Sadly, Shooting USA host and respected outdoor sports journalist Jim Scoutten has passed at age 77, following a brief illness. Noted as “one of the most iconic voices in the shooting sports industry”, Jim Scoutten hosted the popular Shooting USA cable television broadcast for decades. He was a leading force in the firearms industry. This Editor had the chance to meet Jim on many occasions at SHOT Show, and I can confirm that he was a talented man of high integrity who was dedicated to advancing the shooting sports and protecting Second Amendment freedoms. The Shooting USA series will continue hosted by Jim’s capable son John Scoutten.
Yesterday, the Shooting USA Facebook page stated: “It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Jim Scoutten. In his thirty years of reporting the shooting sports, Jim played a pivotal role in the industry and will be greatly missed.” Jim’s concluding message from each show was, famously: “As always, shoot safely, shoot often, and keep ‘em in the ten ring.”
Here are just a few of the 1,000+ comments on Facebook:
I watched Jim for many years. What a wealth of knowledge he was. Thank you Jim for all you did for the shooting sports, your legacy will live on! Even though I am rarely in the “ten ring”, I will keep shooting often! Rest in peace Sir!
There are a lot of heavy hearts tonight. Jim is a LEGEND. My condolences to the family. Thank You, Sir, for your devotion to the industry and to shooters everywhere. Rest easy.
He was such an icon in the shooting industry! Was so proud I made one his shows from Bianchi Cup. My condolences to the family.
He always made Wednesday night TV something to look forward to. He was so passionate towards the shooting sports and outdoors communities.
Jim did so much for the industry and was truly respected. Prayers to his family.
Jim Scoutten Was a Notable Defender of the Second Amendment
In the early 1990s Jim worked on the American Shooter TV program, which was then followed by the very popular Shooting USA series. Media leaders praised Jim’s contribution to the shooting world and his role in protecting Second Amendment Rights.
“Jim leaves a strong legacy as a tireless defender of shooting, firearms, and our Second-Amendment rights. His voice was unique and powerful; we will honor Jim by carrying on in the endless fight to defend the Constitution and will support his family and team as they forge a new future for Shooting USA.” — Mitch Petrie, V.P. Programming of Outdoor Sportsman Group Networks.
“Jim Scoutten [reported] the stories of the shooting industry and the competitive shooting disciplines since 1993. In [30] years of broadcasting on four national networks, he’s done more to popularize the shooting sports than any other individual or organization, reaching multiple generations with the invitation to bring out your guns and enjoy some competition.” — Garry Mason, Outdoor Legends Hall of Fame.
During [Jim Scoutten’s] tenure, the American Shooter TV program became the highest-rated outdoors television program in history, garnering more than one million fans nationwide. In recent years, Scoutten has been a part of the Shooting USA program, a show that he has co-hosted with his eldest son John, and the Sighting In with Shooting USA program, both series appearing on Outdoor Channel along with full seasons on My Outdoor TV (MOTV).
In this Shooting USA episode, Jim Scoutten showcased High Power Silhouette Rifles.
A Franklin, Tennesse resident, Scoutten’s firm but gentle voice and familiar smile were eagerly welcomed into the homes of America’s shooting enthusiasts for three decades, an invitation that made him the most watched firearms reporter in industry history thanks to his knowledge of firearms, his passion for the shooting sports, and journalistic integrity that marked his long career.
Share the post "Shooting USA’s Jim Scoutten Passes Away at Age 77"
An over-reaching rule recently imposed by the Biden Administration-controlled ATF has been halted by a Federal judge in Texas. In the VanDerStok v. Garland case, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Conner vacated the ATF’s “Final Rule” which treated unfinished frames and receivers the same as if they are functional firearms. The Truth About Guns Blog notes: “In another blow to the Biden Administration’s ongoing war on the gun industry and firearm owners, a Federal judge has thrown out the ATF’s attempt at regulating gun parts and partial receivers as complete firearms.”
“After earlier issuing an injunction blocking ATF enforcement, United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor ruled yesterday that the ATF overstepped its regulatory authority by skirting the legislative process and, in effect, unilaterally re-writing the Gun Control Act of 1968 in order to allow it to regulate gun parts as it does complete firearms. O’Connor vacated the agency’s rule granting the plaintiffs summary judgement.” — Truth About Guns Blog.
