-agenda-you-the-target;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The fabricated “epidemic of gun violence” is “so severe and so desperate”, and the need “to take action” to address it is so urgent, that Democratic politicians from Joe Biden to Chuck Schumer to Nancy Pelosi to state representatives, mayors, and city council members are using gun control as a lever to try and force the destruction of the Senate filibuster.

Of course, there’s not an “epidemic of gun violence,” and the tragedies that these politicians are using to justify their calls, would not – could not – have been prevented or mitigated by the gun control laws they are pushing. But why let reality get in the way of a good crisis? And it’s not that these politicians don’t know that they’re blowing smoke. They know all too well. They know that the proposals they’re putting forward are “mostly symbolic,” but that doesn’t matter to them, because they have other proposals waiting in the wings. They know that “gun crime” had plateaued in recent years after falling steadily for almost 3 decades. It only surged up over the past year, almost exclusively in large, Democrat-controlled cities, after politicians told police to stand back and let rioters and looters have their way, then turned around and slashed police budgets. The vast majority of the US has violent crime rates comparable to, or lower than, the UK or most European countries.

But crime isn’t the issue. Control is the issue, and the Democrats want total control.

If Democrats can take out the filibuster, killing the only tool already weak Republicans have of keeping a one-vote majority from riding rough-shod over them, they have no intention of settling for the “modest,” “reasonable,” “commonsense gun safety reforms” that they’re currently touting. Sure, they’ll pass deadly “red flag” laws (that abridge due process and compromise at least the Fourth and Fifth Amendments along with the Second), “universal (sic) background checks” (that criminalize private transfers and create a gun registration framework), and restrictions on “ghost guns” (that is gun parts), but then they’ll keep going.

They’ll not only prohibit the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons” and normal, or what they call in their world, “high-capacity” magazines, but they’ll also prohibit their transfer and possibly ban their possession altogether, requiring that they all be turned in or destroyed. California already passed a total ban on possession of “high-capacity” magazines, but that confiscation law has been blocked by the courts so far.

This isn’t some crazy conspiracy theory or the Chicken Little hype that comes from too many gun rights groups in their fundraising letters. This is over 40 years of experience researching, debating, and writing about gun control and politics, reading the current situation, and clearly seeing the true objectives.

Democrats are literally power-mad. They believed that they had a permanent lock on the strings of power back in 2016, but the American electorate disabused them of that mistaken notion. They then pulled out all the stops in 2020, managing to secure a narrow victory that many people still question, but they’re determined to lock up their hold on power this time no matter what.

The filibuster is all that stands between them and permanent control in Washington.

Once the filibuster is gone, Democrats will add DC and Puerto Rico as new states – with 2 new Democratic senators each – and they’ll add 4 more seats to the Supreme Court to negate the current conservative majority. Then, with a solid majority in both houses, they’ll push through more and more gun control. With a blatantly political Court to do their bidding, we’ll see Heller neutered, and every gun control scheme currently in the legal pipeline declared to be constitutional.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will be repealed, opening the door for cities, states, and special interest groups to resume their war on gun companies using a weaponized judiciary to drive the civilian arms industry into bankruptcy.

Cap it all off with major new immigration reform, granting citizenship to the millions of people currently in our country and still pouring in illegally, and Republicans will lose any hope of ever regaining the majority in either house.

This is what Democratic leaders are currently pushing for.

What they intend to do with that consolidated power is genuinely frightening.

There was a time that Americans could identify as Republican or Democrat, “conservative” or “liberal,” “right” or “left,” and still genuinely believe that the United States of America was a special place worth preserving. The Republic was Reagan’s “shining city on a hill,” or Kennedy’s “Camelot,” founded on Jefferson’s “unalienable rights,” that despite its flaws, contradictions and tragedies, had firm principles to aspire and rise to. There was a time that Americans of every mainstream political stripe agreed that those principles and aspirations were something worth defending, even fighting and dying for.

Something has changed. Sometime in the past twenty years – maybe even less – the American consensus has faded to be replaced by ideology owing more to Marx and Engels than to Hume and Locke. (Do most Americans under 50 even know these names, aside from Marx?)

We like to think that even the most strident Democrat wants our nation to continue and our people to be prosperous and happy, but looking at what they are trying to do, and the lengths they’re willing to go to in order to get what they want, it’s hard to envision anything less than a repeat of the mistakes and failures of the USSR, played out right here in the USA.

This isn’t hype or bluster. This is clearly what Democrats are trying to do, and they’re getting closer every day.

There are currently just two or three Democratic Senators objecting to the idea of deleting the filibuster, but it’s quite possible that they could fold or a Republican or two could make a deal and jump the aisle, giving Dems the simple majority they need to change the rules. If that happens, the writing is on the walls. Remember the push for Obamacare back in 2010. Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “we need to pass the bill so we know what’s in it,” and the tremendous pressure brought to bear to get their caucus in line in support of the bill, in spite of massive protests at the Capitol and in state capitols around the country.

That was only a warm-up for what’s going on right now. This is the biggest opportunity Democrats have seen since Lyndon Johnson convinced them that they could lock up the black vote by passing the Civil Rights Act, even though it betrayed the founding principles and history of their party, and meant they’d have to publicly turn their back on their direct action wing, the KKK.

I have to admit that I’m stumped as to what the average Democrat thinks America should or could look like with this bunch of power-crazed vultures in total control, but I can pretty much guarantee that it won’t go well.

It’s easy to talk about banning certain guns and accessories, but enforcing such bans is a much bigger challenge. So I ask Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and the rest of the DC elites: How many Americans are you willing to kill or incarcerate for failing to comply with gun laws that have been shown to not actually save lives?
How many Americans are you willing to see killed or incarcerated for one too many rounds in a magazine?

How many police officers are you willing to see killed or wounded trying to enforce laws that are “mostly symbolic,” but which millions of Americans believe are blatant violations of their God-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights?

The political divide is deep and getting deeper. Trust in the election process is almost completely destroyed. The balance of power in DC teeters on a single vote, making it very hard to advance any agenda. Rather than following the American tradition of working to build support for their ideas, and thus gain the majorities needed to advance them, Democrats are choosing to try and change the rules and rearrange the board.

Putting forward better ideas and selling those ideas to voters in order to win more seats in the next election, thus allowing you to advance your agenda, is just too slow, old-fashioned, and risky for this current crop of Democratic leaders. They demand change. Now. And they will justify any action that puts them on top. Many Republicans respond almost as poorly, by making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims and engaging in the same sort of “Hooray for Our Side!” politics that the Democrats are guilty of.

Both the radical Democratic leadership and the benighted “business as usual” GOP establishment are playing with fire. Neither side seems to understand that pushing people to the extremes will breed more extremism. The radical Democrats want to defund the police and expect those same police to protect them and execute their gun confiscation orders. They turn a blind eye to “mostly peaceful” protests that burn cities down while expecting their Antifa shock troops to intimidate veterans of real wars of insurgency.

For its part, the GOP establishment whistles in the dark hoping they can make a deal with people who clearly intend to bury them.

By looking the other way, the establishment has given an opening to the fringes of their own parties. The investigations that should rightly be a bi-partisan affair have become the province of only conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, guns are flying off the shelves, and ammunition isn’t even making it to the stores.

We seem to be living under the old Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.” Perhaps men and women of goodwill on both sides will join hands across the political aisles. Perhaps the American Experiment will emerge from this crisis stronger and more resilient and with better safeguards for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than ever.

For now, the spoiled children have taken over the school and they’re doing their best to lock the doors to keep the adults outside. It’s tragic and terrifying.

Keep contacting your elected servants (Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121).

Pray for the Republic. And keep your powder dry.

Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

COMMUNIST POLICE STATE NJ Gov. Murphy Begs For Package of ‘Rights-Trampling Gun Control’



SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/nj-gov-murphy-begs-for-package-of-rights-trampling-gun-control;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- In yet another blatant attempt to further infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy unveiled his latest in a long line of unconstitutional, rights-infringing gun control schemes.

Lauded by statists and anti-rights special interest groups, Murphy’s plot to prevent the People of New Jersey from exercising their natural rights contains a number of tyrannical provisions intended to redline your rights. These include demanding the State’s legislature:

  • Further complicate New Jersey’s ineffective and unconstitutional FOID bureaucracy
  • Mandate “classes” for those seeking to exercise their right to bear arms
  • Force gun owners to store their firearms in a way that leaves them unable to be used for immediate self-defense
  • Update the definition of “destructive device” to include .50 caliber firearms
  • Eliminate the right of those under 21 from purchasing long guns
  • Wholly prevent newcomers to the state from bringing with them their previously legally-acquired firearms without first getting the permission of the State
  • Establish a digital database to track every single ammunition purchase within the state
  • Require the absurd and nonexistent “microstamping” technology to effectively ban all new firearm designs (the subject of an FPC challenge)
  • Establishing a bizarre legal scheme to use punitive legislation and litigation to eliminate gun manufacturers, eliminating the People’s access to their rights

As well as directly:

  • Funneling taxpayer dollars directly to anti-gun advocacy groups operating under the veil of “public health”
  • Empowering taxpayer-funded, anti-gun think tanks at public universities
  • Mandating the use of State-sponsored anti-rights propaganda into already traumatic school shooting drills
  • Holding a ‘confiscation conference’ to have tyrants from across the country will meet and discuss how best to assault the People’s natural rights

To join the fight against Governor Murphy’s oppressive, anti-gun demands, visit FirearmsPolicy.org/act. Those wishing to become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army and fight against future infringements from across the nation can visit JoinFPC.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

Firearms Policy Coalition

New Jersey Governor Murphy Announces Major New Gun Control Plans
On April 15, 2021, NJ Governor Phil Murphy announced a sweeping new package of gun control proposals in an orchestrated press event featuring anti-gun lawmakers, clergy, and civic leaders. Despite stating that most gun crime occurs in NJ’s major urban centers, Murphy went on to announce proposals whose focus is to restrict legal gun owners statewide, rather than severely punishing gun criminals.



