archives

RKBA

This category contains 39 posts

UN Gun Ban Is Far From Dead

 

 

 

 

Dear Guffaw,

My jaw hit the floor when I heard the news.

Coming directly from the U.N.’s own website, I was furious to find out that the second largest direct funder of their global gun ban is American taxpayers like you and me.

Figures going back to the Obama administration show hundreds of thousands of dollars coming from our own government towards promoting the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

And sadly, those funds haven’t slowed down since President Trump has taken office.

Could it just be oversight? Or could it be entrenched holdovers from the Obama administration willfully blocking President Trump from knowing this is going on?

Either way, it is unacceptable that we are continuing to fund this global gun ban.

If fully implemented in the United States, our Second Amendment would be put on life support, and it would take years to undo the damage.

That’s why I’m counting on you to support the National Association for Gun Rights’ “Defund the UN Gun Ban Ad Blitz.”

Their goal is to raise $125,000 by Thursday, September 28th.

With those funds, they are going to run an ad blitz designed to get the attention of President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Everything from mail and email, to state-of-the-art online programs designed to identify and mobilize Second Amendment supporters, will be utilized.

But a program like this will cost a lot of money, and that’s why I’m emailing you today.

I really don’t know what you can afford, but I’m hoping you help out my good friends at the National Association for Gun Rights by digging deep to help fund their vital program.

Perhaps once I explain why this is such an important cause, you’ll even consider giving $75.

You see, the anti-gun global elites are breathing a sigh of relief.

Even with their anti-gun cheerleader Hillary Clinton not in the presidency, they are able to keep their yearly check courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer — which they are using to work towards global implementation of the Treaty.

In fact, the anti-gun global elites just got back from a posh set of meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, where they schemed about ways to implement their anti-gun agenda world-wide.

They know that as long as U.S. money keeps flooding in and our signature stays intact they will have their way eventually.

And even if implementation isn’t possible under President Trump, they are fully prepared to wait for someone like (God forbid) Senator Elizabeth Warren to take over the White House.

In the meantime, they can get by on the hundreds of thousands in U.S. funds they will accumulate by then.

And one important way to slow them down is immediately cutting off our funds to the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

Frankly, I think President Trump would be wise to cut off a lot, maybe even all, funding to the United Nations given its long history of anti-American activity . . . but that’s a subject for another day.

Today, I hope you will stand with me in at least cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N.’s global gun ban scheme.

So please click here and chip in to help the National Association for Gun Rights raise $125,000 for their Ad Blitz by this Thursday.

After reading through the details of the Treaty, it’s hard to see how our Second Amendment could survive such an assault.

Perhaps the worst of the Treaty’s provisions can be found in Article V, which mandates countries establish a “National Control List” — or a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database!

You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.

And the U.N. is already plotting their next step — developing new “International Small Arms Control Standards” (ISACS).

Their goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.” Introductory language already includes:

*** Mandated national “screening” for all persons seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you’re “competent” enough to own a gun;

*** Restrictive licensing for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!

*** Restrictions on the number of guns and amount of ammo any “properly-licensed” individual may legally own;

*** Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds;

*** Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense — unless a citizen can somehow demonstrate need and get federal government approval.

And with U.S. funding continuing to support this treaty, the global anti-gun elites are convinced that the U.S. will come on board with full implementation.

As one anti-gun world leader stated:

“[W]e expect the U.S. to abide by the Treaty even if ratification will take some time.”

That’s why the immediate defunding of this treaty is so important, and why I asked you to make such a generous contribution.

So please click here and make a generous contribution of $75 to NAGR’s “Defund the U.N. Gun Ban Ad Blitz” right away!

But if $75 is just too much for you at this time, I understand. The only reason I am asking for so much is because I know first-hand, as a U.S. Senator, just how effective the National Association for Gun Rights is.

Every cent they receive goes directly towards protecting and restoring the Second Amendment in our great country.

So please consider digging deep, whether that be giving $75, $50, or $25 it will be much appreciated, and will make a huge difference.

Whatever you give, I would just like to thank you for your dedication to liberty, and the Second Amendment.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United Stated Senator (R-KY)

P.S. I was shocked and angered to find out that the United Nation’s “Small Arms Treaty” is largely funded by U.S. tax payers like you and me.

That’s more than every country in the world with the exception of Japan.

That’s why I’m hoping I can count on you to make a generous contribution of $75, $50, or $25 to NAGR’s “Defund the U.N. Gun Ban Ad Blitz” by their Thursday deadline.

Yeah, here we go again.
I don’t want the U.N. Gun Ban but I’ve no funds.
I figured I could at least at least put this out there as another last-ditch effort!
Come and get them!

 

Advertisements

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense

(from NRA-ILA)

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense

 

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense
It is refreshing to finally see some common sense coming out of a court in NJ, as the state is notoriously known for its illogical and Draconian gun laws that do little more than make felons out of law-abiding gun owners.

MORE

The Large Magazine Debate: How Much is Too Much?

The debate on restricting the sale of gun magazines that hold more than ten cartridges has been going on since the first mass shooting. The fact that the magazines have been available to the public for many years prior brings the question of “Why worry about it now?”

Neither conservatives nor liberals can deny that the 2nd Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own firearms. The question is, “how much is too much?”

There’s no real answer due to the fact that limiting one aspect of the 2nd Amendment can cause other aspects to be limited as well.

Mass Shootings

Almost every mass shooter in history has used large magazines and semi-automatic weapons in their attacks on unsuspecting citizens. While many claim that reducing the number of rounds they can fire in a second or two would save lives, others can also claim that if teachers were allowed to be armed it wouldn’t matter how many rounds the shooters had available.

Is the Size of the Magazine Really That Important?

The main debate revolves limiting magazines that carry ten rounds or more. Legislators seem to miss the fact that it’s the person that pulls the trigger, not the weapon. If the person is intent on harming others, they will find a way to do it whether they have a ten round clip or a 100-round magazine.

The debate will continue to go on as long as there are people in society who have different points of view. The answer may be in the opposite direction, however. Instead of limiting the rights of the people who can use weapons effectively, let’s keep the weapons and their accessories out of the hands of those who misuse them.

~ Firearm Daily

While I don’t thing this was written by a knowledgeable firearm owner, it does make some points for conversation.

As for my .02, I strongly believe in the nose-under the tent,  If we allow magazine size, then it’s number of magazine carried, or total rounds carried.  Or weight of weapons.  Or permissible calibers…

This is not about GUN CONTROL.

It’s about CONTROL!

 

Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect Popular Rifles, Shotguns from Antigun Politicians

(from NRA/ILA)

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.
The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states – including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.
Ask Your Representative to support the Second Amendment Guarantee Act
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.
TAKE ACTION TODAY
Anti-gunners’ focus on these so-called “assault weapons” was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns – by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime – were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and they’ve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use.
Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, “three-gun” and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states’ legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged “ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.” That’s hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.
Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
With states’ violating Americans’ rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.
The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.
The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

IT’S ABOUT TIME!

Where were bills like this when the various ‘assault weapon bans’ were introduced?  Of course, the political climate has changed.

Let’s support bills like this before the pendulum swings back again the other way!

The truly sad part is if State and federal legislators truly followed their oaths, none of this would be necessary.

Happy Independence Day

Today is the 241st anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from the tyranny that was the British crown against the colonies.

And, it will be celebrated with fireworks, picnics, barbeques and other family get-togethers.  Some parades and even some solemn remembrances.

We should acknowledge this day, but we should also remember tyranny never stops, and government never stops growing unabated.

YES!  WE HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS! – but how many of them are forgotten or stepped-on today?

Freedom of Speech?  Hardly.  Colleges and university restricting or stopping speech with which they disagree WHOLESALE!

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms?  I will acknowledge much improvement has happened over the past 20 years in this area, but we must not sit on out laurels.  Just this past week, the Supreme Court declined to hear how possession (carrying) of weapons outside the home factors in.  Leaving an erroneous District Court finding to stand.

Search and Seizure?  Do we even have a Fourth Amendment, anymore?  Blanket wiretapping of cellular phone and Internet communications.  DUI checkpoints.  The TSA.  Anyone see any warrants affiliated with these actions?

Trial by a Jury of one’s Peers?  Seriously?  How often?

And don’t even get me started on seizure of assets and jury nullification!

I thank God that we didn’t elect Barack 2.0 (aka Hillary).  This doesn’t mean that the current White House occupant is close to being a diamond in the rough.

He is a populist, and certainly NOT a libertarian!  And surrounds himself with statist conservatives.

We have won some battles, but are nowhere close to winning the war.

The quote “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is often mistakenly attributed to the Irish lawyer and politician John Philpot Curran and frequently to Thomas Jefferson.

In fact, Curran’s line was somewhat different. What he actually said, in a speech in Dublin on July 10, 1790, was:

       “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”

And, according to Jefferson scholars there is “no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty’ or any of its variants.”

Whoever said it, it is TRUE!  Stay vigilant, My Friends!

Happy Independence Day

 

Supreme Court Declines To Take Carry Case

(from NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS VOLUME 24, NUMBER 26, in part)

Supreme Court Declines to Take Carry Case, but Gorsuch Casts a Solidly Pro-Gun Vote

Gun owners received disappointing news on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that effectively let stand California’s “may-issue” permitting regime. The upshot of this decision is that law-abiding Californians in many areas of the state will be effectively denied the right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
But there was a silver lining to this development as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch – President Trump’s pick to replace the late, great Antonin Scalia – came out strongly in favor of the Second Amendment by joining a dissent from the court’s decision penned by Second Amendment stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch’s participation in the dissent confirmed that he, unlike so many of his colleagues in the federal judiciary, is indeed prepared to take the Second Amendment seriously.
The underlying case was Peruta v. San Diego. The plaintiffs had complained of being arbitrarily denied concealed carry permits, the only way for law-abiding persons in California to exercise the right to carry loaded, operable firearms in public for self-defense. Each plaintiff met all the qualifications for a permit but one: they could not show an extraordinary need for self-protection that distinguished them from the general population, as required by licensing officials in their counties of residence.
The case therefore presented the court with an opportunity to clearly state whether or not the Second Amendment extends its protections beyond the home. Indeed, the three-judge panel that originally heard the case in the Ninth Circuit recognized that its defining issue was “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
The panel answered that question affirmatively, stating: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” The panel also noted that it was California’s own decision to make concealed carry permits the only lawful path to do so. It therefore held the plaintiffs could prevail with “a narrow challenge to the San Diego County regulations on concealed carry, rather than a broad challenge to the state-wide ban on open carry ….”
After the panel’s opinion was published, the full Ninth Circuit voted for a larger en banc panel to rehear the case. The en banc decision, however, avoided the real issue presented by the case and held that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” It therefore summarily disposed of the plaintiffs’ claims without confronting the question of whether the Second Amendment applies beyond the home at all.
The Supreme Court majority, as is typical, did not issue an opinion explaining why it refused to review the en banc decision. Its refusal to do so does not, however, represent an endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning or holding. As commentators have mentioned, federal appellate and state courts of last resort have come out different ways on the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection for carrying outside the home, and these disparate outcomes are not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision this week. The court may simply have decided, for example, that it did not want the differences between the panel and en banc approaches to the case to cloud the issue presented for its own resolution.
Whatever the majority’s thinking, the opinions of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch came through with vivid clarity in a sharply worded dissent from the decision to pass over the case. “At issue in this case,” Thomas wrote, “is whether [the Second Amendment] protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.” They called the en banc court’s resolution of this issue “indefensible” and “untenable” and asserted it was “not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole.” They also opined that that “[h]ad the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result.”
Thomas and Gorsuch additionally chided their judicial colleagues for treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.” Thomas explained:
The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.
The dissent also contrasted the plight of the average citizen who must largely provide for his or her own security with that of government elites “who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force.” The Framers, Thomas wrote, “reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”

The “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act” Has Been Proposed!

Rep. Rob Bishop Introduces the

(from NRA-ILA)

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced H.R. 2620, the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act.”This bill would remove ATF’s authority to use the “sporting purposes” clauses in federal law in ways that could undermine the core purpose of the Second Amendment. Under Chairman Bishop’s legislation, all lawful purposes – including self-defense – would have to be given due consideration and respect in the administration of federal firearms law.

While the NRA’s announcement above is poorly written, the message is clear.  WE (gun civil rights advocates) are becoming the vanguard.

Sporting purpose never had a place in the Second Amendment.  Period.  Nice we are on the right side, for once.

 

BEHIND ENEMY LINES: Five Of The Best Ban State Products

(from TFB, in part)

But, but, I live in the People’s Republic of___________ (fill in the blank) and cannot get________.  (fill in the blank)

Perhaps not, but here’s some possible alternatives!

Credit: Phase 5 Weapon Systems

It is easy for those of us who live in states without “assault weapon” ban (or worse) restrictions to thumb our nose at shooters in California, New York and New Jersey. Some of the compliant builds I have seen would make any respectable shooter want to cry. But how does the saying go: “walk a mile in a man’s shoes”? Having lived in enemy territory for a decade, I can sympathize with our range-loving brothers and sisters being held captive by ridiculous regulations.

Sure, I can see the comments section filling up now: “shall not be infringed”, “will not comply” or better yet  “F*** California”. It may seem simple to just brush off whole sections of the country as lost when you don’t know anyone who lives there. But, if you have family or shooting buddies in California or New York, you may actually start to sympathize with their plight and understand why they buy, build and use the guns and gear they do.

As a writer here at TFB, I probably haven’t done a great job at highlighting the important work being done by manufacturers catering to restricted-style products. So in an attempt to turn things around, I asked for help from the social media powerhouse #hashtagtical who works alongside organizations like The Calguns Foundation to promote responsible gun ownership in California. Of course, we steer clear from politics here, but any organization that promotes the safe and legal use of firearms obviously gets my support.

 

Now, “top 5” lists can be annoying and seem like click bait – you know, like the rags in the grocery line with headlines that read ‘41 ways to please your… Boss’. And we’ve reported on a few of these products before. However, I’d like to start with this story, take input from our readers, and move forward with additional products in the future. Have a suggestion? Leave a comment, send me an email or follow us on social media.

Behind Enemy Lines? Check These Out:

Mean Arms Mag Loader

Our new MA-Loader is a California compliant, 10-round bullet loading device that will allow you to safely and efficiently reload your fixed magazine without the need to break down the firearm. Simply place the MA-Loader into your AR-15’s ejector port and press the thumb-ring slider to quickly load or reload. It is that simple!**


The AR Mag Lock

AR MAGLOCK allows California AR-15 owners to comply with existing fixed magazine laws, thus avoiding Department of Justice registration. The AR MAGLOCK engages the magazine so it stays “fixed” in the firearm until the action is disassembled, complying with California SB 880 & AB 1135, and Department of Justice regulations. It is our reasonable belief the AR MAGLOCK complies with New York NY SAFE , Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and other states (and other local municipalities such as Cook County Illinois) detachable magazine laws based on our in depth analysis of these laws and regulations.


Strike Industries:

The Strike Industries Simple Featureless grip matches the contour of our popular Enhanced Pistol Grip, but allows for usage in feature restricted jurisdictions. The SFG requires no permanent modification to the receiver of your host system, and is constructed of durable reinforced polymer. As suggested by the name, the SFG a simple and affordable component for your featureless AR build.


Cross Armory Quick Pins

By removing your rear takedown pin and installing Cross Armory’s QUICK PINS you will enjoy improved convenience when breaking down your weapon. QUICK PINS allow for easy opening and servicing of your weapon with a simple pinch of your fingers. Closing and locking your receivers together is as easy a closing the two receivers together, QUICK PINS will automatically lock your receivers into place. QUICK PINS allow for the easiest access to your firing mechanism.


LWRCI CA Compliant Modifications

FROM MILES V.’s SHOT 2017 COVERAGE: LWRC’s answer to the new California compliance laws is a sort of spring operated plunger that deactivates the magazine release once the upper receiver is assembled onto the lower receiver. Field stripping the rifle and ‘popping the top’ allows the plunger to be released, and the magazine to be released naturally by pressing the magazine button. To facilitate the field strip, LWRC has extended the rear take down pin to include a sort of port that makes gripping it easier, but also allows for a piece of 550 cord or likewise material to be threaded through the port and creating a loop to pop the rear take down pin out. Unlike other companies that have a specific Cali-Legal rifle variant, LWRC has this as an option, wherein most of the companies models can be retrofitted with the plunging device and rear take down pin. Currently it is patent-pending, but it has been approved by the California DOJ.


Bonus: Franklin Armory DFM Magazines and Bolt Catch

Enemy

  • Magazine for use in restrictive jurisdictions such as California, Connecticut,
    and even New York State!
  • Easily Converts Any AR into a 10 Round, Fixed Magazine Design.
  • Requires Disassembly of the Action to Remove the Magazine.
  • No Permanent Alterations Required
  • Suitable for use with Rifles Featuring Banned Features.
  • California Compliant!
  • Connecticut Compliant!
  • New York Safe Act Compliant!
  • Limiting Tabs Prevent Release Through the Bottom of Magazine Well.
  • Can only be Removed from the Top when the Upper is Tilted out of the way!
  • Available as an Accessory or Installed in Brand New Franklin ArmoryTM Firearms.

YRMV, depending on how restrictive your State actually is.  Check with a lawyer before making such a purchase if you have any question as to it’s legality.

How these work-arounds meet with your individual State laws (N.Y., N.J.?) is up to you to research.

I am NOT a lawyer!

I am SO GLAD I live in the (relatively) Free State of Arizona!  Of course, I cannot afford anything, regardless.

(FTC – these gun and device companies gave me nothing, save free information. Go Away!)

Gun Talk Media VS The NRA

I received two emails yesterday from two (one would think) like-minded entities.  One, the NRA (full disclosure, I am long time Life Member), the second, Gun Talk Media, an Internet blog and media source.

I have posted on this blog regarding the NRAs push to contact Congress regarding the last administration’s efforts to restrict gun rights to those who may have mental limitations (by their view mental illness).  And I have supported their efforts to reverse this measure.

Now comes these emails.  The NRAs requesting immediate action on a pending Senate vote to stop this travesty.

And this from Gun Talk Media:

FAKE NEWS ALERT
Social Security Administration Gets Into Gun Ban Business

As he left office, President Obama screwed American seniors who own or want to own guns by issuing an executive order directing the Social Security Administration to treat seniors in the same miserable way the Veterans Administration does our vets. That is, the SSA now reports to the FBI anyone who prefers to have someone else handle their finances, and the FBI puts that person on the list that is a LIFETIME BAN on owning firearms.

Naturally, the general media portrayed this as keeping guns out of the hands of those with serious mental defects, and when the House of Representatives voted 235 to 180 to repeal this gun confiscation move, the howls from the fourth estate nearly drowned out the facts. Nearly.

As a Gun Talk Truth Squad member, you have the opportunity to push back on these bogus reports, and to answer friends who offer that this ban “seems reasonable.” Here are the facts.

The media said that the SSA would be providing the information to the FBI so these people could

be included in a “background check database.” Well … doesn’t that sound reasonable? The fact is that this move actually puts these people on a list that bans firearms ownership for life.

Who would oppose putting those with “serious mental defects” into a “background check database?” The NRA, of course. But wait. Another vocal opponent is the ACLU. Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union.  Groups supporting and providing aid to those who actually do suffer from mental handicaps also opposed the “I’m outta here” move by the departing “vertical pronoun” President to ban tens of thousand of Americans from owning guns, and all without due process.

Here’s an example of the media coverage of the House vote to repeal this rule. This is from Politico.

Democrats ripped the move as an effort by Republicans to undermine background checks for gun purchasers. After the House vote, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pleaded with supporters to rally against the move in the Senate. “Senate may vote today to weaken background checks on gun purchases. Call your Senator to oppose this change — ensure your voice is heard!” she wrote.

Tell your friends that there has been a law in effect for decades that prohibits the truly mentally incompetent from owning guns, and this law provides for due process. Under current law, if one has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he or she can’t own a gun. “Adjudicated.” As in, a judge and a court room. Where you can defend yourself. Not a bureaucrat who checks a box and places your name on the banned-for-life list. ~ Tom

So, has the NRA been waving a false flag (creating FAKE NEWS) to feather it’s own nest?  Or is it simply rubber stamping additional efforts to let the government know we are no longer allowing our civil rights to be curtailed without due process?

What do YOU think?

The Patriot Pin for California

from TFB (in part)

Stupid gun laws develop new solutions, and there seems to be no limits on either.

The Patriot Pin is for AR15s, and to make them compliant to new laws in some US States.

I don’t know how to define this invention if to call it stupid or clever?

I guess you do what you have to do, to adapt to new rules and legislation. Gun owners are typically about as law-abiding as a citizen can get.

From the Patriot Pin homepage:

Because some state laws require the gun be “disassembled”, before the magazine can be loaded from the top or to remove the magazine, the Patriot-Pin makes it extremely fast and easy to do that.

With your hand firmly on the pistol grip, simply extend your thumb to the end of the arm and “push” it in.

You’ll feel the arm stop at just the right spot allowing you to then open your gun so that you have access to the magazine or the magazine lock “button”.

ppin

Hundreds of hours of research and development have gone into making the Patriot-Pin, from every angle, edge, and surface and is proudly 100% made and engineered in the USA.

“One hundred hours is about 2.5 working weeks. Of course there’s no definition on how many hundreds of those that went into the R&D, but I figure that a price of 99 USD for this kind of product is expensive.

Don’t let the price scare you, some of that R&D money went into a rather cool webpage which also explains the function of the Patriot Pin way better than I can with words.

Have a look and tell us what you think in the Comments section below, I look forward to that more than ever.

Patriot Pin Homepage

Thank GOD I live in the Free State of Arizona!  Now, if I could only afford to get an AR-15!  (I used to have FOUR (well, three and a parts gun), in various configurations!)  😦

 

 

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…