Eurooptic vortex burris nightforce sale




teslong borescope digital camera barrel monitor


As an Amazon Associate, this site earns a commission from Amazon sales.









July 11th, 2023

Gun Sellers Harmed by Biden Administration and ATF Actions

joe biden BATFE ATF gun dealer FFL closure harassment executive order

“Since the beginning of the Biden administration, the number of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) has gone down by [over] 1,600.” — America’s 1st Freedom

The Biden Administration, acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is aggressively working to shut down gun stores and FFL businesses throughout the country. According to the NRA America’s 1st Freedom site, some 1619 FFLs have gone out of business since 2020 when Joe Biden took office. That is a major change, reflecting extremely hostile and aggressive policies now being pushed by the anti-gun Biden administration.

“The Biden administration said that they would use the ATF as a bludgeon against the industry, and that’s in fact what they are trying to do. They are turning the agency that is charged with regulating the firearm industry — the manufacturers, the distributors, the retailers — and using the levers of that regulatory agency as a means to shut down and deny people their Second Amendment rights.” – Mark Oliva, NSSF Director for Public Affairs

biden BATFE ATF gun dealer FFLWe recommend our readers consult a recent, detailed article on Americas1stFreedom.org that explains the ATF’s aggressive campaigns against gun dealers and small-business FFLs. That article explains how the aggressive Biden policies have resulted in a huge number of gun shops and FFLs shutting down: “What’s the result of Biden’s constant drumbeat of propaganda and executive actions against America’s firearms retailers? According to ATF figures, as of April 2023, there were 1,619 fewer licensed firearms dealers than there were when Biden took office in January 2021.”

Additionally, ATF records indicate licensee revocations jumped sharply after Biden’s directives to the ATF: “In January 2022, out of 470 FLL audits performed, there were only three license revocations. A year later, there were 678 (44% more) inspections and 17 revocations — six times the number of revocations from the previous January.”

“What [Biden’s] latest Executive Order actually did was direct various federal agencies to make life as difficult as possible for firearms dealers, as Biden knows that making it more difficult for retailers to sell guns makes it more difficult for law-abiding Americans … to buy them.” — America’s 1st Freedom

ATF Biden Democrats FFL closures license revocations

Along with the aggressive actions of the ATF, President Biden wants to ban certain types of firearms through Executive Order. This is rule by fiat, without Legislative approval, which is not what the Constitution intended. Laws are to be made by Congress, not by a dictator.

Permalink - Articles, - Videos, News No Comments »
April 28th, 2023

Washington State Bans Modern Sporting Rifles — Lawsuits Filed

washington state jay inslee assault ban semi-auto AR15 modern sporting rifles legislation second amendment violation

The Governor of Washington state, Jay Inslee, recently signed radical new legislation, House Bill 1240, that outlaws AR-platform rifles and other semi-auto, mag-fed “modern sporting rifles” (MSRs). This new WA state law, which goes into effect immediately as an “emergency” measure, will be fought in Federal Court. Two lawsuits have been filed, both seeking to strike down HB 1240 as unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Washington, challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted HB 1240, which bans the manufacture, sale, import, and distribution of many semi-automatic firearms. The lawsuit, named Hartford v. Ferguson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

In addition, NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) filed a lawsuit, Banta et al v. Ferguson, against Washington’s Attorney General Robert Ferguson and John Batiste, Chief of Washington State Patrol, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from state authorities enforcing HB 1240, which bans modern sporting rifles. The lead plaintiff is Amanda Banta, a 2012 Team USA Olympian and 10-year member of the U.S. Rifle Team and resident of Spokane, Washington.

GunsAmerica Digest reports: “HB 1240 is part of a broader gun reform package signed into law that includes a 10-day waiting period, mandatory firearms training for prospective gun buyers, and a new legal pathway for the Attorney General and family members of shooting victims to sue gun makers who market their products to prohibited persons. These additional provisions take effect this summer. HB 1240 has exemptions for law enforcement and members of the military. Existing owners of black rifles are also grandfathered in — at least for now.”

NSSF challenges Washington’s MSR ban, arguing that it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment protects the rights to keep and bear arms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation today, more than there are Ford F-150s on America’s roads.

HB 1240 is very harsh. According to GunsAmerica Digest: “HB 1240 only allows 90 days for firearm dealers and manufacturers to sell or transfer their existing stock out of the state. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that violations will be considered a misdemeanor offense, which could result in a maximum penalty of 364 days in jail and a fine of $5,000.”

“NSSF will not stand idly by as politicians cleave away fundamental Constitutional rights from Americans,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior V.P. and General Counsel. “The right to keep and bear arms that are commonly owned belongs to law-abiding citizens. Politicians in Washington exceed their authority when they usurp those rights to mollify radical special-interest groups. These politicians violate their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and the rights of the citizens they represent.”

SAF claims the new law — which took effect immediately — infringes on Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights and is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions from the court.

SAF founder and Executive V.P. Alan M. Gottlieb criticized the state for putting politics above constitutional rights: “[Washington] has criminalized a common and important means of self-defense, the modern semiautomatic rifle. The state has put politics ahead of constitutional rights, and is penalizing law-abiding citizens while this legislation does nothing to arrest and prosecute criminals[.]”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut called out the authors and supporters of the legislation: “As we note in our complaint, the firearms that Washington bans as ‘assault weapons’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic rifles. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic rifles, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use.”

Permalink - Videos, News, Tactical No Comments »
June 28th, 2017

Warning to Californians — Magazine Ban Takes Effect July 1st

California gun law magazine ban Prop 63

BREAKING NEWS (6:13 pm, 6/29/17) — Federal Court grants Preliminary Injunction. Attorneys for the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), supported by the NRA, obtained an injunction in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, a federal lawsuit[.] The injunction prevents California from enforcing new laws prohibiting possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, while the case is pending. The ban was set to take effect on July 1, 2017. In granting the injunction, Judge Benitez held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in this lawsuit because “public safety interest may not eviscerate the Second Amendment”. The Order Granting Preliminary Injunction preserves the “status quo” while the constitutionality of the law is decided by the Court.

Here is a very important notice for our readers in California. As of July 1, 2017 it will be illegal to own ANY firearm magazine that holds more than 10 cartridges or rounds. It does not matter if the “full-capacity” magazines were acquired legally. There is NO Grandfather provision. Mere possession will become illegal. Counting today, June 28th, you have just three (3) more days to destroy your 10+ round magazines, render them permanently inoperable, sell them to a licensed dealer, surrender them to a law enforcement agency, or ship them out of California.

The July 1st magazine ban is the result of a patchwork of new laws passed by the California Legislature as well as Proposition 63, a deceptively-promoted initiative approved by voters last November. There are lawsuits currently challenging the magazine ban. It is possible that a temporary injunction halting the effect of the magazine ban might be ordered by a court in the “eleventh hour”. But don’t count on it — in a related case, a federal judge in Sacramento recently denied an injunction. Bottom line: if you reside in California and own/possess ANY mags that hold more than ten rounds, you need to find a solution… and find it fast.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of Californians who currently own magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The effect of the new laws will turn these law-abiding citizens into criminals. The Sacramento Bee newspaper explains:

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.

The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?

Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

In conservative, pro-gun Redding this week, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko joked that gun owners were lining the block to hand their magazines in to the sheriff’s office (In reality, no one has turned one in). He said his deputies won’t be aggressively hunting for large-capacity magazines starting next month.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

Incrementalism — How Freedom Is Lost
It has been illegal to purchase magazines with 10+ capacity for quite some time in California. However, it remained completely legal to possess and use such magazines which were lawfully obtained before the magazine-capacity limits were imposed in the year 2000: “California banned the sale of high-capacity detachable magazines in 2000, but it remained legal to possess them, except in cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and Sunnyvale that enacted local bans. That changed this fall when voters and lawmakers passed overlapping gun laws that require Californians, with limited exceptions, to give up any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds.” Source: Sacramento Bee.

Is the Mag Ban an Unconstitutional “Taking”?
Because the new magazine laws provide no compensation to mag owners for what is effectively the confiscation of their property, it can be argued that California’s magazine ban is an unconstitutional “taking” depriving citizens of their property without due process. This is one of the arguments that is being used in court by the NRA and other gun rights organizations challenging the controversial magazine ban which goes into effect July 1, 2017.

Permalink Handguns, News 6 Comments »