Watts’ Tweet Reveals Racist, Sexist Motivation to ‘Replace’ White Men

Shannon Watts revels in the thought of having “white gun extremists … replaced” and of passing citizen disarmament edicts through fear, and then expects gun owners she contemptuously calls “buffoons” to surrender their firearms? (Moms Demand Action/Facebook)


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/watts-tweet-reveals-racist-sexist-motivation-to-replace-white-men/#axzz6sTwFL3MJ

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “This is the last gasp of white gun extremists losing power and you’ll all soon to be replaced by women and people of color who will ensure you’re spotlighted in history books as the buffoons you are. And also will undo all of the dangerous things you’ve done,” Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts tweeted Friday. She was reacting to former Texas State Representative Jonathan Stickland’s reminder that “constitutional carry” is advancing  in rebuttal to her contention that Second Amendment advocates are “losing power.”

“This is exactly why these people are dangerous,” the website Mom-at-Arms observed. They use things like gun control to advance other agendas.” As an aside, if you’re not familiar with this website, set some time aside to rectify that. They’re innovative and observant, often exposing gun-grabber screw-ups and/or offering insights that no one else has thought of.

In this case, they focus on the “systemic racism” that defines the way Mom Demand Action’s benefactor, Everytown for Gun Safety (the name itself advances two bald-faced lies), operates.

In an earlier investigation, Mom-at-Arms showed how, despite offering lip service to “racial justice,”  Everytown does not appear to practice what it preaches when it comes to its own minority employees. That’s hardly surprising when billionaire citizen disarmament backer Michael Bloomberg is on record calling for (and then trying to hide) special infringements against the right of minorities to keep and bear arms.

As long as we’re talking cognitive dissonance and steaming hypocrisy, does anyone else find it contradictory to call the police out for shooting minorities and then demand the police should be the “Only Ones” allowed to carry guns in public?

Watts’ tweet introduces another chilling motivation, “replacement theory.” And that’s doubly curious because the “political left” smears and tries to discredit citizens who object to the Republic being culturally terraformed for political power.

“A racist conspiracy theory called the ‘great replacement’ has made its way from far-right media to the GOP,” a Business Insider screed by a Media Matters flack warns. “[S]ome of the GOP’s most stalwart voices have drummed up a more explicit accusation that immigrants are here to steal the very essence of America and replace it with something foreign — an idea plucked directly from far right-wing media.”

“[The] ADL CEO has been writing letters and giving interviews on CNN, demanding that FOX News fire Tucker Carlson for having the audacity to use the word ‘replacement’ in criticizing liberal immigration policy in the United States,” the Throne, Altar, Liberty blog notes in a detailed analysis of the way the Anti-Defamation League’s actions, like Everytown’s, are not what its deceptive name implies.

Those positions, of course, are just more gaslighting, meant to spook “conservatives” out of talking about what is really going on for fear of being labeled “racists” and then “canceled.” If Tucker Carlson is “too extreme,” where will the benchmark for acceptability be moved, and at what point will even “moderates” like Susan Collins or Mitt Romney be vilified as “Nazis”?

The fact remains, tens of millions of foreign nationals have been and are being deliberately attracted in with the intention of turning the “pathway to citizenship” into a superhighway.  That they vote overwhelmingly Democrat (and anti-gun) is observable, and what the Democrats have shown time and again is a huge part of a plan they don’t want looked at for what it is.

It figures that, rather than address the issue of Texas constitutional carry, Watts resorts to ridicule. The gun-grabbers rely on that cheap redirection all the time when they have no counter to the truth, which is pretty much always. It’s a tactic they learned from collectivist organizer (and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis) Saul Alinsky, who wrote as “Rule 5” in his subversive manifesto, Rules for Radicals:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

For well-to-do, white Watts to posture as a champion for women (who she demands to be defenseless) and people of color, is just more of the fraud that defines everything about her, starting with the “simple stay-at-home mom” lie. That’s curious for someone who refuses to acknowledge questions about the role she played as a high-level communications executive for a multinational conglomerate, and then for its PR firm, in directing public attention away from the suffering of a black man who won a substantial settlement after a jury found their product gave him terminal cancer.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea




POLICE STATE New Jersey: Gov. Murphy Announces Drastic Gun Control Agenda

New Jersey State Flag NRA ILA

NJ once again showing wanton disregard for its citizen’s rights. IMG NRA-ILA


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/new-jersey-gov-murphy-announces-drastic-gun-control-agenda/#axzz6sCT5Y4m7;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Thursday morning, Gov. Phil Murphy held a press conference to unveil yet another gun control package in the Garden State.  Every time he reverts back to the same playbook, it is nothing more than an admission that years of gun control have been a failure.  But because he has no real ideas about how to enhance public safety, the Governor doubles down on more of the same failed laws.

The Governor has proposed and supported the introduction of legislation which includes:

    • Reworking the Firearms Identification Card system (FID) to include mandatory firearms safety course completion to even those who own firearms.
    • Legislation that would require mandatory storage.  Gun owners would be forced to store their firearms under lock and key in safes, rendering them useless in self-defense situations.
    • Raising the age to 21 for FID card issuance for long guns and completely stripping an entire class of legal adults of their constitutional rights.
    • Microstamping.  This legislation would require all new semi-automatic handguns to be equipped with microstamping technology, a costly technology that is unproven and easily circumvented.  This is nothing more than a traditional handgun ban.
    • Forced market acceptance of “smart guns” by mandating that gun shops sell them.  Again, this is nothing more than an attempt to ban traditional handguns.
    • A .50 Caliber ban.  This is a firearm that weighs about 30 lbs., costs thousands of dollars, and is rarely, if ever used as a crime gun.  This is the proverbial solution in search of a problem and constitutes political pandering at its worst.
    • Electronic registering of all ammunition sales.
    • Registering of firearms brought into the state by residents relocating to New Jersey.  Ironically, under Murphy’s reign, most moving vans are pointed in the opposite direction.

There were other issues that were discussed, but these are a sample of the drastic steps the Governor is proposing.  With each step, he is inching toward his goal of completely banning the Second Amendment in New Jersey.

New Jersey has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and has for decades.  Despite these laws, cities like Paterson, Camden, Newark, and Trenton are some of the most violent cities in the country.  This is evidence that none of these laws have been successful.  New Jersey gun laws are an epic failure and so is Gov. Phil Murphy.  NRA and its New Jersey members are adamantly opposed to these proposals, and we will fight them every step of the way in Trenton.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)


Nebraska Joins Growing Number of Second Amendment Sanctuary States

Nebraska Joins Growing Number of Second Amendment Sanctuary States


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/nebraska-joins-growing-number-of-second-amendment-sanctuary-states/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

When Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts signed a proclamation on Wednesday declaring his state a “Second Amendment Sanctuary State,” he joined an increasing number of other governors pushing back against unconstitutional federal overreach at the hands of the Biden administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

He said:

Nebraska has always been a state that has supported our Second Amendment rights. As a symbol of that support, I am signing a proclamation declaring Nebraska a Second Amendment Sanctuary State, and, with my signature, it will become official.

He also thinks it’s enforceable against federal encroachment:

The White House and U.S. Congress have announced their intention to pursue measures that would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Nebraska will stand up against federal overreach and attempts to regulate gun ownership and use in [our state].

His proclamation makes it nearly impossible for federal authorities to enforce federal statutes without the state’s assistance.

Likewise, when Arizona declared itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary State, its proclamation stated:

An act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United States Government that violates Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in this state.

[Therefore] this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United Stats Government that violates Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States.

Without state help in enforcing federal law, those federal laws become toothless. (Think federal marijuana laws).

Nebraska joins Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Idaho, and Wyoming in taking a stand against Biden’s proposed overreach.

Texas is going to join the club shortly. House Bill 2622 and its companion, Senate Bill 541, are close to passing both statehouses. And Governor Greg Abbott is ready to sign it: “This is what I’m seeking for Texas: a law to defy any new federal gun control laws. I look forward to signing it.”

On the other hand, New Jersey is far from celebrating the Second Amendment for its citizens. In fact, that state’s attorney general, Gurbir Grewal, has just filed a complaint in New Jersey’s Superior Court that gunmaker Smith & Wesson is refusing to release its marketing materials to him.

What Grewal is hoping to find is evidence that the company’s marketing strategy somehow violates New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act by “misrepresenting to consumers the impact of owning a firearm and/or safety in the home.”

As John Mastronardi, writing at American Thinker, observed:

Grewal asserts that some uncited “preliminary investigation,” conducted by persons or agencies unknown, supports his otherwise unsupported premise that criminals — i.e., “consumers” — are somehow influenced by Smith & Wesson’s false and misleading advertising.

Criminals, of course, aren’t influenced in the slightest by advertising from any gun maker. And if Grewal really and truly thinks so, then New Jersey is in even more trouble than it already is.

Wrote Mastronardi:

If the highest law enforcement officer in New Jersey really thinks gang members and felons care about home firearm safety, or are seduced into getting a Smith & Wesson [firearm] because the company’s ads mislead them … then New Jersey is in far more dire straits than has recently been reported.

What those Second Amendment Sanctuary States are doing is a form of nullification of federal overreach. New Jersey (and other states with anti-gun legislatures) on the other hand, is a party to the federal crime. This illustrates the vast ideological divide that separates those who love and support the Constitution and those who consider it a hindrance to completing their agenda of tyranny.

The Real Story BY OANN: Biden’s Coming for Your Guns

Rumble — Joe Biden is pushing ahead on criminalizing the second amendment. It's not that we didn't know he was coming for our guns, it's just we didn't know when. And apparently, that time is now. According to a new report from the Washington Examiner, Biden's six new executive actions “could turn up to 4 million owners into felons overnight.”

The NRA Opposes David Chipman for ATF Director~Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert: Gun Control is a way to “enslave & control the people”


David Chipman

Biden nominates David Chipman for Director of ATF

Today, the president nominated former ATF agent and staunch anti-gun advocate David Chipman for the position of director of the ATF. Chipman's resume includes stints working for anti-gun groups Everytown for Gun Safety, and currently the Giffords gun control group. During his time as an ATF agent, he was also involved in the Waco massacre as the case agent, which you'll remember as the time the government burned down a building full of little kids. It's difficult for me to remain objective about this, since this nomination would place someone at the reigns of the agency responsible for regulating the firearms industry and gun ownership who is completely opposed to private ownership of guns.

