Posts Tagged ‘NRA ILA’

Crazed coon, PETA, and yet another example of stupid is as stupid does…

February 20, 2010

Well, those folks over at PETA, you know, the ones that kill animals that are in their “protection” wholesale? They have their panties all wadded up because someone actually had the unmitigated gall to defend home and hearth from a potentially deadly critter that was not acting normally in any way.

With all the great advances in medicine Hydrophobia, is still a scourge that even obamacare couldn’t handle on it’s best day.

Among other things, U.S. Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) is a responsible citizen, a family man, a firearm owner, and is staunchly pro-gun.  He also has a Twitter account from which he “tweets” fairly regularly.

According to a February 16, blog-post on Sioux City, Rep. King recently tweeted the following during a snow storm he was riding out in his rural, western Iowa home:  “Mid day, mid blizzard, 15 degrees, Crazy Raccoon chewing and clawing his way into my house. Desert Eagle 1, Crazy Raccoon zero.”

Apparently the home-destroying–and potentially rabid–raccoon had been attempting to enter the King’s home for several days.  The blog post noted that King not only feared the raccoon might be rabid, but that King’s granddaughters often played in the area where the attempted “break-in” occurred.

So King did what most reasonable, self-reliant, self-preserving people in his situation would do:  he shot the raccoon.

Enter People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the radical and increasingly irrelevant animal “rights” group who, predictably, criticized King for his action.

King should not have dispatched “a small animal seeking warmth in another blizzard,” said PETA spokesman Jaime Zalac.

A normally nocturnal wild animal that is known to be a frequent carrier of rabies, attempting to gain entry into your home in the middle of the day–and destroying your property in the process–is certainly just cause for concern.  And the desire and will to protect your family, home, and self by dispatching the wild animal before it can do more harm would certainly be considered reasonable by most.

Unless, of course, you’re PETA.  In that case, you place the welfare of a destructive animal that could potentially be carrying a fatal disease and is trying to gnaw its way into a home, above the welfare of the home’s human residents.


Bill O’Reilly a whackjob fake conservative…

February 20, 2010

Anyone that has followed the antics of Bill O’Reilly for any appreciable amount of time knows that at best he is a Neo Con, not a true Conservative. I won’t bother going into all the various positions he has held over time that convinces me of that.

What real Conservative would advocate taking away, by government force no less, any persons ability to properly and effectively defend themselves and what is theirs than during times of extreme upheaval?

I’ll give the man kudos for his work on crimes against children, but other than that? He is yet another example of broken clock politics…

As we have often reported, in the wake of the illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, NRA focused its attention on legislation to amend existing emergency-powers statutes to guarantee that local authorities never again attempt the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during states of emergency.

As you know, following Hurricane Katrina, many New Orleans residents legally armed themselves to protect their lives and property from civil disorder. With no way to call for help, and police unable to respond, lawful citizens were able to defend themselves and their neighbors against looters, arsonists and other criminals.

However, just when these people needed their guns for self-protection the most, New Orleans’s Police Superintendent ordered the confiscation of firearms, allegedly under a state emergency-powers law.  Fortunately, an NRA lawsuit brought an end to the seizures, and subsequent NRA-backed legislation ensured the gun confiscation travesty would not repeat itself.

Unfortunately, many states have “emergency powers” laws that give the government permission to suspend or limit gun sales, and to prohibit or restrict citizens from transporting or carrying firearms. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize guns outright from citizens who’ve committed no crime, and who would then be defenseless against disorder.

Within the past few weeks, a state of emergency was declared in King, North Carolina following a relatively heavy snowstorm.  As a result of the emergency declaration, local residents were banned from carrying firearms in their vehicles.

Entering into the fray this week was Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, on Fox News.

In a February 18, interview that discussed, in part, the confiscation of legally-owned guns during a declared state of emergency (as was the case in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina), O’Reilly affirmed his support of such confiscations.

When it was explained to O’Reilly that whether or not there’s a state of emergency, it’s still unconstitutional to confiscate lawfully-owned guns from honest citizens wanting to defend themselves, the Fox talking head retorts, “That’s a pretty extreme position.”

Perhaps in your opinion, Bill.  But for most law-abiding Americans, the notion that the government can suspend the Constitution and leave citizens without the most effective means of self-defense just because of a snowstorm or hurricane — well, that would qualify as an extreme position.

Of course, no one condones the mindless violence of those who would loot a helpless city, or shoot at rescue workers.  But one reason for the citizens to retain a legal right to arms, is precisely because the government has no legal duty to protect them.  Legislative bodies can, and should, act to protect the self-defense rights of citizens at the times when those rights are most important.

NRA-ILA was instrumental in passing H.R. 5013–the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,”–federal legislation to protect gun owners’ rights during emergencies.  And we continue to fight for state legislation to do the same.  NRA-ILA has successfully passed Emergency Powers legislation in 28 states since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and we will not rest until we reform all emergency powers laws to prohibit these types of arbitrary attacks on Second Amendment rights.


And yes, regular readers know that I think pretty much the same thing about the NRA…

Gun Laws and Colorado plus Rampart Range

January 31, 2010

COLORADO: Pro-Gun Bills Await Action in Denver
Two crucial pieces of legislation are currently waiting to be heard in the Colorado State Legislature.  Emergency Powers legislation (SB 51)is currently awaiting action in the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee.  This bill would remove the Governor’s ability to “suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation” of firearms during a declared state of emergency.  Currently scheduled for a hearing is HB 1094, which guarantee your right to self-defense in the workplace.   It is important that you contact the members of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee and urge them to protect the rights of lawful gun owners during states of emergency by setting a hearing date for Senate Bill 51.  Also, please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and respectfully urge them to support HB 1094. Contact information for both committees can be found here.

Governor Bill Ritter Pushing Unconstitutional Gun Tax!
On Thursday, January 21, Governor Bill Ritter’s (D) unconstitutional gun tax proposal hit a roadblock when members of the Joint Budget Committee openly stated that they would not support it. Representative Kent Lambert (R-14) and Senator Al White (R-8) objected to imposing the proposed fee on the constitutional rights of Coloradans, likening it to a poll tax.

The proposal would charge gun buyers a $10.50 fee to pay for state-mandated background checks. The Colorado Joint Budget Committee (JBC) typically submits a budget bill with consensus among its members, but it’s unlikely the “gun tax” will win such favor in the JBC.  This would strike a major blow to the onerous proposal.  The state background checks, conducted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, were mandated in 1998.  At the time, lawmakers assured gun owners that the state would fund these checks because the National Instant Background Check System is free. At this time, the proposal for the state budget bill is still under consideration and has yet to be introduced in the Colorado State Legislature.

Governor Ritter’s proposal is a blatant attack on our Second Amendment rights and NRA-ILA will continue to monitor state budget debates to ensure this proposal doesn’t advance.  Please be sure to check your e-mail and for future updates.

Colorado State University Seeking to Outlaw Concealed Carry on Campus
On Wednesday, January 20, Colorado State University (CSU) formally announced a draft proposal to prohibit firearms on all CSU campuses. Exempt from the ban would be firearms used by law enforcement and military personnel and by the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. This draft policy will be brought up for consideration at the CSU Board of Governors meeting on Tuesday, February 23. A copy of the draft can be found at It is important that Colorado’s NRA members tell CSU’s President that the policy must uphold Colorado law and allow permit holders to carry concealed handguns for self-defense.  Please contact President Tony Frank TODAY by phone at 970-491-6211 or e-mail and respectfully urge him to comply with Colorado law.

Support Needed to Re-Open Rampart Shooting Range!
Following an accidental shooting last July, the Forest Service closed the very popular and heavily used Rampart Shooting Range on the Pike National Forest.  In its nearly 20 year history, Rampart had never before experienced a shooting-related injury or fatality.   Rampart is the only free public range in El Paso County and receives 40,000 visitors a year.  The Service called the closure a “time-out” in order to assess whether the design of the range was a factor.  An investigation determined that the range was not a factor in the accident.  Safety experts have said that the accident could have happened at any range.  But after it closed Rampart, the Forest Service devised a scheme to keep the range closed permanently.

The Forest Service has listed requirements that must be met before it will reopen Rampart.  There is no timetable for meeting these requirements and likely no money to cover costs.  The most significant issue is the requirement of full time supervision.  Most ranges on federal lands operate without supervision and this requirement could place all such ranges in jeopardy.  Rampart Range is in need of improvements which were identified more than two years ago.  Such improvements can be addressed and implemented with the range reopened.  The Forest Service has said that it could take up to five years before Rampart is reopened, but there is no guarantee that it would reopen Rampart in that timeframe or at any time in the future.

