Clicky

Tags Posts tagged with "NRA"

NRA

by -
0 277

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 -
0 276

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 -
2 894

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 -
2 694

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 1028

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.

 

 

by -
28 1740

ar-15-pistol-with-braceA new poll shows what a losing issue the so-called Assault Weapons ban is. Never before have so many people been against it!

The so-called assault weapons ban has always been the crack-cocaine of political strategy. Leftists who support the AWB exchange a short term political gain for a long term loss.

In the heat of the moment politicians propose utterly nonsensical solutions to gruesome crimes. Hysterical people want the government to do something, even it that something is totally irrational. After the irrational laws have been passed progressive voters quickly forget about the nonsensical law they just passed. Whatever bump in the polls the progressive big city politician got from his worthless gun law quickly fades.

Hop over to rural America and the anger over such laws doesn’t dissipate. Nearly half a decade after N.Y. State passed it’s infamous S.A.F.E act (one of the most radical gun control laws in American history) the country side is still covered in anti-S.A.F.E act signs. People opposed to these irrational laws quickly become political activist, they organize and fight back.

Progressives can’t match the enthusiasm of the NRA or GOA, because one of the first steps in becoming an activist is to learn basic facts about the issue you are fighting for. As soon as a progressive takes that first step they quickly discover that the laws they support are totally insane.

Imagine some poor progressive who wants to learn why “pistol grips” threaten the safety of our children. After five seconds of internet research he discovers that there is no logical reason to think that an AR-15 with a pistol grip is anymore dangerous than one with a universal grip. One must be totally ignorant of what a bayonet lug is, in order to believe that banning  bayonet lugs on rifles will protect children from getting shot.

Read it and weep liberals: (From the Federalist)

gallup-assault-weapons-ban-poll

 

 

Bill Clinton used to blamed his support of gun control for major midterm losses that the Democrats suffered during the 90’s. He was right, so-called assault weapons bans are the crack-cocaine of politicians. Whatever short term political gain Democrats got from so-called assault weapons bans are long gone and the white blue-collar Democrat voter is gone with them.

by -
47 1871

Hillary was allowed to trot out blatant lies about gun control because Donald Trump lacked the knowledge to stop her. Hillary claimed that she supports the second amendment while simultaneously supporting the legality of laws that prohibit self-defense and make ownership of virtually all handguns illegal.

Hillary claimed that she wanted to overturn the D.C. v. Heller case because the case prohibited a “common sense” law that kept guns out of the hands of toddlers. Hillary failed to mention that the law required all guns to be lock up in a manner where they would be totally unusable for self-defense, even if no toddler was in the house. The law banned all handguns, even if their was no toddler in the house. Hillary literally made up the toddler excuse, but Trump was unable to pounce on her because apparently the only thing Trump knows about the Heller case is that Hillary doesn’t like it.

Watch Hillary get away with rhetorical murder below:

Could Trump be anymore frustrating? He refuses to learn a damn thing. How many times has he met with the NRA? He still doesn’t understand what the Heller case was all about?

Hillary can get away with opposing a case that declares the Second Amendment as an individual right and at the same time claim she supports our right to bear arms.

You can’t get angry at all the low information voters in major cities who will vote against your right to bear arms this year. If the only information I had to go on was the debate, I would think that Hillary was being totally reasonable. Neither Trump nor the mainstream media could refute her. A lot of urban residents don’t care enough about gun control to research it on their own, you can’t blame them for getting snuckered by Hillary and the media. We need a nominee who understands the issue, Trump simply doesn’t get it.

by -
28 1812

The folks in Massachusetts are fighting an important legal battle that could impact us all. A progressive state Attorney general could ban guns without passing a single new law.

If leftist get away with this, we could see lot’s of progressive government officials all across America do the exact same thing.

Here’s a break down:

Massachusetts can’t be allowed to reinterpret the law, allowing such could basically make all semi-automatics illegal.

This completely incoherent guidance is also a threat to our Constitution generally. Laws need to be understandable, these are intentionally vague.

The good news is that the same grossly incompetent leftists responsible for this new “assault weapon” guidance will have to defend it in court. Since the original architect of the assault weapons ban, Diane Feinstein, could never explain what a copy or a replica of an AR-15 was; it’s doubtful that even more incompetent state officials could do better.

It’s time for America to stand with Massachusetts on this critical fight for freedom!

by -
43 2262

screen-shot-2016-09-21-at-5-04-47-pmHere’s how Hillary plans on protecting you: call 911 to report the crime where you are about to be victimized. That’s basically the message behind this new advertisement from the NRA. Watch the 30-second ad below, it’s pretty cool:

Remember, that the NRA is trying to reach moderate voters to change hearts and minds about guns. It’s pretty hard to argue against complicated laws like assault weapons bans in 30 second TV spots. Short appeals to the emotions like this ad are probably the best that they can do with limited time. Attacking Hillary is great, but the NRA might experience backlash by backing Trump.

Donald Trump doesn’t exactly have a perfect record on guns. Plenty of #NeverTrump conservatives canceled NRA memberships over the NRA’s endorsement of Trump during the primary.

The NRA is a single issue organization and they’re right to go after Hillary, but should they also aggressively be pushing Trump? Might getting behind Trump backfire and turn off libertarians, independents, and conservatives who have beef with Trump on other issues? What would you do if you were in charge of the NRA?

by -
10 2450

bullets studio isolatedThe ATF is backing down from new regulations that had the potential to bottleneck ammunition production. These regulations would have reclassified nitrocellulose, a key component of smokeless powder, as an explosive. It seems like trying to quietly sneak regulations that will effect ammunition past the public is becoming a regular occurrence over at Obama’s ATF.

The NRA has more:

Earlier this summer, ATF released an Explosives Industry Newsletter that changed the agency’s treatment of nitrocellulose, the primary component in smokeless powders used in modern ammunition. This change had the potential to seriously disrupt ammunition supply in the United States because it changed a long-standing ATF policy that exempted properly “wetted” nitrocellulose from treatment as an explosive under federal law.

NRA and industry raised these concerns to ATF and any change in ATF’s treatment of nitrocellulose is now officially delayed. In an addendum to the earlier newsletter, ATF announced that it “will conduct further industry outreach concerning wetted Nitrocellulose. In the interim, previously authorized industry practices concerning wetted Nitrocellulose will not be affected.

This seems to have gone down in a similar fashion to the green tip ammo ban. The ATF floats new regulations, then the NRA raises hell and shuts them down. It also could be the case that the folks over at the ATF don’t know what they are doing and don’t realize the ramifications of their actions. Given the anti-gun history over at the ATF, it’s doubtful that these are unintentional consequences of well intended regulation.

Just because the ATF choose to delay these nitrocellulose regulations and the green tip ammo ban, doesn’t mean they won’t try to implement them in the future. You can check out the proposed regulations (or reinterpretations of existing law) here. Stay vigilant!

RANDOM POSTS

0 71
The ATF has been a train wreck for many years. From the Fast and Furious gun running scandal to contradictory confusing regulations, this federal...