David Chipman: The WORST Possible Choice To Lead The ATF

David Chipman is a gun-control extremist. IMG NRA-ILA


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/the-nra-opposes-david-chipman-for-atf-director;

AND: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/heres-why-david-chipman-is-a-terrible-choice-for-atf-director

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- During a press conference on Thursday, President Biden announced that he would once again be targeting law-abiding gun owners by ordering ATF to develop two new restrictive regulations. Aiming to accessorize the Department of Justice’s anti-gun leadership team, Biden announced his nomination of gun control lobbyist David Chipman for Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

It’s hard to imagine choosing a nominee who is more hostile to the rights of American gun owners than Chipman.

Read more: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210409/nra-opposes-david-chipman-for-atf-director#ixzz6rpMASNdT
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Chipman is a Gun Control Extremist

David Chipman’s current employer, Giffords, co-founded by the United States Senator Mark Kelly, filed a brief in the landmark Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief argued that “The Second Amendment Does Not Limit the Options Available to Cities to Address the Problem of Gun Violence.” Notably, Giffords argued that the District’s complete ban on the possession of handguns by law-abiding Americans was constitutional. Such an interpretation would have completely eviscerated the Second Amendment.

This extremist view put Giffords sharply out of touch with the American people. Nearly, three-quarters of Americans at the time thought the Second Amendment “guaranteed an individual right to own gun.” For those who might think that Giffords has moved on from such extreme views, their law center’s website still proudly notes that they filed the brief arguing “that the right to possess a firearm is not based on an individual right of self-defense, but rather related to service in a militia based on the prefatory language in the Amendment.”

Chipman Wants to Target America’s Rifle

In October 2018, Chipman argued in favor of subjecting all AR-15s and potentially all semi-automatic rifles to regulation under the National Firearms Act. Beyond the problems of subjecting the most popular rifle in America to punitive taxation and registration, such a move would likely lead to a decade-long backlog in NFA registrations, effectively banning America’s rifle, firearm suppressors, and other firearms currently subject to NFA regulation.

ATF operates on a “normal” backlog of 9-12 months for NFA applications. Even with this backlog and despite the registry being nearly 90 years old, as of 2020 there were only 6.6 million firearms in the registry. And, in recent years ATF has had the capacity to process only about 350,000 NFA forms per year. Even using the most conservative estimate for the number of AR-15s in America, with ATF’s current forms processing capacity, the agency would clear the backlog in NFA forms sometime around 2070. And, that’s only if the agency didn’t process a single NFA form for a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or other NFA firearm.

As an agent with ATF for over two decades, Chipman is familiar with the agency’s NFA form processing capacity. He likely sees such a delay as a feature rather than a defect.

Chipman reiterated his wish to subject existing AR-15s to the NFA in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” last year, but he further explained his position on future sales: “The biggest challenge we have is sheer numbers. It has been estimated that there are around 15 million assault rifles currently in circulation. I believe we should ban the future production and sale to civilians and afford current owners of these firearms the ability to license these particular guns with ATF under the National Firearms Act.”

Chipman Has Repeatedly Lied to Further his Gun Ban Agenda

Regular readers of NRA-ILA alerts are likely familiar with Chipman’s lies.

In 2019, we explained how Chipman was trying to mislead the public regarding firearms suppressors. He claimed that “The gun does not sound gun-like. It takes the edge out of the tone . . . This is how I would describe it: It makes a gun sort of sound like a nail gun.” As we said at the time, “The 30-35 dBA difference between a nail gun and a suppressed pistol will be perceived as at least eight times louder to the human ear.”

And, this wasn’t even the first time he lied about firearm suppressors. In 2017, Chipman claimed, “Anyone who has worked in law enforcement for as long as I have will tell you that silencers were not designed to protect hearing, they were designed to make it difficult for people to identify the sound of gunfire and locate active shooters.” Again, at the time, we set the record straight by pointing out that he was simply flat wrong regarding the design intent of firearm suppressors. “Unfortunately for Mr. Chipman, Hiram Percy Maxim, the designer of the firearm suppressor, made his design intent perfectly clear.  Maxim wrote “The Maxim Silencer was developed to meet my personal desire to enjoy target practice without creating a disturbance . . . I have always loved to shoot, but I never thoroughly enjoyed it when I knew that the noise was annoying other people. It occurred to me one day that there was no need for the noise. Why not do away with it and shoot quietly?” At the time, Chipman’s employer also received three “Pinocchios” from the Washington Post for another misleading claim about firearm suppressors.

In the same Reddit “Ask Me Anything” discussed above, Chipman made the absurd claim that “At Waco, cult members used 2 .50 caliber Barretts to shoot down two Texas Air National Guard helicopters. Point, it is true we are fortunate they are not used in crime more often. The victims of drug lords in Mexico are not so lucky. America plays a role in fueling the violence south of the border.” Needless to say, no helicopters were “shot down” “at Waco.”

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in 2019, Chipman claimed that the American gun market was “flooded” with “foreign-made ARs.” Anyone even remotely familiar with the American gun market knows that this claim is false. Not only are nearly all AR-15s made in America, but continued strong demand for ARs seems to also refute his notion that the market was “flooded.”

It is clear that, if confirmed, Chipman would use every tool at his disposal to attack the rights of law-abiding American gun owners.

Chipman’s views on the Second Amendment and his work as a gun prohibitionist should disqualify him from serving as the Director of the ATF.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)


Rep. Lauren Boebert: Gun Control is a way to 'Enslave and Control the People' 


SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/rep-lauren-boebert-gun-control-is-a-way-to-enslave-and-control-the-people/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“Democrats & their allies seek to enslave and control the people of the United States and every aspect of their lives.”

Fearless Second Amendment defender and Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert responded to installed puppet Joe Biden’s ridiculous gun control executive actions with a truth bomb on Twitter.

Biden dutifully obeyed the “impatient activists” pushing to disarm Americans with his series of executive actions designed to degrade and dismantle the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” The rights outlined in the Constitution are meaningless unless Americans understand their rights and fight for them.

During his embarrassing, error-ridden speech, Biden announced David Chipman as his pick to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) (which Biden referred to as the “AFT” twice). Chipman is a gun control activist who notoriously lied about events that occurred in in Waco in 1993, claiming that members of the Branch Davidian sect “shot down two helicopters during a standoff with federal agents”, a blatant lie.

From the History Channel:

“Though initially reluctant, Attorney General Janet Reno ended up approving a plan to fire CS gas (a form of tear gas) into the Mount Carmel compound to try and force out the Davidians. Just after 6 a.m. on April 19, 1993, FBI agents used two specially equipped tanks to penetrate the compound and deposit some 400 containers of gas inside.

Soon after the attack ended, around 12 pm, several fires simultaneously broke out around the compound, and gunfire was heard inside. Safety concerns prevented firefighters from entering Mount Carmel immediately, and the flames spread quickly and engulfed the property.

Though nine Davidians were able to escape, investigators later found 76 bodies inside the compound, including 25 children. Some of them, including [David] Koresh, had fatal gunshot wounds, suggesting suicide or murder-suicide.”

According to a must-read article at lawofficer.com, “Chipman’s Twitter account is now private and in recent days, he deleted more than 1000 tweets.” Chipman is “senior policy adviser” to former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ gun grabbing organization.


Citing founding father George Mason‘s quote: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them,” Boebert said in part that “Democrats & their allies seek to enslave and control the people of the United States and every aspect of their lives.”


RAIR Foundation USA’s Amy Mek is also a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Last month Mek Tweeted “Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 & from 1939 to 1945, Millions of Jews & others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up & exterminated”, she said. “I refuse to be a victim!”, she continued.

Donate to Boebert here.


SEE ALSO: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/david-chipman-lifetime-anti-gun-activism/


In 2019, he told the House Judiciary Committee that the American firearms market was “flooded” with foreign-made ARs.

This claim is far from true.

With a few exceptions – very few—most ARs are manufactured in the United States.


Biden/Harris framing guns as ‘public health epidemic’

Rumble — Biden White House unveils a sweeping plan to implement more gun control – a response to what they call a “public health epidemic.” One America’s Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion has more from the White House.

Biden Admin. Wants Police to be Allowed to Seize Your Guns WITHOUT a Warrant


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/biden-admin-wants-police-to-be-allowed-to-seize-your-guns-without-a-warrant/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Imagine that you get into a heated argument with your spouse, and the police are eventually called. You then engage with them non-confrontationally and willingly agree to submit to a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital. The doctors would determine that you’re not a danger to yourself or others; meaning, there would be no inpatient care. Yet when you return home, you find that the police had entered your residence and had seized your firearms without a warrant.

Moreover, you then ask the cops numerous times to return your guns. They refuse, however, and only relent two months later after you have an attorney contact them.

Well, you don’t have to imagine because this is exactly what happened to Rhode Islander Edward Canaglia in 2015 (you can read more details about his case here). What’s more, the Biden administration now wants police nationwide to have the power to seize your weapons without a warrant, according to Fox News Commentator Tucker Carlson.

As he stated Friday evening, referencing a lawsuit Canaglia filed against local police:

So this case is now before the Supreme Court as it should be. But here’s the remarkable thing, the Biden administration is backing the police officers who stole Edward Canaglia’s guns with no warrant. In fact, the Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to approve of this and make it a precedent. They’re asking for permission to search any home they want, without a warrant and take what they want. Any guns that Joe Biden’s police find will be confiscated in the name of “public safety.” Think about that, it’s almost beyond belief. It should be on the front page of every paper in the country, the ACLU should be fighting it, but none of that’s happening. [Video below.]

One reason this is so alarming concerns the Bidenites’ plan for securing “public safety.” As Carlson also point out, Biden is opposing Canaglia because

firearms are just that dangerous. And most dangerous of all, Joe Biden has told us, including this week, are something called “assault weapons.” Assault weapons are such a threat, Joe Biden says, [that] he’s not going to wait for the Supreme Court. He wants Congress, which his party controls, to pass a total ban on “assault weapons.” Well, that sounds familiar because we did it before — for ten years. And it didn’t work; it didn’t work for a bunch of different reasons. First, because no one can define what an “assault weapon” is. Second, because not that many people are killed by assault weapons. But Joe Biden doesn’t care. If you go to Joe Biden’s website, you’ll learn that “assault weapons” are responsible for quote, “our gun violence epidemic.” They’re “weapons of war,” and if you can get them off the streets, this country will be a much safer place. Well, that’s a total crock. And not only is it a lie, it’s an appalling lie, contradicted completely by actual evidence.

