54 county sheriffs in Colorado are leading the fight to overturn anti-gun legislation recently passed in Colorado, filing a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Colorado. The NSSF, the Colorado Outfitters Association, Magpul Industries, and firearms retailers have joined the Sheriffs in a broad-based legal challenge to Colorado’s recently enacted gun-control laws. Notably, all but 10 of the state’s 64 sheriffs, who are elected officials, have joined the suit as plaintiffs.
“From the perspective of the sheriffs this legislature had an agenda rather than good public policy in mind when they rushed these bills through and in this rush to pass new laws they didn’t bother listening to the people charged with enforcing them,” explained Weld County Sheriff John Cooke.
“In addition to Constitutional infringements and unenforceable requirements regarding magazine capacity, as the sheriffs have pointed out, we believe it will be impossible for citizens to comply with mandated firearms ‘transfers’ through federally licensed retailers,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Colorado’s federally-licensed firearms retailers are being asked to process these transfers as if they were selling from their own inventory and to monitor both seller and buyer through a state-administered check process that can take hours or even days. They will not be able to recoup the actual cost of providing the service, which is capped at $10, but they will be liable for paperwork errors and subject to license revocation. For this reason and the many others detailed in our joint action with our fellow plaintiffs, these laws need to be struck down,” Keane said.
The NRA (with help from Smith & Wesson) has created a compelling video explaining how and why women use firearms for hunting, sport, and self-defense.
The video features many of our friends, including pistol champion Julie Golob and ace 3-Gun competitor Maggie Reese. The video spotlights women who value their Second Amendment rights, understanding that a firearm remains the “great equalizer”, allowing women to protect themselves and their families. The video challenges the anti-gun politicians and media “talking heads” who want to disarm women: “These authorities that I’ve never met, they’ll never know me, they’ll never know my circumstances, they’ll never know what I’m up against”, says Natalie Foster.
“So many things can change when we start losing our civil rights, and our most basic civil rights of self-defense.” — Julianna Crowder.
“I want to protect my child in any way that’s possible. And I want them to have that right to protect… our future. It’s not just about Washington… it’s about sharing your sport, sharing your passion, sharing your desire to protect yourself.” — Julie Golob
Over the objections of legions of Connecticut gun-owners, Connecticut enacted what has been called the “nation’s strictest gun laws” (Huffington Post). Along with new controls on semi-automatic rifles, magazine-capacity limits, and restrictions on ammunition purchases, Connecticut adopted a new system of background checks on all gun transfers. Apparently, the new legislation was so poorly drafted that Connecticut’s new gun laws do not comply with Federal NICS procedures.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, issued the following statement: “Gov. Dannel Malloy … signed into law a package of gun-control legislation that was assembled in secret by a small group of state legislators and that never received a public hearing. Most legislators had little time to even read the actual bill language. The unfortunate results of this process… [are] that mistakes in [the] enacted law will have to be corrected.
For example, language in the new law specifies a procedure for licensed firearms retailers to perform mandatory ‘universal’ background checks on private party transactions that is not permissible based on federal law and regulations governing the National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS) system. As we read it, this mistake in lawmaking means that all private party transactions in the state now cannot be accomplished legally. We will be carefully studying all provisions of the law for possible challenge in the courts.”
The new Connecticut gun-control laws are the main focus of this week’s Gun Talk® Radio show with Tom Gresham. Richard Burgess, President of Connecticut Carry, joins Tom this Sunday to discuss the latest anti-gun legislation passed this week by Connecticut legislators and signed into law by Governor Malloy.
The new legislation, among other things, adds more than 100 firearms to the state’s assault weapons ban and creates what is being called the nation’s first dangerous weapon offender registry, as well as a magazine ban and eligibility rules for buying ammunition. You can learn more about Connecticut’s passage of the new laws in a feature from the Litchfield County Times.
In its 19th year of national syndication, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio airs live on Sundays from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm Eastern, and runs on more than 138 stations, plus on XM (Ch. 165) Satellite Radio. All Gun Talk shows can be downloaded as podcasts or accessed via Apple iTunes. To get more information, visit www.guntalk.com.
New Jersey legislators have introduced no less than 76 new bills to regulate firearms, control the sale of ammunition, and tightly restrict gun ownership. We’ve summarized some of the most important new NJ gun-control bills below, and you can read the full list here. Legislators in the New Jersey Assembly pushed through 20 of 43 pieces of legislation last month. And New Jersey’s State Senators have been hard at work too, introducing dozens of other bills restricting gun rights. According to the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC), “the legislative feeding frenzy of anti-gun bill introductions by Democrats has steadily continued [with] no end in sight. Apparently, they won’t be satisfied until there’s nothing left of the Second Amendment in the Garden State.”
Important New Anti-Gun Legislation in New Jersey (Partial List)
Establishes regulatory/reporting program for ammunition sales and transfers. A3645 Acs.
Defines most centerfire 50-caliber firearms as “destructive devices”. A3659aa.
Bans mail order, telephone, and internet sales of ammunition. A366 and S2465.
Requires, to purchase a gun, mental health screening by licensed professional. A3667.
Requires psychological evaluation and in-home inspection in order to buy a gun. A3676.
Requires handgun ammunition to be encoded with serial number. A3704.
Imposes additional 5% tax on sale of firearms and ammunition. A3727.
Requires firearms to be unloaded and securely locked or stored within home. A3752.
Requires background checks for ammunition sales and transfers. A3800.
Disqualifies persons with three DUIs in 5 years from purchasing firearm. A3973.
Prohibits persons with “disorderly persons” convictions from purchasing firearm. A3974.
Requires firearms endorsement on driver’s license or state ID card. A4001.
Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. S2475.
Requires ammunition sales/transfers be done as face-to-face transactions. S3476.
Requires submission of mental health records to NICS. S2492.
Extends reach and coverage of State’s assault weapons ban. S2605.
Creates penalty for failing to report unintentional discharge of firearm in home. S2642.
COMMENT: The above list is a wake-up call, and not just for residents of New Jersey. All readers should take a long, hard look at the above list. This is what happens when anti-gun politicians “pull out all the stops”. These proposed laws are not just about so-called “assault weapons”. Note the tight restrictions (and new taxes) on ammunition purchases. Note the mandating of “gun owner endorsements” on drivers’ licenses. Note the chilling requirements of “mental health screenings” and “in-home inspections”. Law-abiding gun owners across the country need to understand that these kind of regulations are now “on the table” and we can expect “copy-cat” legislation in other states….
Led by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) and the NRA, a group of gun organizations filed suit on March 21, 2013, seeking to overturn the recently-passed New York SAFE Act. The pro-Second Amendment coalition filed suit in Federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out New York’s new gun control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.
Specifically, the complaint states that the SAFE Act violates the Second Amendment as well the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Buffalo News explains: “The lawsuit says the gun law… violates the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause, which empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, because the law restricts interstate commerce by requiring private gun owners to go through dealers if they want to sell guns to a private party in another state.” Read Full Article from BuffaloNews.com.
NYSRPA President Thomas King says the SAFE Act infringes New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights: “The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in the landmark 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia and incorporated that decision to the states in the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago. These decisions apply to all New Yorkers”. Chris Cox, Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, added: “Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature usurped the legislative and democratic process in passing these extreme anti-gun measures with no committee hearings and no public input“.
Along with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, other plaintiffs in this action are the NRA, the Westchester County Firearms Owners Association, Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education, New York State Amateur Trapshooting Association, Bedell Custom, Beikirch Ammunition Corporation, Blueline Tactical & Police Supply, and three individual citizens.
Injunction Against SAFE Act Denied in State Action
In another related lawsuit, on March 12, N.Y. State Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara refused to enjoin implementation of the SAFE Act. That ruling applied to a lawsuit brought by Robert Schultz and hundreds of other private citizen plaintiffs. A motion had been filed asking the court to temporarily halt the SAFE Act on the grounds that the legislation had been rushed through, without proper consideration or the opportunity for citizen input. The judge denied the motion, holding that the Legislature was authorized by “messages of necessity” to enact the SAFE Act on a “fast track” schedule. Schultz stated that his group would appeal the ruling to the N.Y. State Court of Appeals: “We’re saying the language of the Message of Necessity has to match up with the legislation.”
On Thursday, February 28, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (supported by the NRA-ILA), held a rally to stand up for the Second Amendment and protest New York’s recent passage of the so-called S.A.F.E. Act. The rally drew more than 10,000 law-abiding gun owners. According to the New York State Police, it was one of the largest rallies ever held at the State Capital in Albany, New York.
NRA President David Keene was the featured speaker and told attendees that NRA is committed to helping repeal the S.A.F.E. Act, saying NRA would do “whatever is necessary”–including going to court–to defend the Second Amendment. For the latest updates on efforts to repeal New York’s S.A.F.E. Act, visit www.NRA-ILA.org
In a video filmed during an “online town hall”, Vice President Joseph Biden told a questioner that a modern, semi-automatic firearm is not needed for self-protection or home defense. Biden told the questioner to buy a double-barreled shotgun instead.
V.P. Biden: “Katy, if you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun, have the shells of a 12-gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double-barrelled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you who’s ever coming in is not [going to] — you don’t need an AR15. It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use. And, in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”
The Vice President went on to say the government has to make some limits on the weapons people can buy. Otherwise, he said, the wrong people would have flamethrowers and rocket launchers and billionaires could buy “fully-loaded” fighter jets.
The NSSF has issued an alert regarding proposed legislation in Connecticut that would drastically restrict the rights of gun owners. Proposed measures include: mandatory registration of ALL firearms, confiscation of all magazines with capacity of 10+ rounds, registration of ammo purchases, ban on internet ammo purchases, and mandatory locked gun storage. Legislation proposed by Gov. Malloy, Sen. Beth Bye, and Rep. Bob Godfrey, would include the following restrictions:
An outright ban on ALL modern sporting rifles, classifying them as “Assault Weapons.”
Restricting lawful magazine capacity to 10 rounds.
Confiscating ALL magazines (including pistol mags) holding more than 10 rounds.
Statewide gun registration for ALL firearms.
Re-registration every two (2) years with rising fee schedule.
Permit requirement for any rifle with a pistol grip.
Registration of all ammunition purchases.
Limits on ammo quantities one can purchase and possess.
Ban on internet sales of ammo in Connecticut.
Mandatory locked gun storage requirements.
The NSSF states that: “There will only be a few opportunities for discussion and opposition as many in Hartford are trying to pass legislation as quickly as possible. The first hearing (and may be the only time to testify) will occur next Monday, Jan. 28, at 10 a.m. at the Legislative Office Building.”
NSSF is urging all gun owners, sportsmen and hunters to attend Monday’s public hearing to be held in the Legislative Office Building in Room 2C at 10 a.m. and to contact their state representative, senator and all members of the Committee immediately.
With the Republican (GOP) Convention in full swing in Florida, readers have asked: “What is the official Republican Party position on the Second Amendment and gun rights?” Here is the section of the Republican Platform concerning gun issues, quoted word for word:
“We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill considered Clinton gun ban.”
We think that language is pretty clear. Some gun rights advocacy groups will be satisfied with this Platform statement, others may believe the Republican Platform does not go far enough in calling for the elimination of existing Federal restrictions on firearms.
You’ve heard by now that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has chosen Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate. Since Ryan’s selection as a VP candidate, the mainstream media has focused primarily on Ryan’s positions on government spending, health care policies, and debt reduction.
You may be wondering, where does Ryan stand on gun rights issues? In a nutshell, Ryan is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and he has lead efforts to protect the shooting sports and hunting. An avid hunter, Ryan is the former co-chairman of the bi-partisan Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. Ryan has received an “A” grade from the NRA for his overall voting record. Among other things, Ryan has voted to protect the right of hunters to use traditional ammunition and to prohibit suing manufacturers and retailers for the criminal misuse of firearms. He has also supported a national cross-state standard for concealed carry. Here are highlights of Rep. Ryan’s voting record in Congress, on matters relating to hunting and gun rights:
Voted YES to protect the right of hunters to use traditional ammunition.
Voted YES to prohibit suing manufacturers and retailers for the criminal misuse of firearms.
Voted YES to decrease background check waiting period from 3 days to 1 day for a firearm purchase at a gun show.
Supported national cross-state standard for concealed carry.
Opposed the gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington, DC.
Apparently Bank of America is no longer willing to provide banking services to McMillan Group Int’l, LLC (McMillan), a leading maker of gunstocks and an important supplier of stocks, rifles, and other hardware to our U.S. Armed Forces. Apparently it is not good enough that McMillan builds products used by our troops to safeguard our freedoms.
Here’s what went down. In the course of an “account analysis”, a Senior VP of Bank of America (BofA) confirmed that BofA wished to cease doing business with McMillan because the Arizona-based company now builds rifles, not just stocks and accessories. The details of the fall-out between BofA and McMillan were outlined April 19 in a post by Kelly McMillan on McMillan’s Facebook page.
HERE is the Text of McMillan’s Announcement Regarding Bank of America:
McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray F., Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possibly save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer want my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
“You have to do what you must” he said.
“So you are telling me this is a politically-motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr. F. confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say.
I think it is import[ant] for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.
Kelly D. McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC McMillanUSA.com
Last name of Bank of America VP redacted at request of McMillan.
Commentary: The LAST thing Bank of America should be doing right now is terminating relationships with important, long-standing business customers. Because of a series of billion-dollar blunders by Bank of America executives, the company has suffered major financial losses and write-offs, and it was forced to sell off important assets. Reflecting the bank’s poor management, Bank of America share values declined 58% in 2011. That made BofA the “worst-performing stock in the 30-member Dow Jones Industrials Index” last year according to DailyFinance.com.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has launched GunVote, a voter education website at NSSF.org/gunvote. The new GunVote website provides links to voter registration information for all 50 states, a guide to political races in voter districts, the latest polls, and a selection of news articles covering the campaigns. GunVote also spotlights Candidates’ positions on Gun Rights and the Second Amendment.
“It’s great to see that so many individuals have become firearm owners, but these freedoms require constant support from elected officials at the state and federal levels,” said NSSF President/CEO Steve Sanetti. “Votes on legislation and appointments to the courts have profound effects on our firearms freedoms.” Sanetti noted that two landmark Supreme Court decisions reaffirming the individual right to own firearms — D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago — were both decided by 5-to-4 votes.
COMMENTARY — Why You Should Participate in Upcoming Elections
The votes of target shooters, hunters and gun owners can make a huge impact in the 2012 election. Participating in the upcoming election begins by making sure to register, then becoming educated about the candidates running for office and discussing choices with family and friends so that they understand the importance of voting. The final step is going to the polls and (when necessary) helping others to get to the polls, too.
More Gun-Owners Need to Register and Vote
In the 2010 Congressional election, only 46.2 percent of women and 45 percent of men 18 and over reported voting, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Gun owners tend to be more active at the polls than this average, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Sanetti adds: “More gun owners need to vote. It’s critical that they do, and that they consider closely what candidates are saying… about our firearms freedoms.”