Judge O’Connor issued his 38-page decision last week. The Order stated: “This case presents the question of whether the federal government may lawfully regulate partially manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other tools and materials in keeping with the Gun Control Act of 1968. Because the Court concludes that the government cannot regulate those items without violating federal law, the Court holds that the government’s recently enacted Final Rule, Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, and 479), is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule.”
O’Connor added: “A part that has yet to be completed or converted to function as frame or receiver is not a frame or receiver. ATF’s declaration that a component is a ‘frame or receiver’ does not make it so if, at the time of evaluation, the component does not yet accord with the ordinary public meaning of those terms.”
Judge O’Connor’s ruling in VanDerStok v. Garland vacates the controversial ATF Final Rule that effectively changed the definition of a firearm under Federal law.
Judge O’Connor further observed that previous regulatory actions do NOT justify rulings that are clearly beyond the scope of ATF authority: “If these administrative records show, as Defendants contend, that ATF has previously regulated components that are not yet frames or receivers but could readily be converted into such items, then the historical practice does nothing more than confirm that the agency has, perhaps in multiple specific instances over several decades, exceeded the lawful bounds of its statutory jurisdiction.”
This video covers the Preminary Injunction previously issued in VanDerStok vs. Garland
The Firearms Policy Coalition wrote: “Our victory in VanDerStok v. Garland vacated the ‘Frame or Receiver’ Final Rule and restored the pre-rule status quo. The era of unchecked disarmament schemes is over. You can find case details at FPCLaw.org.
Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan M. Gottlieb stated: “This decision amounts to another court blow to Joe Biden’s anti-gun agenda, which threatens the very Constitution he swore to uphold and defend when he took office.” And SAF Exec. Director Adam Kraut added: “This case is one more example of the Biden administration’s ongoing effort to exceed its authority in an effort to place as many restrictions as possible on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. We are pleased the court took this decisive action, and we will litigate this issue to finality, if and when the government appeals.”
Share the post "Federal Judge Vacates ATF Rule on Unfinished Receivers/Frames"
The Second Amendment recognizes Americans’ right to “keep and bear arms”. That right is NOT limited to bolt action or single-shot rifles. But in defiance of the Second Amendment, New York state has imposed a discretionary licensing requirement for persons who want to acquire semi-auto rifles. That essentially allows New York to arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights.
Consequently, that New York rifle license law is now being challenged in court, in the case of McGregor et al v. Suffolk County, NY, recently filed in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That lawsuit challenges: “(i) enforcement of Senate Bill 9458, which requires ordinary people to apply for and obtain a discretionary license to purchase, receive, sell, exchange, and/or dispose of semiautomatic rifles, and register their weapons with the government, all under penalty of criminal sanctions; and (ii) enforcement of policies that result in exorbitant 2-3 year delays in issuing a license to purchase, receive, sell, exchange, and dispose of semiautomatic rifles.” Download COMPLAINT HERE.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an Amicus brief in McGregor v. Suffolk County. The SAF argues that New York State’s “rifle license” requirement under New York SB 9458 is unconstitutional.
In its opening section, the SAF brief states, “The State of New York’s requirement to obtain a ‘rifle license’ before an individual may acquire a semiautomatic rifle is repugnant to the plain text of the Second Amendment and this nation’s history and tradition.” SAF founder and Executive V.P. Alan M. Gottlieb notes that there is nothing in the Second Amendment which supports a “requirement that government give its permission so that an individual may exercise the right to keep and bear arms.”
“The state’s requirement that an individual obtain a license prior to acquiring a long gun is simply incompatible with the text of the Second Amendment as informed by this nation’s history and tradition,” said attorney Adam Kraut, who also serves as SAF Executive Director. “New York has continuously imposed additional burdens and regulations on peaceable individuals on the purchase, transfer, and possession of firearms that do not conform with constitutional limitations on the state’s power. It is time for New York to recognize that, despite its preference to the contrary, it does not have the constitutional authority to enact these types of laws which only serve to impede an individual’s ability to exercise their constitutional rights.”