The Facts

Carlson then related that according to the FBI’s most recent data (2019), 364 homicides were committed with rifles, of any kind; this equates to approximately three to four percent of all firearms murders. I’ll add that only a small percentage of those 364 murders were committed with so-called assault rifles.

In contrast, 600 people were killed in 2019 with “personal weapons”: fists, feet, and hands. Knives and other cutting tools were used in 1,476 murders. The latter prompted Carlson to quip that maybe we need cutlery control. But don’t laugh — this is already happening in Britain.

For further perspective, note that approximately 60 percent of gun-related deaths are suicides.

Note also that insofar as “assault weapon” is something more than just a propaganda term, it once referred to a rifle with a “select fire” feature; meaning, as I heard it related years ago, such firearms could be fired semi-automatic, fully automatic, or in three-shot bursts. Yet the class of guns targeted by Uncle Sam’s rights snatchers, such as the AR-15 and AK-47, are merely semi-automatic — just as are most firearms purchased today.

For those unacquainted with weapons, this means that you pull the trigger once, and one shot is released. So, no, at issue are not “machine guns”! (Don’t get your firearm “facts” from movies — or leftists.)

This brings us to the rallying cry that people shouldn’t be allowed to have “weapons of war.” Question:

Can you name for me a firearm that wasn’t created as a “weapon of war”?

Flintlocks were used by the British army and colonial Americans as “weapons of war” (video below). Clubs and stones were also “weapons of war” at one time. As far as “weapons of war” go today, semi-automatic rifles are not U.S. military standard issue weapons.


Carlson mentioned as well that while leftists want to further restrict your Second Amendment-protected rights, they don’t even enforce gun laws already on the books in big cities such as Chicago, Washington, and Minneapolis. So do they really care about “gun deaths”?

Moreover, if you lie during a federal firearm background check, you can go to prison for five years, Carlson pointed out. But Hunter Biden did that very thing and was allowed to skate.  

Anyway, if the solution to human sin is as simple as mindless bans, why don’t we just cut to the chase and ban sin itself?

Oh, yeah, that would leave us without the Democratic Party.

Netflix Declares War on Jesus (and Gun Owners)


SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/netflix-declares-war-on-jesus-and-gun-owners;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Oddly enough, no plans have been announced for a show lampooning Muhammad. My latest in FrontPage:

Not content with glorifying pedophilia in Cuties, Netflix in season three of the animated Paradise P.D. features an episode that, according to NewsBusters, is not only devoted to “attacking gun rights,” but was also “blasphemous against Christianity, featuring a video of a gun-wielding Jesus that turns into a porno.” Great, Netflix! Edgy! Courageous! Cutting edge! Stunning and brave! Now, when is your cartoon show featuring, say, a machete-wielding Muhammad who takes up with a nine-year-old Aisha? If we had any actual journalists, they would be asking Netflix officials that question, and there is no doubt about what the answer would be: Netflix has far too much respect for Muslims and Islam to produce a show like that.

Ah yes, respect. As Bob Dylan’s character Jack Fate puts it in Dylan’s underappreciated movie Masked and Anonymous, “I got a lot of respect for a gun.” As everyone knows, the real reason why Netflix doesn’t hesitate to make fun of Jesus and Christians but wouldn’t dream of subjecting Muhammad and Muslims to the same treatment is because they know that Christians won’t kill them for doing so, not even those crazed “right-wing extremists” that we keep hearing about who are supposedly the greatest terror threat we face today. But with Muslims, it’s a different story: Netflix, if it ever dared to produce an animated show about Muhammad, knows that it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that a jihadi could emerge who would be intent upon separating the heads of Netflix executives from their bodies. That’s how “respect” is born these days.

But Netflix didn’t care to demonstrate any respect for Christians the fiendishly obscene episode of Paradise P.D. entitled “Trigger Warning.” In it, according to NewsBusters, a foe of disarming the populace offers to take proponents of that disarming on a tour of the National Rifle Association. “The tour includes a gun pit with a dead kid buried in it and the corpse of Charlton Heston used as a statue, complete with a quote – ‘Pry this gun from my cold, dead hands and win a Republican Senate seat.’ The head of the NRA, Mr. Chip F**k-Yeah, shows them a video using Jesus as a prop to show how “guns make a better world.” The video is horrifically offensive, with Jesus coming down from the Cross to kill his persecutors with machine guns then have sex with two women.”

Believe it or not, it just gets worse from there. But aside from this article and a few others, no one will take any particular note. The establishment media certainly won’t: today’s “journalists” generally hate Christianity as much as Netflix does. But a particularly piquant comparison comes from France. Shortly after a Muslim beheaded schoolteacher Samuel Paty on October 16, 2020, for showing a cartoon of Muhammad in his class, it came to light that French police called in Paty and interrogated him over allegations of “Islamophobia.” Paty told them, and he was right, that “I did not commit any offense.”

In today’s world, however, he did. It is a massive de facto offense against contemporary woke sensibilities to offend Islam and violate Sharia blasphemy laws. That is true in the United States no less than it is in France. When Pamela Geller and I held our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in 2015 in defense of the freedom of speech, and Islamic State jihadis attempted to kill us all, Geller was roundly condemned not just by leftists by even by prominent people who are often considered conservatives (including Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Greta van Susteren) for daring to commit what they considered to be a gratuitous offense to Muslims. The idea that it is important to defend the freedom of speech against violent intimidation, and not validate that intimidation by giving in to it, did not impress them at all.

The freedom of speech is the foundation of any free society, and so Netflix is entirely free to depict Jesus in a lewd and ridiculous manner and to mock gun owners as paranoid lunatics. The double standard, however, grows ever more glaring. If Netflix had been operating in France and made fun of Muhammad, police would have called in its executives for questioning. In the United States, if it had made fun of Muhammad, they might not have had to talk to the cops, but they would have been inundated with charges of “racism” and “Islamophobia.”

What is all this going to look like five or ten or twenty years down the road, as Americans, and Westerners in general, grow ever more accustomed to the idea that one must adhere to Sharia blasphemy restrictions on mockery, or even criticism, of Islam, but the West’s own culture and traditions, rife as they are with “white supremacism” and “hate,” are fair game. It seems to be a recipe for cultural and societal surrender.

South Florida Sun-Sentinel: No mask, no custody. COVID is a new factor in family law

Rumble — Real America - Dan W/ Florida Mother, Melanie Joseph


SEE: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-ne-covid-family-court-order-20201001-dt65cwe3nrex5ltjwnjkh3ggqu-story.html

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Melanie Joseph wants to see her son, but a judge won’t let her — for no reason except that she won’t wear a mask.

Joseph’s 14-year-old son has asthma, a condition that could put him at risk of contracting COVID-19 during this pandemic, court filings show.

Broward Circuit Judge Dale Cohen called the mother an “anti-mask person” who had the “audacity” to brag about it on Facebook.

Conservatives take issue with the decision, but it illustrates how judges in family court now must consider the health risks of COVID-19 on top of juggling the interests of feuding ex-spouses, single parents and reluctant child-support payers.

COVID first made family law news in South Florida early in the pandemic, when an emergency room doctor treating coronavirus patients was stripped of custody of her 4-year-old daughter.

An appeals court quickly overturned the decision, and the child’s estranged parents eventually resolved their custody disagreement.

The doctor’s attorney, Steven Nullman, conceded that judges face a challenge when balancing parental rights and health concerns.

“There are so many unknowns with this disease,” he said. “Making the right decision is not easy.”

Other cases followed across the country, most involving at least one parent working on the front lines of the crisis. An Orlando woman didn’t want her ex-husband, a firefighter newly engaged to an emergency room nurse, to share custody of their son. The judge sided with the father. And in a Deerfield Beach case in April, a dermatologist had to fight for visitation with his 6-year-old son.

Broward Chief Administrative Judge Jack Tuter said he expects COVID-19 to come up in family cases for the foreseeable future.

“You might have one parent who’s casual about the risk and the other who’s hyper-careful,” he said. “We’re going to see them coming to judges to resolve their differences.

"I think we’re going to see more cases arise when schools open, depending on what happens next with the virus.”

Judges have been patient in considering both sides of coronavirus cases, said Nicole Alvarez, who practices family law mainly in Broward and Miami-Dade.

“The bar is still pretty high for a judge to change time-sharing schedules,” she said. “From my experience, judges are not going to deviate from agreements for hypothetical reasons.

"You don’t get to say you live in a low-risk area and you don’t want to let the child visit Miami or some other area with more cases. Unless someone comes out positive, judges are sticking with the existing agreements.”

That doesn’t mean they’re not willing to step in when they think the child’s health might be at risk.

Joseph, who moved to North Carolina from Coral Springs at the outset of the pandemic response, drew Judge Cohen’s ire by posting a picture of herself, maskless, in the waiting room of her oral surgeon’s office in June.

“She’s one of those anti-mask people and she’s got the audacity to post that on social media," the judge said. "She’s going to wear a mask. If she doesn’t, time-sharing is not going to happen.”

Cohen’s pointed criticism came in an online hearing Sept. 8 and prompted Joseph’s attorney, Meaghan Marro, to ask him to remove himself from the case, which has dragged on for 13 years (the child at the heart of it is 14). Cohen declined.

Melanie Joseph, formerly of Coral Springs, posted this selfie with the caption "no mask for this girl" on social media, drawing the ire of the Broward judge handling her custody case. She says she was alone in a doctor's waiting room in North Carolina, where there was no mask requirement at the time.
Melanie Joseph, formerly of Coral Springs, posted this selfie with the caption "no mask for this girl" on social media, drawing the ire of the Broward judge handling her custody case. She says she was alone in a doctor's waiting room in North Carolina, where there was no mask requirement at the time. (Melanie Joseph, courtesy)

The judge said in-person visits would have to be supervised because he doesn’t trust Joseph, 43, to wear a mask. And he would not consider a long-distance parenting plan — which outlines each parent’s rights when they don’t live in the same state — between Joseph and her son until the COVID crisis has passed.

“When this pandemic is over and there are no cases and there’s a vaccine ... the mother is going to need to get a vaccine as well. When I have proof that everybody’s safe and the child’s not at risk or danger, then we can talk about a long-distance parenting plan.”

The judge’s comments raised eyebrows among some right-wing libertarians who blame coronavirus for what they believe is government abuse of authority.

“You see them using opinion grounded in science to justify government overreach,” said Tho Bishop, editor at the Mises Institute, a splinter of the Cato Institute. “They’ve far overstepped the justified power of their office under the premise that we’re in this emergency.”

Ultimately, the issue of masks never made it into Cohen’s written ruling, issued late last week, and he softened the vaccine mandate.

“After a safe and reliable vaccination against COVID-19 is available, the mother may be vaccinated and the child may be vaccinated, thus eliminating that particular danger,” the order states.

Joseph acknowledged in an interview this week that she posted a selfie taken at her oral surgeon’s office in June. “No mask for this girl,” she wrote in the caption. At the time, Joseph said, there was no mask mandate in North Carolina and she was alone in her doctor’s waiting room.

She accused the judge of letting his personal political views cloud his judgment in the case. “My case has been in the court system for a number of years and I have experience with court proceedings,” she said. “What occurred is unconstitutional and should never happen to a parent.”

The child’s father thinks Cohen made the right decision. “My client has a legal obligation to protect his son,” said Donna Goldman, the father’s attorney. “This case has been going on a long time, and the judge weighed more than just COVID. He made the right decision to protect the child’s health.”

Judges are not permitted to discuss their ongoing cases.

Boulder jihad mass murderer had planned to hit Trump rally, also checked churches as potential targets~FACEBOOK PAGE SCRUBBED~FAMILY MEMBERS DETAINED~FAKE NEWS CALLS HIM WHITE~LIBERALS CALL FOR GUN CONTROL

Ahmad Al-Issa:




SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/boulder-jihad-mass-murderer-had-planned-to-hit-trump-rally-also-checked-churches-as-potential-targets;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


Welcome to Joe Biden’s America.


Boulder Shooter is ISIS Sympathizer, Leftists Hardest Hit

Another opportunity to shore up their sagging “white terror threat” narrative is lost.


SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/boulder-shooter-isis-sympathizer-leftists-hardest-robert-spencer/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A man murdered ten people in a Boulder, Colorado supermarket Monday. No details were immediately released about the shooter, but Leftist “journalists,” working from a photo of the shooter, seized upon the shooting to shore up their sagging narrative of “white supremacist terrorism.” There was just one problem: the massacre was actually, after a four-year hiatus, a new incidence of Islamic jihad on American soil.

Even after the shooter’s name was revealed as Ahmad Al Issa (which is how he himself wrote it on his Facebook and Twitter accounts), establishment media reports continued to give his name as  “Alissa,” which of course is a common first name for women in the U.S., and thus gives the impression that he is an American non-Muslim. Were “journalists” trying to obscure the fact that he is a Muslim migrant ISIS sympathizer? Of course, they were.

And that was after they had already decided that he was one of those “right-wing extremists” who are, according to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the “most lethal and persistent” threat the U.S. faces today. Julie DiCaro, a senior writer and editor at Deadspin, tweeted: “Extremely tired of people’s lives depending on whether a white man with an AR-15 is having a good day or not.” As of this writing on Tuesday afternoon, DiCaro has not taken down the tweet, as some media hacks are still, like a captain going down with his sinking ship, insisting that Al Issa is white. Prominent race-baiter Tariq Nasheed tweeted: “White supremacists are trying their hardest to deflect from the fact the Boulder suspect is WHITE. Syrians in America are legally, politically & socially WHITE. Their white status is well documented in court cases Terms like ‘Muslim, ‘Arab’, ‘Islamic doesn’t change whiteness.”

Of course, Al Issa really is white, as he is an Arab Muslim migrant from Syria, and Arabs have been considered “white” ever since they began arriving in this country. Nasheed’s tweet, however, still pointed up the Left’s inconsistency and hypocrisy: up until this shooting, Leftists considered Arab Muslims to be “brown,” after the fashion of Linda Sarsour, who memorably identified as white until she put on a hijab and miraculously became a “person of color.” If the Boulder shooter had been a white non-Muslim American and his victims had been white Arab Muslims, Tariq Nasheed would be railing against the persecution of “brown” people in the United States.

But as it is, Nasheed is trying desperately to shore up a failing narrative. The reality is that Ahmad Al Issa is a deeply religious Muslim with pro-ISIS sympathies. He complained bitterly about “Islamophobia,” hated Donald Trump with passionate intensity, and had scouted out churches and Trump rallies as possible targets for his jihad massacre.

All this makes it abundantly clear that not only is Ahmad Al Issa not a “white supremacist,” but he is a living manifestation of the effects of Leftism in America today. After migrating from Syria as a child during the Obama administration, he, and many others like him, has been inundated with relentless propaganda about how he is a victim of a racist and “Islamophobic” society that will never give him a fair shake, and is institutionally determined to make sure he will never succeed. He has been told that Trump hated Muslims and that his followers were precisely the people who were keeping him down and denying him access to the privilege that they themselves enjoyed at the expense of the “brown” people they despised.

The Democratic Party has been stoking this kind of resentment and feeding it to young people in schools, colleges and universities for years. Ahmad Al Issa is a product of their indoctrination. That in itself may be one reason why Leftist “journalists” and professional agitators such as Tariq Nasheed are so intent on driving home the point that this was a “white” shooter acting out of the hatred that is intrinsic to American culture: to deflect attention away from the fact that he is not a product of American culture at all, but of the Left’s subculture of hatred and resentment. If we had a sane political environment in the country today, that is the hateful subculture the Justice Department would be concerned about. Instead, even as Antifa continues to make the Great Northwest into a radioactive wasteland, this hateful subculture isn’t even on the radar screen. And Ahmad Al Issa isn’t going to put it there.


A Muslim Terrorist From the Capital of ISIS Shot Up a Supermarket. Biden Blames Guns

Biden ended Trump’s Muslim ban claiming it “undermined our national security.”

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/muslim-terrorist-capital-isis-shot-supermarket-daniel-greenfield/


The Boulder Jihad and Jihad Denial

Why U.S. authorities and the establishment media are trying to obscure who Ahmad Al Issa is and what he believes.

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/jihad-denial-jamie-glazov/












ATF Agents Showing Up At Homes of Unfinished 80% Gun Frame Dealers

ATF Agents Showing Up At Homes of Unfinished 80% Gun Frame Dealers, Don’t Let Them In



SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/03/atf-agents-show-up-homes-unfinished-80-gun-frame-dealers/#axzz6pedOvjMq;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

ATF Agents Showing Up At Homes of Unfinished 80% Gun Frame Dealers

BALTIMORE, MD –-(Ammoland.com)-The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Agents from the Baltimore Field Office have been visiting the homes of buyers of large quantities of Polymer80 frames and kits.

Five special agents and Detective EE Schwartz of the Anne Arundel County Police Department showed up at the door of one of the co-owners of 2A Builds. 2A Builds is a company that sells unfinished 80% kits at gun shows in the mid-Atlantic region of the country. They recently purchased 65 frames from U.S. Patriot Armory.

The agents wanted to search the owner’s house, and the owner agreed because he had nothing illegal. The agents didn’t find anything against the law in the home but did want to take the owner’s legally owned firearms. The owner refused then the agents said they were just going to take a finished P80, a single kit, and two MCK stabilizers. The company’s owner once again refused the request and asked the law enforcement officials to leave his home.

The ATF agents said they would wait there until they could secure a search warrant if the owner refused to turn over the items. The owner started to call an attorney, at which point the officials said they decided not to seek a warrant that day but would in the future and then left. The only contact they left him was Detective EE Schwartz’s business card (badge: 1665) of the Anne Arundel County Police Department. Before they left, the agents took pictures of all the firearms and serial numbers to run checks.

AmmoLand News has learned of two other visits by ATF agents to dealers’ homes that sell unfinished frames. Although in their case, they told the ATF agents to leave if they did not have a search warrant. The agents threatened to wait there until a judge issued a search warrant but once again left without executing a search of the properties. Both dealers purchased items from U.S. Patriot Armory.

AmmoLand discovered that U.S. Patriot Armory did not turn over any customer information to the ATF or other law enforcement agencies through our sources. It isn’t clear how the ATF received information about the customers, although everyone visited paid for the unfinished frames via credit card, and U.S. Patriot Armory uses Authorize.net.

Authorize.net is one of the only payment processing companies that will process firearm sales. Almost every other payment processor blocks the sale of firearms and unfinished frames. Although we have no evidence that says Authorize.net turned over customer information in this case, the company did turn over data of customers that purchased kits from other companies in the past.

AmmoLand News reached out to the ATF for comment on the ongoing visit. Public Information Officer Amanda Hill said the ATF cannot confirm or deny the existence of an investigation and will not be providing any further comment.

Anti-gun politicians have made a significant push to ban unfinished frames and receivers at the behest of anti-gun groups such Giffords, Everytown, and Brady. The groups call these items the fake and misleading “Ghost Guns.” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has made it his crusade for these non-guns to be banned. New Jersey has been suing sellers of unfinished frames, and California has sued the ATF for not considering these frames to be firearms.

Detective EE Schwartz did not return AmmoLand News’s call for comment.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump



SEE: https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2020/11/25/the-truth-about-nics;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

When Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe went to buy a shotgun last August 6, an FBI background check barred him from completing the purchase.

O’Keefe came out swinging by quickly posting a video response that stirred up a lot of media attention. As he is the founder of Project Veritas, a nonprofit that uses undercover cameras and informants to uncover waste, fraud and illegal activity, he wondered if he had been blacklisted by the government as a punishment for his many video releases.

O’Keefe also filed a lawsuit against the FBI. According to the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, O’Keefe alleged that the FBI falsely claimed he’d been convicted of a felony and “has subsequently repeatedly, wrongfully and without justification denied Mr. O’Keefe the ability to purchase a firearm.”

However, the thing about this denial is, it’s much more likely this was simply a bureaucratic hiccup from a cumbersome governmental system. 

In 2010, O’Keefe and three of his associates were arrested for entering federal property under false pretenses. The group had dressed as telephone repairmen to gain access to then-Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) office in a federal building in New Orleans. When they were nabbed, O’Keefe ended up pleading guilty to a low-level Class B misdemeanor. This misdemeanor doesn’t legally prevent O’Keefe from purchasing or owning a gun, but it’s likely that the initial charge raised a red flag in the system that stopped the sale.

NICS evidently found the correct record and removed the flag on August 14. Someone from the gun store then called O’Keefe to tell him he could buy the gun after all. This delay could have been avoided had a NICS examiner quickly located the correct record on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database; but then, to be fair, NICS has been overwhelmed with background-check requests this year.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with having a healthy mistrust of the system, but, as this was being written, it seems clear that O’Keefe was more likely a victim of government ineptitude rather than intentional malfeasance. Whatever the case, this incident does tell us that more people need to understand NICS’ imperfections and its stated purpose.

James O’Keefe

James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, was delayed by the FBI’s NICS from purchasing a gun. He loudly complained.

Fighting Registration

NICS is well known to gun owners as the FBI entity that gun dealers call to clear someone who wants to buy a firearm. Gun sales have soared this year due to the uncertainties caused by the coronavirus, nationwide rioting and a potential Biden presidency. Meanwhile, though NICS has never been a perfect system, 2020 has strained the system to its limits.

You know the routine. When you decide which gun to buy, you fill out the ATF Form 4473 certifying under penalty of perjury that you are not a felon or otherwise disqualified to receive a firearm. The dealer then contacts NICS, which may clear you in a few minutes or may wait no more than three days to research its records, after which you can buy the gun if no disqualifying record pops up. If you are denied based on incorrect records, you may appeal.

NICS is required to destroy all records about the sale, except for an identifying number and the date, within 24 hours of clearing the buyer. This requirement follows a long tradition of the rejection of gun registration in American history. In light of the experiences of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia regarding gun confiscation and tyranny, Congress declared, in the Property Requisition Act of 1941, that Second Amendment rights prohibit the registration of firearms. Legislators, when enacting the Gun Control Act of 1968, also rejected gun registration. Later, the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 also prohibited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), or ATF, from creating any system to register gun owners.

In the late 1980s, the Brady anti-gun lobby was promoting a national waiting period for handgun purchases. The early bills included no background check. The NRA advocated that Congress study the feasibility of a background check with no waiting period and with a requirement that the records would be destroyed. Brady then copied the background check idea, but would have allowed the government to keep the records.

In debate, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) argued that “the Brady bill is a step towards gun registration.” Sen. Ted Stevens (R) said, “We have all heard, my generation did, about Hitler and how, in country after country, he read the gun registration laws and took the guns away from those who had them.” Police and the federal government, he feared, would “compile lists of handgun buyers,” the goal of which was “national registration with the intent of confiscation of guns.” Thus, Stevens offered an amendment that “will not permit the registration of either a gun or a gun owner; in fact, the amendment specifically prohibits keeping any records about lawful sales.” 

NICS is only as good as its records are accurate and complete. After it became evident that some states weren’t reporting certain types of records, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act of 2007.

The bill that finally passed in late 1993 included a temporary provision with up to a five-day waiting period mandating that state and local law enforcement conduct background checks on handgun buyers. It would be replaced by a permanent provision for an instant check by the federal government. Both versions prohibited any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.

While the law, as signed by President Bill Clinton (D), was named the “Brady Act,” the requirement that the background check be instant and that the records be destroyed actually originated with the NRA.

The temporary provision had one fatal defect. State and local law-enforcement officers don’t work for the feds, and don’t take orders from the federal government. Sheriff Jay Printz from Montana and other sheriffs from around the country, who were busy stopping crimes in progress and solving murders, refused to take orders from Washington, D.C., to search for records on their fellow citizens who were buying handguns—they did this despite an ATF spokesman’s threat that the sheriffs could be prosecuted for not doing so.

I was privileged to represent these sheriffs in several cases all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Printz v. U.S. (1997), a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that Congress may not compel the states to administer a federal regulatory program. The Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from giving orders to local law-enforcement officers to do its bidding.

In 1998, the permanent provision kicked in, under which the FBI would do the background checks themselves. The law provides that, if a person may lawfully receive a firearm, NICS shall assign a unique number, provide the number to the dealer and “destroy all records of the system with respect to the call” (other than the number and the date) and “all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.” A no-brainer, right?

The bombshell hit when Janet Reno, Clinton’s attorney general, of Waco tragedy fame, announced that NICS was ready to go operational. Instead of destroying the records on lawful gun purchasers, NICS would retain the full information on the firearm purchaser—name, address, race and date of birth—for six months. She called the list an “audit log” rather than gun-owner registration.

It did not matter that the law provided that no federal agency (1) may “require that any record” generated by NICS “be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed or controlled by the United States,” or (2) use NICS “to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners or firearm transactions,” except of ineligible persons.

I was privileged to litigate the issue in NICS v. Reno. But in 2000, in a 2-1 opinion, the D.C. Circuit upheld Reno’s regulation on the basis that it could not understand what the word “record” meant: “What is a ‘record,’ when has it been ‘recorded,’ and what kind of ‘record’ cannot be ‘recorded?’” The law, of course, couldn’t have been clearer. Further, the court said that registering gun owners for six months wasn’t a system of registration of gun owners.

Joining in the court’s decision was Judge Merrick Garland. You’ll recall that he was President Barack Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court following Justice Scalia’s death. Imagine how lopsided the Court would have become had that nomination succeeded.

In dissent, Judge David Sentelle wrote that “the Attorney General is not only making such an unauthorized power grab, but is taking action expressly forbidden by Congress.” Her excuse was that Congress didn’t say when NICS had to destroy the records. Sentelle found that “reminiscent of a petulant child pulling her sister’s hair;” her mother tells her to stop, but she does it again, with the defense: “Mama, you didn’t say I had to stop right now.”

Finally, Congress had to step in and mandate that the records of approved gun purchasers must be destroyed within 24 hours of NICS approval of the sale.

Issues with the Data
In more recent years, the law governing NICS has been amended several times. Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, which furnished states with financial assistance to encourage full reporting and to support the restoration of rights to persons who at some time had been committed to mental institutions but were fully recovered. (Before that, having a mental-health commitment meant a lifetime ban on gun ownership.)

In 2017, the Fix NICS Act was introduced to beef up the existing requirement that the agencies send the necessary reports to NICS. It seems incredible that heads of agencies had ignored the law and, instead of being fired, had to be threatened with losing bonus pay if they continued doing so. The bill also offered the states more grants to report records.

NICS also needed fixing in another regard. As I testified in a hearing in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, sometimes NICS denies a gun purchase based on an incorrect record. If a person who is actually eligible to purchase a firearm appeals the denial, NICS puts the onus on that person to straighten out the record with the governmental unit that originated it. The person then might find that agency to be unresponsive and, so, will be stuck in this bureaucratic limbo. NICS should thus be required to contact the originating agency directly in order to correct such records.

Unfortunately, Fix NICS passed without such an amendment. Citizens should not be deprived of due process and Second Amendment rights because some government agency maintains incomplete and inaccurate records. The attorney general could promulgate a regulation to correct the problem.

In some cases, NICS has the ability to verify whether a record is inaccurate in a matter of minutes because many court records are now online. If a rejected gun buyer claims that a federal conviction record in the NICS system is inaccurate, a NICS examiner can access the judgment of conviction, if any, with a few clicks on the computer via PACER.

Defendants are frequently over-charged with more serious crimes but are found not guilty or guilty of less serious crimes that do not disqualify such persons from purchasing a gun. I once handled a NICS appeal in which my client was originally charged with a felony but was found guilty of a misdemeanor. NICS only found the felony charge and denied the purchase. In our appeal, NICS instructed us to have the U.S. marshal in the relevant court certify the correct record, but that office wouldn’t even answer our mail. I knew NICS counsel at the time, called her up, and she quickly found the correct record through PACER.

This is in no way intended to bash NICS, which generally runs smoothly and has many dedicated employees. This year, NICS has been working through the highest number of gun sales in American history (indeed, in world history). Sales began surging at the beginning of 2020 due to the war on gun owners advocated by the Democrat presidential contenders and carried out by new legislation, escalated because of the uncertainties of the coronavirus pandemic and skyrocketed even more in reaction to the riots, looting and arson throughout this summer.

Nonetheless, law-abiding gun owners must stay vigilant so the tool isn’t corrupted by anti-gun actors in the future. NICS must never be allowed to keep records on approved buyers. Gun registration means gun confiscation.

Stephen P. Halbrook, an attorney who has argued cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, is a senior fellow with the Independent Institute and author of The Founders’ Second Amendment, Gun Control in the Third Reich, and Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France.

House Passes Two New Anti-Second Amendment Measures

House Passes Two New Anti-Second Amendment Measures


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/house-passes-two-new-anti-second-amendment-measures;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The House of Representatives passed two measures on Thursday that would further infringe on the Second Amendment-guaranteed rights of Americans. H.R. 8, also known as the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021” passed 227-203. H.R. 1446, also known as the “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021,” passed 219-210.

H.R. 8 passed with eight Republicans — including co-sponsors Peter King (N.Y.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Brian Mast (Fla.), Fred Upton (Mich.), and Christopher Smith (N.J.) — voting for the measure and one Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine, voting against it. It was originally brought forth in 2019 and sponsored by Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.).

“This bill is a critical step toward preventing gun violence and saving lives,” Thompson said before the bill passed.

According to a summary by the Congressional Research Service, the bill would establish “new background check requirements for firearms transfers between private parties [i.e. unlicensed individuals].”

Another summary of the legislation claims it will “utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.”

The bill adds a new layer to gun sales — or other transfers of gun ownership — between individuals, as it would necessitate a third party to hold onto the weapon while a background check is conducted. Certain transfers, such as gifts from a spouse, would not be affected.

“Specifically, it prohibits a firearm transfer between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check,” the bill’s summary states.

Some Republicans claim that H.R. 8 would create a de facto “national registry of firearms” and would only serve to further confuse current gun laws.

“The idea that this is going to make us safer is laughable,” said Representative Mary Miller (R-Ill.). “Criminals looking to get their hands on firearms to use in crimes are not going to submit to background checks. Only law-abiding citizens will follow the law. This is a back door means of setting up a national registry of firearms — something I completely oppose.”

Miller added that the problem was not about lax gun laws, but lax enforcement of those laws.

“We need better enforcement — not more laws,” she added. “Instead of passing terrible legislation like H.R. 8, we need to do a better job of providing law enforcement agencies with the resources they need to enforce existing gun laws.”

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has already introduced companion legislation — “The Background Check Expansion Act” — in the Senate.

The other bill, H.R. 1446, introduced by Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), passed with two Republicans supporting the measure. This gives federal officials an extra seven days to complete background checks. Currently, a firearms dealer is allowed to transfer a firearm to a buyer after three business days if background-check results have not come through by then; the new legislation would increase that to 10 business days.

“Specifically, it increases the amount of time, from three business days to a minimum of ten business days, that a federal firearms licensee must wait to receive a completed background check prior to transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person,” says a Congressional Research Service Summary.

So, it’s a further infringement on the gun rights of Americans. “H.R. 1446 could ultimately destroy the Second Amendment rights guaranteed to every law-abiding American by turning it into a privilege enjoyed by a select few,” said the National Rifle Association in a statement.

It’s also important to note that these bills do not only concern gun sales but weapons transfers as well. So, if a gun is loaned or gifted to another, the same rules apply.

As the NRA pointed out, “If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted felon. Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.”

Representative Miller noted that these are not bills aimed at keeping weapons from gun-toting criminals. Rather, these are bills designed to inconvenience law-abiding citizens by making gun ownership more difficult. These bills are not about gun-crime abatement; they’re about control.


11 Examples of Defensive Gun Use That Undermine Push for Gun Control

These 11 Examples of Defensive Gun Use Undermine Push for More Gun Control

BY Emma Nietzsche & Amy Swearer 

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/10/these-11-examples-of-defensive-gun-use-undermine-push-for-more-gun-control;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

March is Women’s History Month, yet Congress appears ready to celebrate in the worst way possible by creating more barriers for women who seek to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

While COVID-19-related bills have taken up much of the national spotlight, several gun control bills are primed for passage this week in the House. This is hardly surprising, given that just last month, President Joe Biden called on Congress to enact a plethora of new federal gun legislation.

Unfortunately, however, none of these proposals is meaningfully directed at the root causes of gun violence. Many gun control advocates have fooled themselves—and far too many others—into believing that we create safer communities by placing increasingly burdensome restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

The reality, however, is that firearms are used far more often for lawful purposes than they are used to commit acts of criminal violence.   

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

Almost every major study on the issue found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times a year, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We have good reason to believe that many of these defensive gun uses aren’t reported to police, much less make the local or national news. 

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting 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 examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in February. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database.

  • Feb. 1, Memphis, Tennessee: A motorist was putting air in his tires at a gas station when a would-be carjacker jumped in the car and tried to use the remote starter, police said. When the driver leapt through the passenger-side window to stop the thief, he saw the man was armed. They fought over the gun until an armed customer drew his own firearm to defend the driver, spurring the carjacker to run.
  • Feb. 3, Las Vegas: A man with a history of violence against police tried to steal another man’s firearm at a gun range, prompting three armed employees to escort him from the building and call police. When two deputy sheriffs arrived, the man attacked one of them with a screwdriver, stabbing her and breaking a bone in her face. Three employees and the second deputy drew their firearms, fatally shooting the attacker. Assistant Clark County Sheriff Brett Zimmerman told reporters that the employees’ actions “helped our officer and could’ve saved our officer’s life.”
  • Feb. 7, Mason, Tennessee: A woman used her firearm to defend herself from her boyfriend during an ongoing dispute. The man—who reportedly was armed and had made threats of violence in the past—got into an altercation with the woman earlier in the day at her workplace, police said, but left before officers arrived. Later, in the middle of the night, the boyfriend showed up at her home and confronted her again. By the time police responded to the woman’s call for help, she had fatally shot him.
  • Feb. 11, Molino, Florida: A married couple found two men on their property whom they believed were trying to break into their house. The two had pushed their disabled car behind the couple’s home after breaking into a neighbor’s truck, police said. The homeowner drew his handgun and detained the men while his wife called 911. When authorities arrived and arrested the men, they found loaded firearms, stolen items, and drugs in their car.
  • Feb. 13, Goldsboro, North Carolina: Two masked intruders forced their way into an apartment, demanded money, and shot a 73-year-old woman in the leg, police said. The woman’s 12-year-old grandson retrieved a firearm and shot at both intruders, who ran. Police soon caught a man with a gunshot wound who they suspected was one of the intruders. He died from the wound. His accomplice was not found.
  • Feb. 15, Aiken, South Carolina: An armed man knocked on the door of an elderly couple’s home and asked the woman who answered if she had seen his dog. When the woman said she hadn’t and tried to close the door, police said, the man pushed her down, forced his way inside, and pulled a knife on her. The woman’s husband, a Vietnam War veteran, grabbed a shotgun from a wall and used it to beat the intruder to death. The woman and her husband were injured but expected to recover.
  • Feb. 17, Scottdale, Pennsylvania: A resident who discovered a man in his garage used a garden tool to detain the intruder while waiting for police. The intruder knocked down and injured the responding officer, however. He tried to flee in the resident’s SUV, which he crashed as he backed down an embankment. A Marine Corps veteran, walking his dog, took notice of the thief as he tried to break into another home, police said. The veteran ordered his 4-month-old dog to attack the thief, then held him at gunpoint until police arrived to take him into custody.
  • Feb. 20, Metairie, Louisiana: When a man entered a gun store with a loaded firearm, the store owner asked him to unload the weapon. With little warning, police said, the man fired into the air and then at customers and employees, killing two and wounding two. Armed employees drew their own guns and killed him in a shootout before he could harm anyone else.
  • Feb. 23, Butte, Montana: A man was getting his kids ready for school when he heard gunshots. He grabbed his firearm and ran outside, where he saw a neighbor and his son struggling with a would-be car thief, police said. The man held the assailant at gunpoint. Police said the would-be thief had shot the neighbor in the hand before the neighbor’s son rushed out and tried to disarm him.  
  • Feb. 27, Loveland, Colorado: Amid a heated child custody dispute, a woman brandished a handgun and threatened to kill her ex-husband. Fearing for his life and the lives of four other members of the household who were present, police said, the man retrieved his own firearm and fatally shot his ex-wife
  • Feb. 28, Port Huron, Michigan: A homeowner shot an intruder in the neck early in the morning after she heard him entering her house, where she had a small child, police said.  Wounded, the intruder fled; officers quickly caught him.

Everyone wants communities that are safe from gun-related violence and to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

But the gun control bills currently before Congress would impose significant and unnecessary burdens on law-abiding Americans who, like those highlighted above, simply desire an effective means of protecting their rights and liberties.

Worse, these gun control bills would not meaningfully reduce the risk that those rights and liberties indeed will need protection. That makes them both constitutionally suspect and bad policy.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.


ThePatriotNurse: Universal Background Checks: How China is Playing This Game

Posted 07 March 2021: ThePatriotNurse: Federal Firearms Background Checks is just a Tyrannical overreach. 2nd Amendment, Thomas Sowell "Intellectuals and Society" ISBN-13 : 978-0465025220 Centralized Government continue to grow to cleanse their free opponents such as what happened in Hitler's Germany or in China under Mao. First they take away your guns. Hong Kong dissidents. Mao "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". BLM or Antifa uses methods of Mao's Jackbooted thug Power. Communist Antifa Local Riots leads up to Universal Background Check that disarm the local people. Invest in yourself so that you can have Options. You need Skills.

Radical Gun Control Bill Introduced in the House~Why it violates the Second Amendment and Americans’ due process rights


SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/radical-gun-control-bill-introduced-house-joseph-klein/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

With Joe Biden, a strong advocate of strict gun control, in the White House, Democrats are hoping to enact radical gun control legislation that would eviscerate the Second Amendment. On January 4, 2021, the day after the swearing in of the new Congress, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee introduced a bill (H.R. 127) entitled the "Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act.” Her bill is named after a Pakistani exchange student who was killed in a mass shooting at a Texas school in 2018. The bill would require the federal licensing of firearm and ammunition possession under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney General, establish a national firearm registry, and prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

The centralized firearm registry is a giant step towards eventual gun confiscation from law-abiding Americans. The information that gun owners must provide to the federal government includes the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored. Sales, gifts, or even loans of one’s firearm or ammunition must be reported to the Attorney General. When government officials have the information to readily identify and locate owners’ firearms throughout the country, mandatory buy-backs and eventual confiscations become much easier to implement. Only law-abiding Americans will be impacted. Black markets for firearms used by criminals will proliferate.

The registration program is a direct assault on the privacy of law-abiding gun owners. There will be no encryption of their personal information turned over to the federal government. Far from it. The Attorney General will be empowered to establish a database of all registered firearms that will be accessible to the public, as well as to law enforcement and other government agencies.

The broad licensing provision is an egregious violation of personal liberties. The provision goes far beyond the minimum age requirement of 21 and a criminal background check to determine eligibility for a license. Even requiring the license applicant to successfully complete at least 24 hours of training, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms is not the worst part of it. In order to get a license to possess a firearm or ammunition – i.e., to exercise one’s individual Second Amendment right “to keep and bear Arms” – one has to go through and pass “a psychological evaluation.” (Emphasis added).

The psychologist must be approved by the Attorney General and the evaluation must be conducted in compliance with standards established by the Attorney General. As part of the psychological evaluation, the psychologist must interview “any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.” One can just imagine the insults a bitter former spouse or estranged family member would spout about that individual’s “mental, emotional, and relational stability.”

A person applying for a license to possess a firearm or ammunition will flunk the evaluation and be denied a license if that individual has ever been hospitalized “with a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including depression)” or the psychological evaluation indicates that the person has a “chronic mental illness or disturbance.” And to top it all off, if the individual makes it through the psychological evaluation, he or she must have a firearm insurance policy issued by the Attorney General for a fee of $800.

Violations of the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act are not treated like misdemeanors with a slap on the wrist. A violation can mean as much as 25 years in prison and a fine of as much as $150,000.

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller that the Second Amendment right is an individual constitutional right. The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act turns that Second Amendment right “to keep and bear Arms” into a privilege bestowed by the federal government. The Attorney General would have peremptory powers in deciding whether to grant or deny a license to law-abiding Americans, based on a psychological evaluation process that the Attorney General controls.

Proponents of extremist gun control legislation, such as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s bill, will no doubt point out that the late Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller case did not address the constitutionality of firearm licensing or registration requirements directly. Those forms of regulation were not at issue before the Supreme Court. The gun control fanatics will also note that Justice Scalia’s majority opinion did not preclude the constitutionality of reasonable regulation of firearm possession. Indeed, he wrote that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill…” But this digression from the main holding in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion does not mean that the government can ride roughshod over the due process rights of the American people. The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act does just that.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s bill imposes a psychological evaluation requirement as a condition for being allowed to possess a gun for self-defense. Law-abiding Americans who wish to own a gun would be subjected to a psychological evaluation conducted on terms dictated by the U.S. Attorney General by a psychologist approved by the Attorney General. The Attorney General has the power to deny a license to a person diagnosed as having “a chronic mental illness or disturbance.” Chronic mental illness is so broad a term that it could include a diagnosis of such common conditions as mood disorder or anxiety disorder. The Attorney General would get to decide who among the millions of anxious or depressed Americans should be denied a license. The bill sets no limits on the Attorney General’s powers. There is no process for appealing the results of the evaluation or denial of a license.

In high-crime cities especially, where funding for police has been severely cut and faces possible elimination, the right to possess and use arms in self-defense has never meant so much. The gun control fanatics want to legislate expansive licensing and registration requirements to infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment right “to keep and bear Arms.”  They intend to deny law-abiding Americans the means to defend themselves and their families without due process, depriving them of “life, liberty and property” in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Rep. Lee’s bill did not make it out of the House the last time she tried in 2019. If it had, the Republican-controlled White House and Senate would surely have prevented it from becoming law.

This time, the House, Senate and White House are all controlled by the Democrats who support radical gun control legislation. If Rep. Lee’s bill, or something like it, is passed by the House during the current congressional term, the bill could still be stopped in the Senate by a filibuster. If the Senate Democrats eliminate the filibuster and the bill is signed by President Biden, the Supreme Court could still rule that it is unconstitutional. But progressives are plotting a strategy to pack the Supreme Court with their own brethren so that they can reconstitute the Court into the equivalent of a progressive legislature. With the packed Supreme Court under their control, the progressives will be able to reverse the Heller decision and uphold the constitutionality of far-left gun control laws. The Second Amendment hangs in the balance.

HR 127 A Bill Designed to Express Hostility Toward Legal Gun Owners

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE'S H.R.127 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

The Evil Intent Behind HR127 | Dan Wos

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/02/the-evil-intent-behind-democrats-new-anti-gun-bill-hr-127

HR 127 would effectively end American’s right to keep and bear arms.


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/02/hr-127-a-bill-designed-to-express-hostility-toward-legal-gun-owners/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- All gun control bills share the same basic goal: a world in which fewer people own firearms. Some bills simply ban certain types of firearms or ammunition outright. Others place obstacles in the path of owning firearms or ammunition to make them more difficult and expensive to obtain, thereby shrinking the market for them. The fundamental flaw of these approaches is that they treat all law-abiding firearm owners as would-be criminals, when the reality is that most firearm-related assaults and homicides are committed by people who completely disregard the law, including laws against taking human life.

H.R. 127 combines both failed approaches. It bans common types of ammunition and original equipment magazines for most self-defense firearms. And, it makes all firearms more difficult to obtain and possess through a punitive licensing and registration scheme. In its details, however, H.R. 127 is so outrageous, persecutory, and unworkable that its main function is simply to display the hostility of its author and supporters toward firearms, those who own them, and those who want to own them.

  • H.R. 127 would ban common types of ammunition, including every shotgun shell larger than .410.
    • The bill states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.
    • Violations of this ban would result in the imposition of a fine of at least $50,000 and imprisonment of at least 10 years, mandatory penalties not seen in many violent or infamous federal crimes, including torturing someone to death outside the U.S. or committing treason during wartime.
    • Hunting whitetail deer would be legally impossible in at least 10 U.S. states if these restrictions went into effect.
    • The bill would also make it impossible for Americans to follow President Biden’s advice to keep a double-barreled, 12 gauge shotgun for self-defense, rather than an AR-15.
    • Innumerable numbers of shotgun shells currently possessed by law-abiding people for lawful purposes would suddenly become contraband.
    • H.R. 127 would force Americans to relinquish hundreds of millions of firearm magazines with no compensation.
    • The bill states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device”, and defines such devices to include those “that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” excluding certain integral .22 rimfire magazines.
    • Industry production figures show that there are hundreds of millions of 11+ round magazines.
    • As with its ban on shotgun shells, H.R.127’s magazine ban would apply retroactively, affecting items already owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, with no compensation for owners forced to relinquish property that was lawful when obtained
    • H.R. 127 would require the federal government to register some 400 million guns in the span of only 3 months.
    • The bill states that registration information would have to be provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive, “in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section.
    • But BATFE would also have to create the registration system during those 3 months.
    • Because the U.S. (intentionally) does not already have a national firearms registry, it would be impossible for the government to fairly and effectively enforce this system with respect to existing gun owners.
    • The firearm registry database would have to be made available to “all members of the public,” as well as “all branches of the United States Armed Forces,” among others.
    • This would facilitate private discrimination against gun owners, including in such things as employment and access to essential services such as banking, insurance, or housing. It also seems to presuppose that the military, which is prohibited by law from engaging in domestic law enforcement, has some role in policing civilian firearm ownership.
  • Ironically, criminals who possess firearms illegally would self-exempt themselves from the registration requirement, and under U.S. Supreme Court case law, could not be required to disclose their illegal firearm possession through registration.
    • H.R. 127 would retroactively criminalize firearm ownership by young adults.
    • Currently, there is no federal prohibition on adults aged 18 or older possessing otherwise lawful firearms.
    • The bill, however, would require a license to possess any firearm, and licenses would only be available to those aged 21 or older.
    • Millions of young adults, including those in the military, would become ineligible to possess firearms for their own lawful purposes under this legislation, including any firearms they already owned
    • H.R. 127 would discourage voluntary mental health treatment, including for combat veterans or victims of violent trauma, by permanently prohibiting the issuance of a license to anyone who “has been hospitalized … with a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including … addiction to a controlled substance … or alcohol) … .
    • Anyone who had been hospitalized with a “brain disease” would also be ineligible for a license, including those suffering from brain cancer, epilepsy, and Parkinson’s disease.
  • H.R. 127 would effectively price lawful firearm ownership out of reach for many of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans.
    • It would require the holder of a firearm license to pay a tax (masquerading as government-issued “insurance”) of $800 per year.
    • License applicants (and even other members of their household, as directed) would also have to undergo a psychological evaluation at their own expense.
  • H.R. 127 has a long way to go before becoming law.
    • The bill has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing, and it currently has zero cosponsors.
    • While it is not presently moving, it does show how far gun control advocates would like to go in attacking the right to keep and bear arms.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Student lawsuit over Fordham dismissal alleges university ties to Chinese Communist Party


Austin Tong claims that Fordham tried to 'silence' him


SEE: https://www.foxnews.com/us/lawsuit-fordham-alleges-university-ties-chinese-communist-party;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New York college student who was threatened with expulsion over two social media posts has sued the school and his lawyer is now alleging it may have tried to hide ties to the Chinese Communist Party, according to legal documents.

Fordham University threatened to expel Austin Tong, a Chinese-born senior, for two social media posts from June. In a written response to Fordham’s motion to dismiss his suit, Tong’s lawyer, Edward Paltzik, alleged that Fordham has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and that university officials have been “extraordinarily dishonest" in disclosing their dealings with the foreign nation.


During an appearance on "The Ingraham Angle," Tong said he believed the university took issue "with anything they disagree with and they want to silence any voice they don't like and that's really what happened and they silenced me because they don't like what I said."

One of Tong's posts featured a photo of a former St. Louis police captain who was killed in a June riot, with the comment, “Y’all a bunch of hypocrites.” A second post depicted Mr. Tong holding an unloaded rifle and the phrase “Don’t tread on me” – a reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre.

The second post is the one that ultimately led to the university’s threat to expel him. Fordham’s letter to Tong on June 8 informed him that he was guilty of violating university policies on “bias and/or hate crimes” and “threats/intimidation."

Fordham requested an apology for the posts, but Tong responded with the lawsuit.

Paltzik’s argument regarding alleged ties to China's Communist Party appears to be based on a letter from the Department of Education that informed Fordham it was seeking information on a possible discrepancy in foreign funding disclosure.

“It is the Department’s experience that Fordham’s extensive international operations are very likely concurrent with substantial foreign source gifts and/or contracts, despite the dearth of disclosures by Fordham,” the letter read.


“As a result, the Department is concerned that Fordham’s reporting may not fully capture all qualifying gifts, contracts, and/or restricted and conditional gifts or contracts from or with all foreign sources.”

Despite attempts to dismiss the suit, Fordham has found itself facing federal investigations for allegedly accepting undisclosed foreign gifts from China as well as for violating its own free-speech guidelines in contravention of federal law.

Fordham’s mission statement claims, "Fordham strives for excellence in research and teaching and guarantees the freedom of inquiry required by rigorous thinking and the quest for truth."


A court filing argues that Fordham Department of Public Safety agents visited Tong at his family’s home on Long Island and interviewed him, with one agent saying that the posts were “not threatening to me.”


Fordham Letter by Campus Reform on Scribd:




After posting a picture holding a legally owned firearm to commemorate the 31st anniversary of Tiananmen Square, Fordham University proceeded to harass and eventually ban senior and Chinese immigrant, Austin Tong from campus, all for merely exercising his First Amendment right. This is his heroic story of fighting back against a very CCP-style tyranny present on American shores.
1 2