Clicky

Tags Posts tagged with "NRA"

NRA

by -
11 988

You don’t normally hear of tech companies offering to help the NRA. Snapchat probably didn’t have pro-gun motives when they made this hysterical threat to Bloomberg’s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Check this out, from A.V. Club:

This comes from a series of leaked emails that indicate that Everytown had approached Snapchat about doing some kind of branded content about preventing gun violence early last year, with Snapchat’s head of political sales Rob Saliterman quoting the nonprofit at least $150,000 for whatever it was planning. Then, separate from that potential deal, Snapchat’s news team approached Everytown about working together to promote gun safety with a big event that would feature videos of families talking about loved ones they lost to gun violence alongside celebrities like Kim Kardashian and Amy Schumer talking about the importance of gun safety. This project also wouldn’t cost Everytown any money, so it gave up on the other deal and moved forward with the free one instead.

Eventually, Saliterman found out that he was losing out on advertising money, so he sent this message to Everytown:

I just learned our News Team is doing a Live Story on National Gun Violence Awareness Day. I would urgently like to speak with you about advertising opportunities within the story, as there will be three ad slots. We are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story.

How hilarious is that? Snapchat threatened to sell the NRA advertising during a free project for Bloomberg’s astro-turf gun grabber group. Again, Snapchat isn’t pro-gun, they are just greedy. They obviously made the threat to try to grab some extra cash from Bloomberg.

Who could blame them? Bloomberg’s been flushing money down the toilet all decade long, with one after another failed gun control initiatives. Of the few victories Bloomberg did have, many are in the process of being rolled back by state courts or justice departments.

Ohh, and Trump is president. Looks like those campaign donations didn’t do much good, did they Mike? A fool and his money are quickly departed…

 

 

by -
3 737

Elections have consequences. Law-abiding gun owners across America keep reaping the rewards as a consequence of the 2017 election. The 2017 windfall now includes a solid defender of the Second Amendment as Attorney General of the United States.

Jeff Sessions could be the best friend gun owners ever had in the Department of Justice. The NRA made voting to confirm Sessions a part of it’s scorecard for legislators. Good luck getting an A rating from the NRA if you didn’t vote to confirm Sessions. That means that “pro-gun” Democrats will virtually all be taking a hit in their NRA ratings.

Here’s announcement from the NRA celebrating the Sessions confirmation:

“The NRA and our five million members would like to congratulate Jeff Sessions on his confirmation as attorney general. He will make America a safer place by prosecuting violent criminals while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

Here’s how the NRA put the pressure on Democrats to vote for Sessions (from Politico):

Some of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2018 — including Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) — have expressed skepticism about Sessions but have not committed to voting for or against him yet. All three senators have enjoyed relatively favorable (for Democrats) treatment in the past from the NRA, which spent more than $50 million during the 2016 election, mostly supporting Trump and Republican Senate candidates.

The NRA endorsed Donnelly for reelection to his old House seat in 2010, and he and Tester had A and A- ratings, respectively, from the NRA during their 2012 Senate runs. The NRA barely spent any money on independent-expenditure ads opposing them or Heitkamp that year, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The new TV ad, backed by a six-figure ad national buy on Fox News and digital outlets, says that Sessions is “an attorney general who supports police” amidst dwindling respect for law enforcement.

“We were raised to respect law enforcement. They put their lives on the line for us. But now, cops are attacked. Gunned down in cold blood,” a narrator says in the ad. “[Sessions] will get criminals off our streets. And protect the Second Amendment.”

 

Ultimately, Joe Manchin, of West Virginia was the only Democrat to vote for Sessions. However, Manchin’s vote was important since the final tally was a close 52-47. The pressure the NRA put on supposedly “pro-gun” Democrats who voted against Sessions will continue to weigh on them in the future. Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester, and Heidi Heitkamp just voted against one of the best supporters of our right to bear arms ever, the NRA isn’t going to forget that, regardless of whatever other policy differences they had with Attorney General Sessions.

 

 

by -
14 1330

American Rifleman has a nifty way of figuring out what the top three selling concealed carry guns are. Instead of asking manufacturers, who are often pretty secretive about actual sales numbers, Rifleman asked six of the biggest holster manufacturers. This method reveals which guns people are actually carrying. They came up with this list. Can you guess what gun is number one?