Share the post "SAF Fights New York Law Requiring License for Semi-Auto Rifles"
In December 2022, New Jersey passed A4769, which effectively declares all public areas to be off limits to firearms, increases permit fees, uses social media posts as grounds to deny permits, and requires gun owners to acquire liability insurance that does not appear to exist in the state. The NRA-ILA, together with the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs then filed a lawsuit in Federal Court, Siegel v. Platkin, challenging A4769.
The legal challenge to this insane, New Jersey statute is going well. In January, the Federal District Court for New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the state from enforcing a lot of those restrictions. And this week, in a 230-page opinion, the Court preliminary enjoined the state from enforcing much of A4769 until the full legal proceedings are resolved.
The Court examined the new permitting requirements and enjoined the state from requiring individuals to obtain a $300,000 liability policy before they could get a carry license. It also prohibited the state from conducting in-person interviews with the applicant’s character references. The Court also limited the scope of A4769’s provision that allows the state to deny the applicant if it finds that he or she “to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm”. That now means that there is objective evidence that the individual poses a threat, and permitting agents are limited to looking at the applicant’s public statements for statements suggesting that they pose a threat to themselves of the general public.
The Court was even harder on the new so-called sensitive places that were banned under A4769. It enjoined the state from enforcing the bans on the following locations:
— Virtually all private property where the public is generally admitted — i.e., all stores and restaurants;
— Public gatherings and permitted events;
— Parks, beaches, recreational facilities, zoos, and state parks;
— Libraries and museums;
— Places that serve alcohol for on-premise consumption;
— Entertainment facilities and Casinos;
— Airport parking lots and curbside drop-off and pickup;
— Medical offices and ambulatory care facilities;
— Public filming/motion picture locations; and
— Inside vehicles.
The court concluded that A4769 “went too far, becoming the kind of law that Founding Father Thomas Jefferson would have warned against since it ‘disarm[s] only those who are not inclined or determined to commit crimes [and] worsen[s] the plight of the assaulted, but improve[s] those of the assailants.’”
Share the post "Federal Court Enjoins Restrictive New Jersey Gun Law"
Would you like gun and outdoor industry companies to learn what products you favor, or what types of hunting you prefer. Then you may want to take a FREE SURVEY.
Your responses help the hunting, recreational shooting, and defensive firearms markets develop new products and improve services. The results are shared with conservation and advocacy groups, allowing them to advance conservation and pro-second amendment issues. To participate, go to ShooterSurvey.com or HunterSurvey.com. NOTE: An email address is required.
Here are some interesting results from recent surveys:
NOTE: Results exceed 100% because many shooters use multiple firearms and/or bow types.
NOTE: Results exceed 100% because many hunters pursue multiple species.
If you take the survey, you get a chance to win a $100 gift card. Each quarter, respondents are entered into a drawing for one of five $100 gift cards to the outdoor retailer of their choice.
About Shooter Survey and Hunter Survey
Southwick Associates launched the HunterSurvey and ShooterSurvey in 2006 to help state Fish & Wildlife Agencies, conservation organizations, and the outdoor equipment industry understand what hunters, recreational target shooters, and personal protectors want and need. Survey results reflect the attitudes and habits of hunters and recreational shooters across the United States and are analyzed to develop new products, provide better services, and make smarter decisions that help improve public hunting, recreational shooting, and protection opportunities.
All survey responses are kept strictly confidential. Only summaries of the responses are used in reporting. However, to take the survey you must provide an email address to Southwick Associates. We recommend you NOT sign up with a primary business or personal email.
This article copyright 2023 AccurateShooter.com. No reproduction is allowed.
Share the post "Share Your Interests via Shooting Sports and Hunting Surveys"
“Second Amendment? — We don’t give a damn.” That could be the mantra of many Democratic Party members of Congress. Now a radical anti-gunner from New Jersey has introduced new Federal legislation, H.R. 584, that would prevent all Americans from purchasing ANY quantity of ammunition online. All ammo sales would have to be in person with photo ID.
Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) (“Watson Coleman”) has revived legislation that would prohibit the sale of ammunition online. Last month, Watson Coleman introduced the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2023, a new version of restrictive legislation she authored in the past. The bill has been listed as H.R. 584 and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. As of February 24, 2023, H.R. 584 had 23 co-sponsors*, all woke Democrats, including the radical Rashida Tlaib, noted for her calls to defund the police (which shows how little she actually cares about reducing crime).
This unconstitutional bill, according to the NRA-ILA, would implement all of the following:
1. FORCE purchasers to submit a photo ID in person every time one buys ANY ammunition.
2. REPORT the identity of ammo purchasers to the U.S. Attorney General if the ammo buyers purchase more than 1,000 rounds within a 5-day period.
3. REGISTER ammunition buyers in a database maintained by the U.S. Department of Justice.
You know what the DOJ would do with the database of ammo buyers. It would be used to identify gun owners, creating a de facto registry of gun owners. That’s in direct violation of Federal law which forbids such a registry.
Guns.com reports: “The proposal [H.R. 584] would establish the licensing of ammunition dealers who then would be required to confirm the identity of customers seeking to purchase ammo by verifying a valid photo I.D. in person. As such, it would place a prohibition on the current widespread practice of buying ammo online and having it shipped directly to the customer’s door. The measure would also require these vendors to report all purchases of more than 1,000 rounds within a five-day period by the same person to the U.S. Attorney General as well as local and state law enforcement.”
Effects If ‘Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act’ Becomes Law
From a practical standpoint, this legislation would make ammunition much more difficult to buy in large quantities. And specialized ammo, for less popular chamberings, could be almost impossible to get, if people could only shop at local retail outlets. Being able to shop a dozen or more online vendors allows shooting enthusiasts to get a wide variety of ammo types at competitive prices. For example, with AmmoSeek.com, you can see the best rimfire and centerfire ammo deals from dozens of vendors.
Watson Coleman and her anti-Second Amendment co-sponsors want to make it MUCH more difficult to obtain ammunition, and she would be delighted if the cost of ammo doubled or even tripled. She hates firearms and hates gun owners.
Regarding H.R. 584, GunsAmerica contacted Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Gottlieb was critical of the one-sidedness of legislation in that it presupposes all ammunition sold online ends up in the hands of criminals. Gottlieb noted: “Day in and day out men and women save their lives with ammunition they have bought online and the only response from Democrats is to call for bans on the sale of ammunition.”
Additional cosponsors of the bill include:
Jake Auchincloss [D-MA-4]
Joyce Beatty [D-OH-3]
Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3]
Andre Carson [D-IN-7]
Joe Courtney [D-CT-2]
Jason Crow [D-CO-6]
Danny Davis [D-IL-7]
Madeleine Dean [D-PA-4]
Diana DeGette [D-CO-1]
Susan DelBene [D-WA-1]
Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-10]
Glenn Ivey [D-MD-4]
Sydney Kamlager-Dove [D-CA-37]
Barbara Lee [D-CA-12]
Zoe Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]
Betty McCollum [D-MN-4]
Kweisi Mfume [D-MD-7]
Seth Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]
Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large]
Donald M. Payne, Jr. [D-NJ-10]
Mike Quigley [D-IL-5]
Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-12]
Jill Tokuda [D-HI-2]
Share the post "Democrats Introduce Legislation to Ban Online Ammo Sales"
Will you be traveling out of state this spring? Or do you have questions about your own state’s firearms laws? Then you’ll want to have quick access to summaries of gun laws in America’s 50 states. Here’s a very valuable online resource you may want to bookmark.
The NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) has a great feature on the NRA-ILA’s homepage. There is a pull-down menu that includes all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, New York City, and Guam. This quickly provides a host of legal information for each region you select. From the NRA home page, NRA-ILA.org, you can instantly access a host of information for all 50 states. NOTE: Some of this information is not completely current, so you may want to check with more detailed, up-to-date reference, such as the Legal Heat $20 50 State Guide to Firearms Laws and Regulations (2023 Edition). Most of the information in the book is also available in the FREE Legal Heat Firearms Law APP for Android (Google) and iOS (Apple) mobile devices. Here are screenshots from the Legal Heat iPhone App.
Shown below is part of the NRA-ILA’s coverage for Texas. There is a summary of the most important Texas gun laws. Below that is a map showing the states that recognize Texas carry permits.
Share the post "Get FREE Online Access to Gun Laws for All 50 States"
In this video, Larry Keane, NSSF Sr. VP and General Counsel, talks with Montana State Attorney General Austin Knudsen. The two men met in the SHOT Show TV Studio to discuss Second Amendment issues, and the firearm industry. Keane noted that Atty. Gen. Knudsen is a recognized leader — among all state elected officials — in protecting the Second Amendment. Knudsen “leads the charge among all Republican AGs” on gun rights issues. Knudsen has filed legal actions to safeguard Second Amendment rights, and he recently spear-headed an investigation of UPS and FedEx Sharing of Gun Owner Info with Federal Agencies.
Montana Attorney General Knudsen Leads 18-State Effort Calling On UPS And FedEx To Clarify Gun-Purchase Tracking Polices
Seventeen state Attorneys General joined Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen today in asking major shipping companies to clarify new policies that allow them to track firearm sales with unprecedented specificity and bypass warrant requirements to share that information with federal agencies.
Reports from Montana federal firearm license (FFL) holders made to Attorney General Knudsen’s office indicate that UPS and FedEx are now burdening them by requiring them to ship separately and track firearms, firearms parts, and firearm products so gun purchases can be tracked.
Knudsen and the coalition of attorneys general sent letters on November 29, 2022 to leadership at both companies requesting additional information on their new policies and the possibility that the effort was coordinated in part with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
“These demands, in tandem, allow [UPS/FedEx] to create a database of American gun purchasers and determine exactly what items they purchased… In doing so you, perhaps inadvertently, give federal agencies a workaround to normal warrant requirements. This allows [UPS/FedEx] to provide information at will or upon request to federal agencies—information detailing which Americans are buying what guns,” Attorney General Knudsen’s letters state.”
In addition to requesting updated FFL-related shipping policies from the two companies, Attorney General Knudsen asked them to clarify the following:
Did UPS/FedEx enact these policies with the goal of information sharing with the ATF or any other federal agency;
Did UPS/FedEx enact these policies at the request of officials in ATF, a different federal agency, or on its own initiative;
If UPS/FedEx implemented these policies at the request of a federal agency, please identify that agency, the officials who made that request, the nature of that communication, and any legal authorization cited by those officials;
If UPS/FedEx changed its policies on its own initiative, please explain why it made those changes;
Did UPS/FedEx communicate or coordinate with each other in making these changes;
Did ATF or other federal agency employees help draft the updated shipping agreements?
Share the post "2nd Amendment Rights — Montana Attorney General Interview"
Good news for Oregon gun owners — on December 6, 2022, Oregon Judge Robert S. Raschio signed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) barring Oregon State officials from enforcing anti-gun Measure 114 until a hearing is held on a preliminary injunction next Tuesday. The Order stated that Measure 114 threatens Oregonians’ constitutional rights: “Absent Entry of this Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiffs will be deprived of their right to bear arms pursuant to Or. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 27 by being made unable to lawfully purchase a firearm [or have 10+ round magazines.] Deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights for any period constitutes irreparable harm.”
Counsel for Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) secured the TRO in state court, preventing the entire new Oregon gun control law from being enforced. Signed by Judge Raschio, the order bars the state from implementing any portion of the law until a hearing is held on a request for a preliminary injunction next Tuesday.
GOA and GOF have also signed onto an amicus brief in a similar lawsuit against this new law in federal court in OFF v. Brown, which also saw some progress today when a Federal judge stayed the permit-for-purchase system requirement for 30 days.
The new law, which passed as a ballot measure by a very thin margin, was scheduled to take effect December 8th. The measure failed in over 90% of Oregon counties, but passed due to concentrated Democratic party voters in Portland and a couple other urban areas.
Oregon Measure 114 would:
Ban magazines over 10 rounds.
Require a permit to purchase any firearm.
Require a training course, application fee, fingerprinting, and a duplicative background check to obtain the permit-to-purchase.
Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:
“This is an exciting victory for our members in Oregon as the clock was winding down on securing relief from the onerous and unconstitutional requirements this law would have placed on current and future gun owners. We look forward to continuing the fight.”