NRA has been working to get Rampart Range reopened since the day it was closed, but we need the help of Colorado hunters and shooters to show the Forest Service and your elected officials that the federal government cannot continue to close public lands to recreational shooting, and certainly not without replacing those areas lost with other areas of the same or great value.  Rampart Shooting Range is an important resource for the shooting community along the Front Range.  There is no incentive for the Forest Service to reopen Rampart unless the shooting sports community demands it!

Shooting ranges on public lands are few and far between in Colorado.  In addition to the closure of Rampart, the Forest Service has closed its lands to recreational shooting near Boulder and on the Pawnee Grasslands, and large acreage closures have occurred west of Sedalia.  The Forest Service is not planning for recreational shooting.  Closures are imposed without opening new areas and needed improvements to existing areas, including the Rampart Shooting Range, have not been made.  Recreational shooting is not being treated by the Forest Service in Colorado as a legitimate and valued recreational activity on forest lands.

Please send an e-mail in support of the immediate reopening of Rampart to:

Tom Tidwell, Chief of the Forest Service, at, and copy your letter to:

Senator Mark Udall at,
Senator Michael Bennet at,
Congressman Doug Lamborn at, and
Governor Bill Ritter by clicking here.

Please stress that keeping the range closed is not supportable by the investigative report; that the closure has robbed the shooting community of a valuable resource; and that needed improvements to the range can be planned and implemented without closure.


2010: Second Amendment in the crosshairs

January 4, 2010

Lots of issues will be on the table this coming year, and none will be more important than those that surround The Second Amendment. It is, after all is said and done that which protects the rest of the entire Bill of Rights.

The Epic Fail Administration and cohorts have shown what utter contempt they hold for the American people as well as the rule of law in their handling of the obamacare fiasco. Not to mention that while all that “debate” was unfolding the obamanites sold out America’s Sovereignty. Read about that HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and yes more HERE! Strong work Anthony!

The sheer arrogance of the current administration and Congress would be mind boggling, that is, if the strategy were not so transparent. I submit that they are well aware of what will happen come Judgment Day 2010. Their plan,as it were, is to do as much lasting damage to the United States as they possibly can in a short time, and to stack the Supreme Court and other Federal Courts to achieve what ever lasting effect they can shove down our throats.

Then we have this, from the dog that fetched the bone…

The Second Amendment faces a decisive year in 2010. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has called for new semi automatic gun bans despite their decade long record of fraud and failure, and despite his own Justice Department’s failure to fully or even half heartedly prosecute federal firearm felonies. Mr. Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have demonstrated their willingness to use cooked statistics to blame Mexico’s violent drug war on Americans and their Second Amendment rights. Anti gun leaders in Congress have introduced bills to ban guns, license gun owners, register guns, tax bullets, serialize ammunition, shut down gun shows and a hundred other schemes. They’re still there, proposing every nonsensical gun law they can imagine that only affect law abiding citizens, while criminals go about their evil business unfettered. Meanwhile at the United Nations, global citizen disarmament nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and freedom fearing dictatorships worldwide maneuver to impose their will on you through international treaties. But it is a new year. And, in a very crucial way, 2010 may be a year unlike any other in American history when the Second Amendment could, finally and truly, be recognized as a right for all Americans.

Read About It: The Washington Times

Support BATFE Reform Bills S. 941 And H.R. 2296

November 14, 2009

As we’ve been reporting for months, Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced S. 941, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009” in the U.S. Senate.  Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) and Zack Space (D-Ohio) have introduced a companion bill—H.R. 2296—in the U.S. House.  The bills would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena.  These bipartisan bills are a vital step to modernize and improve BATFE operations.

Of highest importance, S. 941and H.R. 2296 totally rewrite the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Currently, for most violations, BATFE can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder a warning, or revoke his license.

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while still allowing license revocation for the kind of serious violations that would block an investigation or put guns in the hands of criminals. This will help prevent the all-too-common situations where BATFE has revoked licenses for insignificant technical violations—such as improper use of abbreviations or filing records in the wrong order.

Among its other provisions, S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would:

·  Clarify the standard for “willful” violations—allowing penalties for intentional, purposeful violations of the law, but not for simple paperwork mistakes.

·  Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of BATFE itself.

·  Allow a licensee a period of time to liquidate inventory when he goes out of business. During this period, all firearms sold would be subject to a background check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

·  Allow a grace period for people taking over an existing firearms business to correct problems in the business’s records—so if a person inherited a family gun store (for example), the new owner couldn’t be punished for the previous owner’s recordkeeping violations.

·  Reform the procedures for consideration of federal firearms license applications. Under S. 941, denial of an application would require notification to the applicant, complete with reasons for the denial. Additionally, an applicant would be allowed to provide supplemental information and to have a hearing on the application.

·  Require BATFE to establish clear investigative guidelines.

·  Clarify the licensing requirement for gunsmiths, distinguishing between repair and other gunsmith work and manufacture of a firearm. This would stop BATFE from arguing that minor gunsmithing or refinishing activities require a manufacturers’ license.

·  Eliminate a provision of the Youth Handgun Safety Act that requires those under 18 to have written permission to use a handgun for lawful purposes (such as competitive shooting or safety training)—even when the parent or guardian is present.

·  Permanently ban creation of a centralized electronic index of out of business dealers’ records—a threat to gun owners’ privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for more than a decade.

·  Allow importation and transfer of new machineguns by firearm and ammunition manufacturers for use in developing or testing firearms and ammunition, and training customers. In particular, ammunition manufacturers fulfilling government contracts need to ensure that their ammunition works reliably. S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possession of new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.

·  Repeal the Brady Act’s “interim” waiting period provisions, which expired in 1998.

·  Give BATFE sole responsibility for receiving reports of multiple handgun sales. (Currently, dealers also have to report multiple sales to state or local agencies, a requirement that has shown little or no law enforcement value.) State and local agencies could receive these reports upon request to BATFE, but would have to comply strictly with current requirements to destroy these records after 20 days, unless the person buying the guns turns out to be prohibited from receiving firearms.

·  Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts.

S. 941 represents the first time such BATFE reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate.  However, the House passed similar legislation (H.R. 5092) in the 109th Congress by a 277-131 vote.  A majority of the House–224 congressmen–cosponsored H.R. 4900 in the 110th Congress.

A fact sheet on S. 941/H.R. 2296 can be found here.


As of this writing, S. 941 has 16 cosponsors, and H.R. 2296 has 193 cosponsors.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative, and ask them to cosponsor and support S. 941 and H.R. 2296! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.


Urgent Alert: Ask Your U.S. Senators And Representative To Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Rights In The States!

November 14, 2009

As a critical Second Amendment case goes before the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Tester (D-MT), and Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mark Souder (R-IN) are gathering signatures for an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief by Members of Congress.  And we need your support for this important effort next week.

The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, and it will answer the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states—as the Congress clearly intended in the 1860s, when it adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect constitutional rights against abuse by state and local governments.  This brief is an opportunity for today’s Congress to show just as clearly that it respects the Second Amendment’s importance to all Americans—not just residents of the District of Columbia and other federal territories.

The brief describes Congress’s debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, and points out the many occasions—from 1866 to 2005—when the Congress has spoken in favor of the Second Amendment as protecting a right of all Americans, and taken action to protect that right against actions such as gun confiscation and predatory lawsuits.  It also makes the case for Congress’s interest (under its constitutional war powers) in preserving an armed citizenry as part of America’s national defense.


When Congress speaks, the Supreme Court listens.   And it did in the historic Heller case last year when 55 Senators and 250 Representatives signed an amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right.  Now every Senator and Congressman who supports the rights of all Americans should step forward to be heard by signing this brief in the McDonald case.


The brief must be filed within the week, so we need your immediate help! On Monday through Thursday, please call your U.S. Senators and Representative, and urge them to sign on to this critically important brief, which will be a key part of the legal battle to protect the Second Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-31


Bloomberg Wants to “Counter” the NRA

August 15, 2009

It’s bad enough when, under color of authority, one commits federal felony’s (attempting to set up straw purchases; denying civil liberties under color of authority) while at the same time using armed body guards is a hallmark of elitist ideology; Now Bloomberg has the gall to go after those that seek liberty and freedom. Read on…

It is old news to gun owners that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not a friend. As one of the leading proponents of new gun laws, Bloomberg has already earned his place in the Second Amendment rights hall of shame. But apparently, Hizzoner does not believe he is doing enough to destroy our rights.

On an appearance on “Meet the Press,” Bloomberg announced that he would raise money to counter the influence of the NRA. Bloomberg was on the show to trumpet the 39 votes he was able to muster to squeak out a narrow defeat of national Right-to-Carry reciprocity. (To read more about the Thune/Vitter amendment, click here.) He took the opportunity to lament that the NRA has so much influence — and took upon himself the role of countering that influence.

Of course, as anti-gunners regularly do, Bloomberg ignores the fact that the NRA only has clout because we represent the beliefs of tens of millions of Americans who oppose the anti-gun agenda. Recent polling has repeatedly shown that the majority of Americans support the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

And though it must be very frustrating to mayor Bloomberg, that support is growing. A recent poll by Zogby International revealed that 83% of Americans support Right-to-Carry laws. Bloomberg will no doubt continue to trumpet the 39-vote procedural “victory,” but the reality is, the American people are on the side of Second Amendment freedoms.

Perhaps part of the problem is the inherent dishonesty of Bloomberg’s position. He claims to be opposed to “Illegal” guns, but his latest effort targeted the rights of law-abiding people who already carry a gun legally. To Bloomberg, any gun he does not like is an “illegal” gun.

Mayor Bloomberg and his group “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” represent a serious threat because of the attention the media will give them and the resources a billionaire like Bloomberg has at his disposal. That’s the money he is once again promising to use to fight against our Second Amendment rights.

Fortunately, America’s law-abiding gun owners know how to fight the misinformation and anti-gun rhetoric of Mayor Bloomberg and his allies. NRA will continue to closely monitor Bloomberg’s anti-gun activities and will keep you informed about his efforts.


Piracy and the right to self defense

June 28, 2009

Just yesterday the History Channel had a program about the American flag ship that Somali pirates attacked earlier in the year, and the fine work that the U.S. Navy did in getting the ship and crew rescued. Not to sell the Navy short by any means, but a lot of what happened was as a direct result of the actions taken by the crew. Indeed, if the crew had not taken decisive action, the Navy’s job would have been much tougher.

It seems that those that are so much smarter than common people prefer appeasement. Indeed, what in recent history has appeasement accomplished? World War Two comes to mind, as does the seizing of the American Embassy in Iran.Let’s not forget our second place finish in the Southeast Asian War games when appeasement stopped the bombing. Or the Korean War and what that has led to in the aftermath, as in lunatics with nuclear weapons. Appeasing hostage takers brought us September eleventh, and the World Trade Center attacks that this nation is still reeling from.

So then what is all this about? Well, I do have my problems with the N.R.A. But this time they hit the ball right out of the park, and it went straight over the center field fence. Read on.

Friday, June 26, 2009
Last month we reported on the arming of merchant mariners to allow them to defend their crews and ships from pirate attacks.  We noted that, with the increase in pirate attacks on the high seas, many are now realizing that firearms and armed citizens can be as effective a criminal deterrent at sea, as they are on land.

The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) wrapped up a meeting earlier this month, where it agreed on “revised guidance on combating piracy and armed robbery against ships.”

Among other things, the report recommends “guidance to shipmasters and crew…who may be kidnapped or held hostage for ransom, based on the current United Nations guidance on ‘surviving as a hostage.’”

As hard as it is to believe, the MSC report concludes that, “flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship. Seafarers, it was agreed, are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker. Carriage of firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods.”

These recommendations defy reason, given that the pirates are already heavily armed and know vessels are easy targets due to the high level of probability that seamen are unarmed.

By contrast, U.S. Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) has introduced H.R. 2984–the “United States Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009.” The purpose of the Act is to assist in the defense of United States-flag vessels against piracy and to ensure the traditional right of self-defense of those vessels against piracy.

Commenting on the measure, Rep. LoBiondo, the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee, said: “Our merchant marine fleet is increasingly under attack from unlawful individuals and rogue groups that seek to disrupt commerce, seize U.S. and foreign crews, and instill fear on international waters. It is only appropriate that our fleets be legally allowed to defend themselves from these violent encounters. This common-sense legislation is a necessary step in empowering U.S.-flagged vessels to protect their crews and cargo.”


Heller V. D.C. anniversary

June 27, 2009

Click here to vote in this week’s poll.
Today, June 26, marks the one-year anniversary of the landmark D.C. v. Heller case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.  The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”

Yet despite this great victory, we can’t rest on our laurels. Those who would still deny our Second Amendment freedoms are always looking for ways to thwart our success and reverse that decision. And while the case affirmed that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government, and federal entities such as Washington, D.C., from banning handguns for self-defense, the decision did not resolve the separate question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.

Piracy And The Right To Self Defense: Last month we reported on the arming of merchant mariners to allow them to defend their crews and ships from pirate attacks.  We noted that, with the increase in pirate attacks on the high seas, many are now realizing that firearms and armed citizens can be as effective a criminal deterrent at sea, as they are on land.

capitolPending Federal Legislation Needs Your Support: There are a number of pro-gun bills pending in Congress that require your attention and action.  Please review these legislative initiatives and be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and urge them to cosponsor and support these measures. Additional contact information can be found using the “Write Your Representatives” feature at

H.R. 2324 more of the same old same old

May 8, 2009

The usual haters of freedom and liberty are back at it despite what the impostor in chief says about interfering with the rights of the people. Using the same tired old arguments and the same tired old lies the anti-liberty crowd is back to finding a cure for a problem that doesn’t exist.

On May 6, at a press conference with Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, U.S. Representatives Michael Castle (R-Del.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 2324–the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act.” Masquerading as reform, H.R. 2324 would impose severe bureaucratic restrictions aimed at shutting down gun shows.

The bill is essentially a re-introduction of the failed H.R. 96, introduced in the 110th Congress. Despite changes from the Lautenberg juvenile justice amendment of 1999, on which the measure is based, H.R. 2324 fails to address gun owners’ most significant concerns. In several areas it is even more restrictive than past attempts to regulate gun shows. H.R. 2324 would create gun owner registration, massive new government red tape, and allow harassment of gun show organizers, vendors and attendees. The bill also ignores a glaring problem–multiple government studies prove gun shows are not a source of “crime guns.”

Anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a companion bill (S. 843) in the U.S. Senate in late April.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to strongly oppose H.R. 2324; and please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to strongly oppose S. 843! You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.


Apparently, they haven’t heard the news…

WASHINGTON — Amid a wave of publicity about drug-related gun violence along the Mexican border and police killings in U.S. cities, an increasing number of Americans oppose new government efforts to regulate guns.

Recent nonpartisan polls show shrinking support for new gun-control measures and strong public sentiment for enforcing existing laws instead. So strong is the shift in public opinion that a proposed assault-weapons ban — once backed by 3 in 4 Americans — now rates barely 1 in 2.

Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, told reporters Tuesday that “every bit of data is showing us that Americans are getting more conservative about gun control.”

A CNN poll conducted in April found that 39 percent of Americans wanted stricter gun-control laws, down from 50 percent in 2000.

Forty-six percent said the gun laws should stay as they are, while 15 percent said they should be loosened — up from 9 percent in 2000.

When asked to identify the best way to reduce gun violence, 61 percent of Americans said stronger enforcement of existing laws, while 27 percent opted for stronger laws, according to an ABC News-Washington Post poll, also conducted in April.

Even an assault-weapons ban is not the political “sure thing” it once was. An April 23-26 poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said the latest polls confirm what his gun-rights group has been saying all along.

“We have adequate gun laws on the books to address every situation,” he said.

The shifting public mood on gun issues is one reason the Democratic administration is not trying to reinstate the assault-weapons ban that Congress let expire in 2004.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs says President Barack Obama believes that “we can make a significant dent in gun violence . . . through enforcement of the existing laws.”

Elected officials in California and Pennsylvania have responded to the killings of four police officers in Oakland, Calif., and three in Pittsburgh by calling for restoration of the decade-long ban.

Gun-control advocates have also pushed to revive the ban as a way to stem the flow of firearms illegally smuggled from the United States into Mexico.

But despite support for limits from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, Congress seems unlikely to act.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, called diminished public support for gun-control measures “a good thing.”

He said the recent poll findings will help lawmakers “resist pressure from this administration to pass more gun-control legislation.”


%d bloggers like this: