SAF Slams Media Cover for Clinton’s Campaign Against Second Amendment

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today condemned attempts by the agenda-driven media, led by CBS, to provide cover for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton’s war on gun rights by trying to debunk Republican Donald Trump’s statement Thursday night that Clinton “wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment.”

“CBS News and others argue that Trump’s allegation is not true, and that ‘Clinton has spoken up for Second Amendment rights on several occasions,'” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They are being disingenuous at best, and they know it.

“More than a year ago,” he recalled, “Clinton made gun control a cornerstone of her campaign. She talked about using Australia’s gun confiscation as something that might be considered. She told a private fund raiser last October that she thinks the Supreme Court was wrong on the Second Amendment, and in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, she even questioned whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Read more

Massachusett’s Attorney General Moves Against ARs

From Jim Shepherd…

Yesterday, surrounded by law enforcement and gun control advocates, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced that she’d had enough of gun makers “deciding what was or was not compliant with state law” – declaring a ban on what she called copycat “assault-style weapons”.

Effective “immediately” AG Healey’s ban is designed to stop the sale of those modern sporting rifles (a/k/a “assault rifles”) that had been modified so as to pass the multi-point exam as to what actually constituted an “assault rifle” under Massachusetts state law.

“The gun industry doesn’t get to decide what’s compliant,” she said, “We do.”

“We” of course, meaning those who agree with her position.

Almost simultaneous with AG Healey’s announcement, Massachusetts gun rights groups like the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts, said her unilateral action, taken with “actually going through the process, then telling licensed retailers they’re not allowed to sell something” would “probably be a very interesting legal challenge at some point.”

Healey’s actions are, apparently, aimed at the myriad of changes that gun makers have made to the modern sporting rifle in order to make them “compliant” in states like California -and Massachusetts. Those changes have included non-removable, reduced-capacity magazines, fixed versus adjustable stocks and other largely cosmetic changes.

Operating systems, however, have remained essentially untouched because semi-automatic rifles or handguns operate on long-established mechanical principles, not eyewash legislation designed to ban the most popular long-gun in the country simply because of a resemblance to military-issued, fully automatic rifles.

According to Healey’s new interpretation of the law, a gun sharing the same basic operating system or having any interchangeable parts in common with a banned weapon is now verboten.

Healey used what has become standard operating language for opponents to modern sporting rifles, telling those present that those “deadly assault weapons were intended for military use” and “do not belong in civilian hands.”

If a dealer in Massachusetts has any of the now-banned guns in stock, they will be allowed to sell them to out-of-state dealers, but not individuals. If you’re a Massachusetts-resident and purchased on of the “copycat” rifles before Wednesday (July 20), you’ll be allowed to keep it.

But Healey warns that no Massachusetts resident will be able to possess an assault-style weapon purchased after Wednesday -even if they bought it elsewhere.

After announcing her sweeping change, Healey refused to categorize her action as an assault on legitimate businesses in Massachusetts, saying that her intent wasn’t to criminalize dealers.

Rather, she said her press conference was simply to “get the word out.”

Apparently, that’s not worked so well. Notices were reportedly mailed Tuesday, but none of the dealers we spoke with yesterday have yet received them. Many had, however, seen Healey’s Op-Ed in the Boston Globe where she accused the gun industry of “exploiting” a “loophole of potentially horrific proportions” -writing, “And it’s time we act.”

Does she expect a legal challenge? Definitely. In her Op-Ed, she writes that other states have banned assault weapons, and “Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too.”

“But,” she writes, “our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. And this directive will do both.”

If it were only that simple.

Editor’s Note: You can read Attorney General Healey’s Boston Globe Op-Ed yourself at:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html

You can also read the Attorney General’s letter to Dealers Here:
http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html

 

CCRKBA: Traffic Deaths Up Sharply But Dems Not Pushing Car Bans

BELLEVUE, WA – Traffic fatalities rose 7.7 percent last year and more than 35,000 people were killed, so why aren’t Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Congressional Democrats cracking down on car owners the way they do on gun owners, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms wants to know.

“Last year saw the highest number of people killed on the highways since 2008,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “On the other hand, FBI crime data shows a continuing decline in the number of gun-related homicides, yet Democrats insist on treating all gun owners like criminals.

“Anti-gunners say we should treat guns like cars,” he added, “but that might be a little dangerous, considering the increase in traffic fatalities. However, if we did treat guns like cars, people would be able to carry their guns in all 50 states, just like they drive their cars.” Read more

SCOTUS Decision Can Impact Gun Ownership

From Jim Shepard…

The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the 20-year old law barring anyone convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm.

Regardless of your position, the 6-2 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, rejected the challenge of the existing law by two men who were found guilty of felony gun possession because of previous misdemeanor domestic violence charges. The court said that the conviction, whether the misdemeanor be the result of recklessness or intent, was sufficient for the prohibition.

In her majority opinion, Justice Kagan wrote that the federal statute was designed to close what she called a “dangerous loophole” in gun laws as many domestic violence cases were handled as misdemeanors. She said the actual intent of the law was to prevent all domestic abusers, even those under “run of the mill misdemeanor assault-and-battery laws,” from possessing guns.

No one’s arguing the need to more comprehensively address the problem of domestic violence, but under the Kagan interpretation- which some SCOTUS observers say is “unusually broad” – any qualifying misdemeanor charge, no matter how minor, is seen as grounds for denial of the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. Read more

GOP lawmaker proposes holding gun-free zone businesses liable for gun violence

A Republican lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would discourage private businesses from banning firearms on their property.

The proposal from Rep. Bob Gannon, R-Slinger, is the first measure put forth by state Republicans in the wake of a shooting at an Orlando, Florida, gay nightclub that killed 49 and wounded more than 50, the worst gun massacre in modern American history.

Wisconsin’s 2011 concealed carry law creates immunity from civil liability for gun-related deaths for businesses that allow guns on their property.  More here…

CCRKBA: Dems No Longer Represent Ideals of A Free Society

BELLEVUE, WA – While Capitol Hill Democrats staged a symbolic “sit-in” today in the House chambers to demand action on new gun restrictions, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said these lawmakers clearly define by their actions how far the party has strayed from the ideals of liberty their predecessors stood for.

“Democrats in the 1960s used sit-ins to expand Constitutional rights,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb recalled. “But today, they are using a sit-in to restrict those same civil rights.”

While Democrats professed to be interested in curbing gun-related violence, he said, their true motives are aimed more at eroding not only firearms rights, but the right of due process. Clearly, Gottlieb asserted, the sit-in is a carefully-choreographed attempt to fool the public into believing that it is right to pass legislation to strip someone of their rights without any criminal charge, much less a conviction, by placing them on a secret “watch list” without benefit of due process. Read more

Flying guns? Michigan lawmakers seek to ban weaponized drones

Legislation would make it a crime in Michigan to weaponize an unmanned aerial vehicle.

Democratic state Rep. Jon Hoadley of Kalamazoo says: “We don’t need flying guns in Michigan.” He says the legislation introduced earlier this month would make it illegal for weapons, even those legally attainable in Michigan, to be attached to a drone.

“This is one of those where no matter where you fall on the Second Amendment conversation, most people agree this far exceeds that and there is too much danger associated with it,” Hoadley told FOX 17.

“The responsible gun owner can’t even imagine pulling the trigger without seeing the sightline, but that’s exactly what could be happening with these drones.”

More here…

SCOTUS Passes On Sandy Hook Suit, Congress Passes on Gun Measures

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court declined to take up a constitution challenge to the Connecticut law banning certain semi-automatic weapons and magazines passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Plaintiffs in Shew v. Malloy had hoped the court would rule in the case, clarifying Second Amendment questions remaining following the high court’s 2008 Heller decision.

Meanwhile, on capitol hill, the Senate took up dueling measures introduced following the worst mass-shooting in U.S. history. Four measures – two from both parties – were introduced, none of which reached the 60-vote threshold required for passage.

A fifth measure is still being crafted by moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Her bill would bar people on the government’s no-fly list from gun purchases, a significantly smaller number of people than the government’s terror watch list. Collins’ measure also sets protections in place for anyone wrongly placed on the no-fly list. Regardless of actions in the Senate, House Speaker Paul Ryan has made it know that there’s little chance any of the Senate measures will get a vote there.

SAF To Jeh Johnson: “Gun Ownership Is Part Of Homeland Security”

GW: You’ll never hear this from anyone in the Obama administration and it’s at the core of the Second Amendment.

BELLEVUE, WA – Contrary to what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Tuesday that gun control is a “critical element” of protecting the nation against terrorists, the Second Amendment Foundation today said the right to keep and bear arms is this country’s original homeland security, and he needs to remember that.

“The threat we face today from terrorism is exactly why the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Every American has the right to self-defense, and for Johnson to contend that infringing on that right is the way to keep the country safe is simply preposterous.”

Johnson was on CBS television, at which time he stated, “We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security.” Read more

Daniel Defense Terminates Relationship with Academy Sports


Black Creek, GA – Daniel Defense—engineer and manufacture of the world’s finest firearms, precision rail systems, and accessories— Has announced it will no longer sell firearms to Academy Sports due to their decision to remove MSR’s from their website and in-store displays.

Letter to all Daniel Defense Distributors:

“As you know we take our partnership with our stocking retailers very seriously. We are committed to serving and supplying them at the highest level and expect our retailers to have that same level of commitment to our brand and our industry. Unfortunately, Academy Sports has made a corporate decision, in the wake of the recent terrorist attack, to remove all MSRs from their website and in-store displays. Academy Sports has communicated that they intend to continue to sell the MSR category of firearms without displaying or advertising them publicly. As a prominent MSR brand, Daniel Defense cannot support decisions that are completely contrary to the values of our company and industry. Therefore, as of today, June 16th, I request that you place Academy Sports on a Do Not Sell list for all Daniel Defense products and terminate any shipments to their stores or distribution centers. It is unfortunate that we have to make this decision, but it is clearly the right thing to do for our brand, our industry and our constitutional right. Thank you for your support.”

Bill Robinson, VP of Sales Read more

1 2 3 66