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Gun Owners Foundation, added:
“We are grateful to Judge Raschio for his swift response to our request for a TRO on this draconian law, and we are fully prepared to continue the process as we request a preliminary injunction at our hearing next week.”
Share the post "Oregon Court Issues TRO Against Oregon Measure 114"
NOTE: The above image (with time count-down) was captured Wednesday morning 11/2/22. But the clock is ticking. CLICK HERE for the current time remaining. Register now, and be sure to vote in this election.
Get out and vote people. It’s not too late to register to vote in many states — you can do so in person or remotely. It’s absolutely vital that all Americans who believe in the Second Amendment and personal freedom vote in this November election. The Biden administration is pushing for further restrictive gun control measures, and Blue State politicians wish to restrict CCW, limit your gun purchases, and ban many types of guns outright. For example, Ballot Measure 114 in Oregon would create a published, searchable database of gun members and require a special state permit to buy or sell a firearm.
The forces against freedom are relentless, and they will not be satisfied until gun rights are gone. Just look at what is happening in Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau recently imposed a complete ban on sale, transfer, and importation of handguns. Don’t want that to happen here in America? Then get out and VOTE.
The Gunvote.org site has helpful links that provide information on registration and voting in all 50 states. Use that site to find out WHERE and WHEN you can vote in your jurisdiction. Now more than ever it is vital for ALL American gun owners to make their voices heard.
REGISTER and VOTE People — DO IT!
The last day to vote in most states will be Tuesday, November 8, 2022.
Share the post "Vote in the Election — Make Your Voice Heard & Protect 2A Rights"
Oregon Ballot Measure 114 is considered by many to be the most oppressive, anti-gun legislation in the nation. We urge ALL Oregonians to vote in the upcoming election and vote “NO” on Ballot Measure 114. Here are some of the key provisions of the unconstitutional Ballot Measure 114 which will restrict the Second Amendment rights of Oregonians:
Ballot Measure 114 will require a permit to purchase or transfer any firearm.
Ballot Measure 114 creates a searchable government registry of firearm owners.
Applicants cannot obtain a permit without first passing a law enforcement firearms training course, but Law Enforcement Agencies are NOT required to provide the training.
Ballot Measure 114 bans ammunition magazines over 10 rounds.
Gun Owner Registry: Ballot Measure 114 would allow your personal information to be added to a government registry. Measure 114 requires law enforcement to maintain a registry of gun owner’s personal information including applicant’s legal name, current address, and telephone number, date and place of birth, physical description, fingerprints, pictures, and any additional information determined necessary by law enforcement. This data will be published annually, so every criminal can find out who has guns and where they are stored.
Mandatory Permit to Purchase/Transfer Guns: Ballot Measure 114 requires a permit-to-purchase (or transfer) a firearm. The permit must be issued by law enforcement. A Concealed Handgun License does not qualify as a permit-to-purchase. A Hunter Safety Certification does not qualify as a permit-to-purchase. Permits must be renewed every 5 years for a fee. Issuance of a permit requires completion of classroom and live-fire training offered only by law enforcement certified instructors. There is no limit to the amount that can be charged for these classes. Nothing requires law enforcement agencies to actually offer the classes required to obtain the permit.
Firearm Magazine Restrictions: Ballot Measure 114 bans ALL firearms magazines with more than 10 rounds. Measure 114 will ban the use, possession, manufacturing, and transfer of ammunition magazines over 10 rounds. Use of a currently-owned magazine will only be lawful on private property, at a shooting range, and while engaged in hunting. When a magazine is transported off private property, the magazine must be removed from the firearm and stored separately.
Want to learn more about Ballot Measure 114? CLICK HERE for FULL TEXT of Ballot Measure 114.
Unconstitutional and Impractical Training Requirements
Ballot Measure 114 mandates gunowner training by Law Enforcement agencies, but provides no separate funding for that training carried out by police and sheriffs. The Stop114.com website explains:
The measure only allows those approved by police to provide the required “training” to apply for a permit. Police in Oregon are underfunded and understaffed. There is no plan in place to actually provide any training and virtually no police have the facilities or manpower to provide classes.