Check out this video with the top three carry guns from Lock, Stock, and Barrel:

Off the top of my head, I might have guessed that Glock would have been number one. It turns out that the M&P Shield is the winner according to the impromptu poll conducted by American Rifleman. Since most gun owners have more than one gun, it’s interesting to see what gun they actually carry on a regular basis.

All three make fine carry guns, as the number of Americans who carry concealed continues to surge, it’ll be interesting to see which brands stay on top. What do you carry and why? Talk amongst yourselves in the comments section below.

by -
34 2444

Neil Gorsuch was just nominated by Donald Trump to replace Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Exactly where he stands on the Second Amendment isn’t totally clear due to a lack of rulings, but here is the best information we have to go with so far:

From the NRA:

During his tenure on the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch has demonstrated his belief that the Constitution should be applied as the framers intended.  To that end, he has supported the individual right to self-defense.  Specifically, he wrote in an opinion that “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”

“On behalf of our five million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will be activating our members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country in support of Judge Gorsuch.  He will protect our right to keep and bear arms and is an outstanding choice to fill Justice Scalia’s seat,” concluded Cox.

So far, so good, at the very least he agrees that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Already, he is a thousand times better than any of the four liberal justices on the court! Ohh, and he loves to hunt and fish too. However it’s really not totally clear where he will stand on some of the other issues the court might face, such as concealed carry reciprocity. He is at least adequate, but is he great?

From Inverse:

Unfortunately, for those who might be wondering, there doesn’t seem to be much indication that Gorsuch feels any which way about the Second Amendment. He hasn’t ever ruled on this issue. In public statements and in his writing, he has not mentioned where he stands. For some, this may constitute a cause for concern, but the lack of information on Gorsuch’s stance likely comes more from the dearth of court cases relating to this issue than it does from any reluctance on his part to present his opinion.

There have been few notable court cases involving the Second Amendment, lately — because there have been so few gun control measures actually passed, leaving little to challenge in the courts. Still, there is enough related information to say that Gorsuch will at the very least be friendly, if not totally helpful, to the interests of gun advocates and owners.

Rest assured this guy is better than anything Hillary Clinton would give gun owners. He interprets the second amendment as an individual right to bear arms, Hillary doesn’t. Neil Gorsuch might not have the voting record to accurately assess where he stands in greater detail, at 49 years of age, we might literally have several decades to figure that out.

 

by -
28 925

This fall we could be witnessing another major Supreme Court decision on guns. At issue is concealed carry in San Diego, where it is basically impossible for an average citizen to obtain a permit to carry a gun outside the home.

From the gun hating New York Times:

The plaintiffs argue that given the ban on open carry — which is being challenged in a separate lawsuit filed last August in Federal District Court in Los Angeles — the San Diego sheriff’s restrictive policy on concealed carry means that as a practical matter, “the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.” The question is whether there is any such right.

Significantly, in ruling against the plaintiffs last June by a vote of 7 to 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn’t actually answer that question. That fact may deter the Supreme Court from hearing the appeal — or, depending on the justices’ appetite for a major gun case, it may prove irrelevant. The justices have the power to frame just about any question they want to answer. If they want to decide the core question of whether the Second Amendment gives the right to carry a gun, in some manner, any manner, outside the home — which is to say, if four justices think they can count on an eventual fifth vote for that proposition, then this will be the case to grant.

It would be an activist grant, but that’s nothing new; remember last winter when the court agreed to hear a challenge to President Obama’s deportation-deferral program and added the politically charged question, not addressed by the lower court, of whether the president had violated his constitutional duty to “take care” to enforce the law. (That case ended in a 4-4 tie, with the question — almost surely framed by Justice Scalia — left unanswered.)

In his majority opinion for the Ninth Circuit last June, Judge William A. Fletcher explained why the court wasn’t answering the broad question. Because the plaintiffs were complaining only about the San Diego sheriff’s approach to concealed carry and had not directly challenged the state’s open-carry ban, Judge Fletcher wrote, “we do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry.” Rather, he said, “we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.”

And he answered the question this way: “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”

The New York Times recognizes that the matter before the courts can be framed as whether or not there is any protection whatsoever for citizens who wish to carry guns outside of their homes. Progressives are not happy with the way this issue can be framed, since the plaintiff is not asserting a specific right to open carry or concealed carry. The plaintiff is simply saying that some form of carry must be permitted.

That smart line of argument increases the odds of another victory for gun owners. Of course, the Supreme Court has to decide to hear the case, but if they do; gun owners in ultra-restrictive blue states could be given some form of relief. Fresh off several major victories in replacing “may issue” permit laws with “shall issue” ones, the NRA and California Pistol and Rifle Association could score a big victory here.

by -
20 925

It’s largely a localized problem, but predators do wreck havoc on the deer population. Coyotes effect deer herds the most by killing fawns, but deep snow can also result in reduced herd numbers. That’s because the coyotes can better ensnare their prey with the snow to bog them down. If the coyotes are killing half or more of the fawns, wildlife biologist recommend that action be taken.

Predation problems are worse in the Southeast, American Hunter explains why:

So why the high predation rate in areas of the Southeast? Habitat might be the answer, as much of the areas being studied have been pine plantations. These areas often have little undergrowth beneath the trees. The pines are also planted in rows, which makes it easy for coyotes to walk the rows looking for fawns. (Anyone who has trapped coyotes will tell you coyotes love to walk on paths.)

What all the deer managers agree on is the coyote is here to stay. Many studies have determined that 75 percent or more of coyotes have to be removed from a population to cause it to decrease; in fact, in a coyote-saturated area, beta males and females actually might not breed unless available habitat with food sources opens to them.

How many deer can coyotes and other predators kill? Here’s some interesting studies on the subject:

Biologists have found that coyotes can be particularly hard on fawns in the Southeast. In South Carolina, for example, a three-year study at the U.S. Forest Service’s Southern Research Station, a 300-square-mile area, found that only 16 of 60 radio-collared fawns lived past nine weeks—just 27 percent of the fawns lived that long. Researchers confirmed that coyotes killed at least 65 percent of those fawns and were probably responsible for 85 percent of the fawns killed. Other studies in the Southeast have found predation rates on fawns to be well over 50 percent.

Most other areas of the country don’t generally seem to be as affected by coyote predation on fawns.

“Results from several Midwestern and Northeastern studies indicate that coyotes are responsible for taking, on average, 10 to 20 percent of fawns,” says Dr. Karl V. Miller, a professor of wildlife ecology and management at the University of Georgia. “This level of fawn predation likely has minimal impact on the overall recruitment rates, particularly in highly productive herds.”

A comprehensive study of available research by Duane Diefenbach, adjunct professor of wildlife ecology and leader of the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit based at Penn State, found that in the East “an average of one in two [fawns] survives its first three months of life, which is when most mortality occurs. Predation by coyotes, black bears and bobcats accounts for most mortality.”

On the Macro-level the deer population is abundant (probably over-abundant in the Northeast) and fairly stable. Again, it all depends on where you live. However, localized destruction of herds from predators can escalate quickly, especially in the Southeast. If you didn’t bag your deer in South Carolina this year, it might be because Wiley Coyote got it first. Read the entire article American Hunter article here.

 

by -
19 1262

Sometimes we underestimate the degree of ignorance that liberals have about guns. The FBI just dealt a potentially deadly blow to a new ballot initiative in Nevada which required background checks for private firearms transfers. Hilariously, if the liberals who designed the Nevada background law, knew even the slightest thing about how background checks work; they could have prevented the laws destruction.

Here’s what happened:

Federal law requires licensed firearms to perform background checks on buyers. However, unless state law says otherwise, persons who buy firearms from private sellers are not federally mandated to undergo a background check.

The problem in Nevada, however, is who would be enforcing the background checks during private firearm transactions, since it now requires a third party to federally vet the transaction.

According to The Washington Times, the FBI contacted the Nevada Department of Public Safety saying it would not be responsible for the checks.

The bureau said in a letter to Nevada state officials that it is the state’s responsibility to set up the background checks and the ballot measure’s passage “cannot dictate how federal resources are applied.”

Nevada is one of 12 states that handles its own firearm background checks through the  Department of Public Safety’s Central Repository as opposed to the FBI’s system, but the gun control initiative bans the use of the Central Repository for private sales background checks — leaving it with no authority on the issue.

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, a Republican, concluded that unless the FBI changes its mind, the state cannot enforce the background check mandate of private gun transactions in the state.

“It is manifestly unjust to criminally penalize someone for failing to perform an act that is impossible to perform,” Laxalt wrote in a statement last Wednesday. “Despite its intent to merely regulate the transfer or sale of firearms between private parties, because it is impossible to perform the background checks as required by the Act, the Act now unconditionally prohibits such transactions under the threat of criminal prosecution for conduct that was formerly lawful and routine.”

Were the liberals who designed the ballot initiative, so ignorant that they didn’t know that the FBI doesn’t do background checks for private transfers? Maybe they aren’t ignorant, maybe they are so dishonest that they didn’t want the public to realize that private gun transfers would become illegal. After all, Nevada could have just banned all private transfers like New York did. In New York, sellers must transfer guns to a dealer who, in-turn, transfers it to the buyer.

Liberals spread ignorance to pass this silly law. Hopefully, their own ignorance will lead to the laws demise.

All Nevada gun owners should celebrate, but also remember, the law will remain on the books. In the future, a more lawless FBI could accommodate Nevada’s request. Nevada isn’t totally out of the woods until this thing is repealed.

 

 

by -
2 1101

The extreme Gunmageddon bill in California keeps getting worse. Now progressives in the state are trying to ram through regulatory interpretations using an emergency process. Both Gunmageddon and Prop 63 are so crazy that even in the extremely liberal State of California it’s necessary to use trickery to try to ram regulations through.

Leftists know that if their regulations were subject to reasonable debate and transparency, they would be rejected by the public, even in dark blue states. That’s why New York passed it’s infamous S.A.F.E act in the dead-of-night using emergency law-making powers to squash dissent and discussion. It’s also why the California DOJ is doing something similar with it’s guidance and interpretation of law.

From the NRA:

Early this morning, the California Department of Justice provided notice of proposed regulations relating to magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Included are changes to the requirements for obtaining and maintaining a “large-capacity magazine permit,” new regulations addressing so called “large-capacity” magazine conversion kits, new regulations on how individuals must “permanently alter” a magazine to accept no more than 10 rounds, and new regulations regarding the transfer and possession of multi-tube shotgun designs.

The regulations have been submitted under California’s emergency rulemaking process, which means they could become effective in just 17 days.

We are currently reviewing the proposed regulations and will be providing a detailed analysis of their effect shortly. In the meantime, we encourage all of our members to participate in the rule-making process by submitting their comments during the 5-day public comment period, expected to begin on December 21.

Currently, the NRA and CRPA are still awaiting the DOJ’s proposed regulations that will accompany SB 880 and AB 1135, which redefine the definition of an “assault weapon” in California. The NRA and CRPA have submitted a letter about DOJ’s failure to act in a timely manner for this process.

 

While the people of New York and California will continue to suffer, there’s a silver lining to all of this: It shows just how desperate liberals really are. The reality is that the most oppressive gun control legislation can only be enacted with legislative tomfoolery at the height of hysteria surrounding a tragedy.

However, the left is losing their war on the Second Amendment badly, even if they do win a few local battles. Besides, the NRA has just begun the legal fight in California. That’s why gun owners like me, who don’t live in California, still contribute to the NRA-ILA.

 

by -
2 879

The post-election progressive hysteria over Trump’s victory lacks a consistent narrative. The media wants to blame grassroots groups like the NRA for electing Trump, but at the same time they don’t want to give those grassroots groups credit for electing Trump.

Check out Media Matters’ nonsense:

But the NRA’s framing of the election outcome doesn’t make sense, even assuming the election was decided on policy grounds (which it apparently wasn’t). The pro-gun safety presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, received substantially more votes than NRA-endorsed President-elect Donald Trump.

Setting that aside, all available data indicates Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters overwhelmingly supported the types of gun safety measures that Clinton advocated for.

According to polling released just before Election Day, measures including “expanding background checks on gun purchases; barring those convicted of a hate crime from buying a gun; and prohibiting those convicted of stalking or domestic abuse from buying guns” received widespread support among voters polled by Public Policy Polling in Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Center for American Progress noted that the polling shows “anywhere from 80 percent to 93 percent of Democrats in these states support them, along with 58 percent to 86 percent of critical independent voters, and even 64 percent to 80 percent of Republicans.”

There is no evidence in exit polling that the gun issue was determinative in the election outcome either, as the economy was clearly the top priority for voters. (And as The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza noted, Clinton actually won on the economy, suggesting “people weren’t voting on issues. Like, at all.”)

The election wasn’t decided on policy and besides most people support gun control according to the propagandists over at Media Matters. We can easily disprove Media Matters’ ridiculous claim by exposing the polls they selectively left out, (like the one that shows record numbers of American’s now oppose the assault weapons ban) but that’s not the point here.

The point is that liberals want you to think that NRA had nothing to do with it. They want you to think that American’s want gun control, thus the NRA has no mandate.

Now check out what the leftists over at the Trace have to say:

But the NRA isn’t known for luck — it’s known for ruthlessly effective political strategy, which for decades has kept candidates it likes in power and universally popular laws it opposes off the books. It has done so by maintaining a close relationship with its large, engaged member base, whose votes politicians fear if they cross the NRA on its core positions.

What has gone less noticed is how the group has succeeding in stoking populist furor that spills well beyond the people on its email list.

The article above goes on to blame the NRA for the populist anger that elected Trump.

Progressives are trying to convince themselves that the NRA is terrible because it helped elect Trump, while simultaneously convincing themselves that the NRA had nothing to do with electing Trump because American’s love gun control.

The only way for progressives to square this circle is for them to pretend that while the NRA is very powerful, it isn’t really about gun control. Good luck with that…

 

 

 

 

by -
14 1237

Indiana and Kansas amended their state constitutions to add the right to hunt and fish last Tuesday. Liberals often times claim these popular laws are totally unnecessary. However, it’s no secret that liberals are the very reason such law are necessary.

A horrified representative from PETA explains their stance on the law (from NUVO):

Because it is already legal to hunt and fish, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals co-founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk considers the attempt to change the Constitution a “sign of recognition that the public is sick of the cruelty they see and the cavalier attitude some fishers and hunters have to wildlife, including a disregard for basic conservation laws and those who uphold wildlife regulations.” She says that as the animal rights movement grows stronger, hunters and fishers fear a ban, but “if it’s in the Constitution, it is a right, not a privilege.” That makes it harder to take away.

That’s right liberals, it will be harder to ban hunting in both states thanks to the new amendment. But at least PETA is honest enough to admit that they would like to ban hunting and fishing. The mainstream media is usually a little bit more sneaky about these issues.

From Kansas.com:

Supporters said the change is needed to head off future attempts by animal welfare groups to restrict hunting. Some environmentalists questioned the need, saying hunting, fishing and trapping get little resistance in Kansas.

The proposed amendment says that people have the right to hunt, fish and trap, subject to reasonable laws and regulations.

Nineteen states already have similar provisions within their constitutions, and it also was on the ballot in Indiana, where it appeared to be headed toward passage Tuesday evening. In most states, the National Rifle Association has helped promote the right-to-hunt amendments.

Rep. Adam Lusker, D-Frontenac, helped get the proposal through the Kansas Legislature and before voters. In an earlier interview, he called the amendment a “pre-emptive move” to preserve hunting, fishing and trapping for future generations. Lusker pointed to a recent lawsuit filed by a California-based animal rights group to stop a western Kansas coyote hunting contest as proof that hunting needs as much protection as possible. The group sued on the grounds that the hunt violated state gambling laws since entrants paid to enter the contest and there was a $500 grand prize to whomever killed the most coyotes. The sponsors of the coyote hunt agreed not to hold future contests to settle the lawsuit.

Tim Donges, an avid hunter from El Dorado, said he expected the amendment to pass.

He said the time will come when Kansas hunters, anglers and trappers are threatened by animal-rights groups.

“There’s a push across the entire United States, and these groups are taking pieces away, one at a time, from hunters and trappers,” he said. “They pick their battles. We need any kind of added protection.”

 

Both amendments passed easily, in Kansas it passed by nearly a 4-1 ratio. While hunters in places like California are under continued assault; the people of Indiana and Kansas, are taking another step to protect their rights.
If the politically correct snowflakes who occupy today’s college campuses stay crazy, they might try to ban hunting in the future. They’ll have a strong state constitution in about 20 states to contend with.