The Oregon State Sheriff’s Association has estimated that if a person somehow could complete the required training, the permitting process would cost sheriffs almost $40 million annually. There is nothing in the measure that provides any funding and the fees included would not come close to covering the costs. The estimate of costs to local police (not Sheriffs) is $51.2 million dollars the first year.
Free Range American states that Ballot Measure 114 could halt gun sales for two years or more:
OREGON MEASURE 114 COULD HALT GUN SALES IN STATE FOR YEARS
OCTOBER 14, 2022 By David Maccar
If [Oregon Ballot Measure 114] passes, the state will have the strictest gun laws in the entire country. Its passage will also likely result in the suspension of gun sales and purchases in the state, potentially for years, as the state creates a purchase permitting system from scratch that will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
The measure requires only a simple majority to pass.
If it passes, its various provisions would go into effect in January. On a recent Howl for Wildlife podcast, Amy Patrick, the policy director for the Oregon Hunters Association (OHA), told Free Range American that it will take at least two years to stand up a permitting system for residents. There’s no grace period, which means FFL gun sales would simply stop until purchase permits could be issued, potentially putting gun shops out of business and preventing state residents from exercising their 2A rights.
For more information visit Stop114.com and/or FreeRangeAmerican.us.
You can also contact the NRA to get involved:
Contact Rick Coufal at nra.oregon [at] gmail.com
Contact Jesse Greening at Jesse [at] nrailafrontlines.com
Share the post "Oregonians — Vote Against Oppressive Ballot Measure 114"
Canada’s nationwide handgun freeze went into effect last week. Under this repressive rule from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party, nearly all handgun sales and transfers are banned (except to certain “exempted individuals”). Likewise handgun imports are banned. Essentially it is an authoritarian attack on freedom approved by Trudeau’s ruling Liberal Party. This freeze on handgun sales and transfer was initially announced in May 2022, and went into effect last week.
On Friday, October 21, 2022, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in a public speech:
“Today, our national freeze on handguns is coming into force. From today forward, it is no longer legal to buy, sell, or transfer a handgun in Canada.”
In a social media post Trudeau added: “People can no longer buy, sell, or transfer handguns within Canada — and they cannot bring newly-acquired handguns into the country.”
This handgun freeze comes after Trudeau imposed radical restrictions on long rifle sales. Trudeau bragged about his previous authoritarian actions restricting long guns: “We’ve already banned more that 1,500 types of assault-style firearms. And we’ll continue to do whatever it takes to keep guns out of our communities.”
Canadian Firearms Rights Groups Oppose Handgun Freeze
Groups which support gun rights in Canada oppose Trudeau’s handgun freeze. Opponents of the freeze argue that it won’t achieve its stated goals, even while the policy violates the rights of law-abiding Canadian citizens. And by making it impossible to sell legally-acquired handguns, the freeze effectively ruins the commercial value of those guns, essentially stealing money from handgun owners.
As quoted by the CBC.ca website, Tracey Wilson of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR) said the firearms freeze was approved as a “distraction to a scandal-ridden government” and it will not really reduce crime. Wilson added: “The CCFR condemns the actions of the Liberal government today. This perfectly timed move by Trudeau, to implement the handgun ‘freeze’ on 650,000 licensed, RCMP-vetted gun owners, serves no purpose other than to energize [the Liberal] base.” SEE CBC.ca article.
The CCFR argues that the freeze is not needed because there are already significant handgun rules and regulations in effect. Under current Canadian laws, handguns are classified as “restricted” firearms, which can only be used at RCMP-approved shooting ranges. Only licensed owners who have passed a course that covers the safe handling, transportation and storage of restricted firearms can legally possess a handgun.
Given the existing restrictions on handgun use in Canada, there is no need for a freeze on all handgun sales and transfers. That freeze is nothing but an authoritarian move by a power-hungry prime minister supported by compliant Liberal Party members in Parliament.
Share the post "Trudeau Tyranny — Canada Freezes Handgun Sales and Transfers"
Would you like gun and outdoor industry companies to learn what products you favor, or what types of hunting you prefer. Then you may want to take a 
On Friday, October 21, 2022, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in a public speech:
