How to Improve Your Muzzleloader’s Accuracy

 

Via Field&Stream
(be sure to read the linked article on firelapping at bottom of post-and RTWT)
Follow these tips to eke out optimum ­accuracy from your in-line muzzleloader.

1. Fire It Smooth

The barrel is the most important component of a tack-driving smokepole. Any imperfections in the bore will hurt accuracy. So get a fire-lapping kit for muzzleloaders ($50; ­bear tooth ­bullets.com) and shoot 15 to 20 of the provided soft-lead bullets as directed. These have various grit compounds that will polish smooth any defects.

2. Mount It Right

Once you’ve perfected the barrel, do the same with your scope rings, using a kit like the Wheeler Engineering Scope Ring Alignment and Lapping Kit ($45–$62; midwayusa.com). This will take off any residual manufacturing marks that could allow the scope to shift after a shot. Most kits provide leveling bars that will ensure the scope runs perfectly parallel to the bore.

3. Get Loose

Granulated powders can be measured and fine-tuned more precisely than preformed pellets, yielding better shot-to-shot consistency. “Like a hand­loader developing recipes, a muzzle­loader shooter can adjust a loose-powder charge to perfectly match a specific bullet-and-gun combination,” says Chris Hodgdon of Hodgdon Powders (hodgdon.com).

4. Find Your Bullet

Pick a few bullets from the top manufacturers, like Barnes, Hornady, Power­Belt, and Thompson/Center, in a variety of weights for the game you’re after. For whitetails, stay in the 250- to 300-grain zone. Shoot each combination of brand, weight, and powder until you hit your smallest groups. Be systematic and clean the barrel after each shot. You may just squeeze MOA accuracy out of that smokepole yet.
***Related very long,but very imp0rtant article on firelapping muzzleloaders to greatly improve accuracy,and greatly lessen barrel fouling.***
Be sure to RTWT…
firelapping muzzleloaders
Firelapping can improve accuracy by as much as 50%,so it’s well worth the time and minimal investment.
Pay close attention to the process-and take note-you have to use real black powder-no Pyrodex,no Triple7, and no pellets-good old Goex blackpowder must be used-or whatever other brand you prefer.
The reason is the way black powder burns vs Pyrodex,etc. The Pyrodex,etc. does not reach full pressure until the bullet is well on it’s way down the barrel,so a good part of your barrel will not be lapped unless you use real black powder.
I’m going to firelap my sidelock and my inline in the next month or so,I’ll post before and after targets from 50,75,and 100 yds.
My brother in law firelapped his old CVA sidelock muzzeloader,and went from 6-8 inch groups at 100 yds to 3-4 inch groups at 100 yds. He’s also used the process on a couple centerfire bolt actions-a .243 and a .308 and got even better results.
He’s 100% sold on the process,and he’s a gunsmith,certified armorer,etc,etc.
They also have no kids-so he’s got way more time and $$$ to spend on shooting/firearms.
Read more.
Learn more.
Train more.
Do more PT.
You don’t have enough ammo.

Pro-Clinton College Professor: Repeal Second Amendment

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- At a time when it’s more important than ever to maintain the right of the American people to keep and bear arms for self-defense, law professor David S. Cohen is calling for repeal of the Second Amendment.
“Americans’ rights are in mortal danger,” he says, unless Hillary Clinton is elected president and stacks the Supreme Court with progressive judges.
In the repeatedly discredited rag, Rolling Stone, Cohen writes, “sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. . . . The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.”
By “outdated,” Cohen means that the Framers of the Bill of Rights were unable to conceive of 19^th century semi-automatic firearm technology. “When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle (sic),” he said.
However, as the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
And in any case, there is nothing outdated about the underlying principle of the Second Amendment: to prohibit the government from interfering with the ability of people to acquire, possess and develop proficiency with arms they might one day need to defend themselves and their loved ones.
Cohen’s rant is just one example of an astonishing amount of sheer nonsense that has filled the Internet since the terrorist attack in Orlando. Anti-gun politicians, and so-called opinion columnists and TV talking heads – who pretend to be “experts” on every topic under the sun, but who in reality know virtually nothing about even one topic – are confidently calling the AR-15 an “automatic” weapon, a “military” weapon,” and a “weapon of war,” and telling everyone that the most popular rifle in America should be banned.
Of course, the First Amendment protects the right of pundits to demonstrate that the size of their egos are only matched by the depth of their ignorance on firearms and the Second Amendment. And so it should be.
If history repeats itself, the recent slew of half-baked, culture-war-based, ideologically-motivated, attention-seeking statements against guns will only increase support for the right to arms, and additional support may develop as people increasingly realize that President Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are urging gun bans, are the very politicians most responsible for the rise of overseas terrorist groups who inspire and possibly direct evildoers within our midst.
All the more reason for the American people to protect their right to protect themselves.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/06/pro-clinton-college-professor-repeal-second-amendment/#ixzz4CE2dKo8M
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Another Cook County attack on gun rights

 Via Chicago Sun-Times

A letter to the editor...

  The Cook County Board has a proposed ordinance before it which will attempt to restrict the 2^nd Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens in Cook County. The ordinance calls for the “prohibitions on the sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.”

This means Cook County residents would not be able to purchase and own a firearm without first acquiring firearm liability insurance.

The sponsor and others would like to compare firearm liability insurance to having car insurance, which is like comparing apples to oranges. A right granted by the 2^nd Amendment allows United States citizens to possess and own a firearm. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege granted by state law, not a right covered under the United States Constitution.

The intention of the ordinance’s sponsor is to have a major impact on gun violence. An admirable thought, however you must ask how will this ordinance have any impact on gun-wielding criminals? The truthful answer is it won’t. It’s a false notion to think that violent criminals who are already breaking the law will stop and contemplate the purchase of firearm liability insurance before committing their next crime. Moreover, nearly all insurance policy coverage excludes criminal acts from their coverage obligation.

If this ordinance were passed, litigation would certainly follow in opposition to its constitutionality, which would mean a long and costly legal defense for Cook County taxpayers. There is a reason why this type of legislation has failed nearly everywhere it has been introduced across the country.

This ordinance would not address violent criminal behavior, but would instead restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. I believe this is an unconstitutional overreach by government which I strongly oppose.

We need to focus our efforts on preventative measures that are truly substantive in nature and that will deter individuals away from crime. We can do so by beginning to promote strong family structure, by supporting the concept of community members turning in known criminals and through increasing educational and employment opportunities. Preventing criminal behavior must be the driving force to addressing violent crime, rather than ineffective legislation placed upon the citizen taxpayer without regard to consequence.

Sean M. Morrison
Cook County Commissioner
17^th District

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell the Truth About 'Gun Violence' Numbers

One would get the impression listening to gun control advocates or, indeed, to President Obama and those Democrats vying to succeed him that the United States is in the midst of an epidemic of violence; awash in blood with murderers and mass killers roaming the streets carrying guns they've bought at gun shows, over the Internet or from crazed neighbors. In fact, many Americans share this view. A recent Pew poll asked respondents if they believe the U.S. homicide rate has gone up or down over the last twenty years. Fifty-six percent of those polled said it has gone up and only twelve percent believed we are safer today than two decades ago.
The perception here and abroad has little to do with reality and a lot to do with political grandstanding. In fact, over the last twenty years or so the U.S. homicide rate has not just receded, but has been cut in half. The United States does indeed have a higher homicide rate than some industrialized nations in Europe and Japan, but is very, very different in size and complexity to those nations usually cited by those who wish to blame guns for the differences.

Here is one simple fact for those who blame firearms ownership and availability in this country for the murder and violent crime rate that plagues some of our major cities: while crime and violence were being cut in half, gun ownership was doubling.
It is too simple to claim that there is less violence in the United States today because more of our citizens are armed, but it is clear that there is no correlation between the number of guns in private hands with either the murder or violent crime rates as claimed by most gun control advocates.
The president likes to talk about ‘gun violence’ which is something that includes firearms accidents, suicides and those killed with guns. There are statistically very few firearms accidents in this country thanks to safety training and common sense. Two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides and while some claim that making it more difficult for potential suicides to get guns would decrease the total number of suicides, international data suggest otherwise. That leaves two additional categories although former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's groups lump those killed by police and even the death of the Boston Marathon Bomber as a firearms homicide. They are criminal gun violence and so-called mass shootings.
Criminals using firearms are the biggest problem, but it is a problem we as a society know how to handle. If a thug walks into a convenience store with a gun and robs it, he has committed both a state and federal crime. Robbery is a state crime, but committing a felony with a firearm is a federal crime and prosecutable as such with a five year minimum sentence. A felon in possession of a gun is also prosecutable and can get five to ten years for having one in his possession.

Back in the nineties, the NRA partnered with law enforcement officials and prosecutors in Richmond, Virginia, which was at that time listed as America's murder capital. The message was simple. Use a gun to commit a crime and you will get five years in a federal penitentiary with no possibility of a plea bargain. The murder rate dropped 32 percent the first year and another 20 percent the next, but the U.S. attorney who participated in what came to be known as “Project Exile” was criticized by Eric Holder, then Deputy Attorney General, for wasting prosecutorial resources.
Today felons or criminals using firearms are rarely prosecuted by the federal government. In fact, today's U.S. murder capital is Chicago, the jurisdiction with the lowest rate of such prosecutions. Before President Obama issued his recent series of “Executive Orders” on gun violence, it was suggested that they would include instructions to U.S. prosecutors to begin charging gun criminals under existing law. That idea was dropped in favor of actions that don't target criminals, but will make it harder for non-criminals to buy firearms.
The final category involves mass shootings such as the killing at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and the Washington Navy Yard. These tragedies rarely if ever involve criminals. They are invariably perpetrated by the severely and dangerously mentally ill. This category of violence is the most difficult to deter or prevent, but beefed up school security, getting the states to put the most potentially dangerous into the background check system and rebuilding the U.S. mental health system are the keys to dealing with them.
The American people are lucky in that the nation's founders wrote the age old right of self defense into our Bill of Rights. Many nations don't recognize such a right, but Americans do. It is estimated, in fact, that as many as 200,000 crimes are deterred in a typical year by armed potential victims. It's why in every jurisdiction that has legalized what we call ‘concealed carry’ has seen a drop in violent crime. Burglars don't break into a house with a Rottweiler in the yard and are reluctant to use violence against a man or woman who just might be able to fight back.
source

Stand Your Ground: Science and Science Fiction

 

Andrew Branca, the author of the “Law of Self Defense,” recently reviewed a study on racial bias and Florida’s Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws published in the Elsevier Social Science & Medicine. The study, “Race, law, and health: Examination of ‘Stand Your Ground’ (SYG) and defendant convictions in Florida” (Social Science & Medicine, Volume 142, October 2015, pages 194-201; pay-walled) makes troubling claims about racial bias and convictions.
The study’s authors conclude that a defendant was two times more likely to be convicted in a case that involved a white victim than a non-white victim; that the race of the victim was “a predictor of conviction of the defendant,” and that Florida’s SYG legislation “has a quantifiable racial bias.” The study’s abstract exhorts other states with SYG laws “to carry out similar analyses to see if their manifestations are the same as those in Florida, and all should remediate any injustices found.”
Are these “manifestations” of racial bias a matter of settled science? Does this study really provide evidence of unequal treatment under the law? Pulling back the curtain, Mr. Branca examined the underlying data used – a listing of cases compiled by the Tampa Bay Times, a Florida newspaper, “supplemented with available online court documents and/or news reports.” The study itself was based on a subset of 204 cases out of the newspaper’s entire dataset of 237. After a close analysis of every one of the 237 cases, Mr. Branca found that 181 (over 76 percent) did not qualify as SYG cases at all, based on the legal definition of the term. It follows that even if all of the 56 remaining cases were included in the study’s subset of 204, the vast majority of the subset (148 cases, over 70 percent) were not actually SYG cases. Accordingly, research conclusions drawn from the 204 cases as if they were all SYG cases arguably lack factual integrity and scientific reliability.
In response to these observations, the authors advised that they opted to use a definition of SYG – a legal concept – “as it has been used in the media around highly publicized cases (e.g., Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman) and not the legal definition” provided by Mr. Branca. Instead of evaluating SYG cases using the relevant definition applied by the Florida courts in determining guilt and convictions, the study employed a “definition” of cases “related to SYG” because, presumably, that’s how the newspaper staff decided to structure the original dataset. It’s helpful at this point to include a quote from Mr. Branca:
Surely it must be self-evident that whatever the impact of SYG on conviction rates, it can only be the “legal definition” as actually applied by the criminal justice system that could possibly have an effect, and that the “media definition” that is not applied by the criminal justice system (because it is not law) cannot have had any effect on conviction rates.
(His full response is expected to be published as a dissenting commentary regarding the study in a future issue of the Social Science & Medicine publication.)
Alleging a racial bias in the administration of justice is a grave charge and deserves a thoughtful, scrupulous and responsible analysis – particularly if the results are being used to justify efforts to “remediate any injustices” found to exist. We can hope for more objective analysis in the future.
© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

New York: Legislators Propose Outrageous Ammunition Restriction Legislation

Via NRA-ILA

 

Two New York legislators have announced that they are introducing legislation in 2016 that would severely limit ammunition purchases.  State Senator Roxanne Persaud (D-19) and Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon (D-52) want to pass a law that would limit ammo purchases to twice the capacity of the firearm during a 90-day period (3 months)!  
Undeterred by the failed SAFE Act, anti-gun lawmakers in Albany seem determined to pursue the same failed policies and will not stop until the Second Amendment is completely dismantled.  The SAFE Act has done nothing to lower crime in New York and has turned law-abiding citizens into criminals.  The SAFE Act had its own ammunition restrictions and required ammunition background checks which were suspended after Governor Cuomo embarrassingly realized that such a system was impractical.  In addition, the last attempt to regulate how many rounds a person could load into a gun was overturned by a Federal District Court in New York and ruled unconstitutional.  Persaud and Simon are justifying this bill by pointing to terrorism, as if terrorists are going to voluntarily ration ammunition.  There are so many problems with this legislation that it would be impossible to highlight them all herein.  Again, for the sake of New York citizens, we would hope legislators start focusing on the serious issues facing the state and stop introducing these embarrassing ideas.
It’s readily evident that the two lawmakers know next to nothing about the subject of firearms and ammunition.  Manufacturers don’t even package ammunition with such a random number of cartridges in many cases.  This is one of the most absurd bills being introduced in the entire country.  However, because anti-gun legislators in New York have a history of defying logic, we will treat this legislation as another serious attempt to infringe on your constitutional right to self-defense. 

Gunsite Scout Rifle, Pt. 2

by David E. Petzal

 


The Scout can’t accommodate a conventionally mounted scope and its rear ghost ring at the same time, because the ghost-ring sight screws into the receiver where the rear scope ring sits. This means you have to find somewhere to keep the sight and its mounting screw. I put them someplace where I would never lose them and then could not find them despite months of looking.
When I finally admitted that they were lost I discovered that Brownell’s, which carries everything, does not carry Scout Ghost Rings, and that the manufacturer, XS Sight Systems, doesn’t either. So I swallowed my pride and called Ruger.
If you’d like to use a rear-mounted scope and keep the ghost ring in place, XS makes the Gunsite Scout Rifle Rail, which extends from midway up the barrel to the rear of the receiver, and includes a permanent ghost ring, which can peaceably coexist with a rear-mounted scope. You remove the factory Picatinny rail and install the XS in its place. It’s $90, and, from the comments on the Internet, works perfectly. (xssights.com. You can also get it from Midway. Do I really have to give you Midway’s URL?)
Magazines. The Scout originally came with blued-steel magazines, but these seem to have fallen by the wayside, as they were expensive and would rust on you if you neglected them. They’ve been replaced by glass-filled nylon magazines that are much tougher, much less expensive, and which require no maintenance. These mags come in 3-, 5-, and 10-round versions. For hunting, the 3-round is the best, because it’s legal everywhere and fits almost flush with the bottom of the stock, letting you carry the rifle at the receiver like a Model 94. Five is nice, but what for I’m not quite certain, and 10 is the way to go if you’re tactical. The polymer magazines, by the way, come with a cap, which is a very good idea because it protects the most damage-prone part of the box.
Triggers. Having been the recipient of its share of idiot lawsuits, Ruger solemnly enjoins us not to replace any of its parts with anything not made by them, so be advised, but I have a Timney trigger in my Scout, installed by a gunsmith, and it’s a very worthwhile alteration. If you’re not fussy about triggers, you can get by fine with the factory version. If you are fussy, spend the $125 plus whatever the gunsmith charges.
(My favorite Ruger lawsuit story concerns a woman who caught her husband slippin’ round, as they used to say in the South, and maybe still do, confronted him with a loaded, cocked, single-action Ruger revolver, laid the muzzle against his chest, and proceeded to tell him the Way it Was. Unfortunately, the handgun went off in mid-speech with fatal results. And who did she sue? Sturm, Ruger. This story was told to me by someone who testified at the trial, and I believe I have the details correct, but I can’t swear to them.)
To be continued.

More on the Scout Rifle, Pt. 1

 

 by David E. Petzal
Although the late (and much missed) Jeff Cooper was primarily a handgunner, he devoted a good deal of thought, experimentation, and writing to the development of an all-around rifle which he called the Scout. Not because it was trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, but because it was highly portable, handy to use under all conditions, accurate to 300 yards and a bit, powerful enough for anything short of dangerous game, and light kicking. He envisioned it as something that a highly mobile Marine or soldier would carry if he had to move a lot, and quickly.
The first company to produce a Scout was Steyr. Their rifle debuted in 1998 and was an odd-looking duck with a synthetic stock and a hefty price tag. I got to shoot one. It was very, very accurate, and more or less everything Lt. Colonel Cooper claimed it was.
By the time he went to that great range where the wind never blows and there is no mirage, the Scout concept was well established. But it was Ruger that really picked up the Scout and ran with it. In 2011 they introduced a version that was developed in conjunction with Gunsite Academy, which Cooper founded.
That Scout took off. It’s essentially a .308 carbine, but with bells and whistles, mostly of a tactical nature. There are now ten variations on it, including left-hand, .223 (which would have given Jeff Cooper a seizure), stainless, synthetic-stocked, flash hider or recoil suppressor, two barrel lengths, and steel or synthetic magazines of 3-, 5-, or 10-round capacity.
What follows are some random observations on the rifle, based on mine, which is one of the early versions, a blue-steel, .308, southpaw gun. Ruger is now advertising the Scout as the one rifle that will do it all, and they are pretty much correct. The .308 is one of the most highly developed and popular cartridges around. There’s a literally endless variety of ammo available for it, and components if you’re a handloader. So:
While the Scout’s short barrels (16.10 and 18.70 inches) are a big convenience in many ways, they cause you to lose velocity. In my rifle, which has the 16.10, I see speeds in the 2,450 fps range with 150- and 165-grain bullets. The real-world velocity of a 150-grain .308 slug in a 24-inch barrel is 2,700 fps, and if you chop 8 inches off the barrel you’ll lose about 25 fps, per inch, or 200 fps.
If this concerns you greatly, you can get a Scout with an 18.7 inch barrel, which will put some speed back, or you can handload. I’m able to get 2,700 fps out of 150-grain Barnes X-Bullets via handloading, and there are no pressure signs at all.
The Scout is a very mild kicker, and I don’t see why people would want a recoil reducer. Maybe it has something to do with the Millennial Generation, which also feels the need for Safe Space, whatever that is. In any event, I much prefer the flash suppressor. In case you feel the urge to remove it and replace it with a cap, don’t. Because of the short barrels, you are bound to get considerable muzzle flash, and even if you’re not using the rifle tactically, that doesn’t help your shooting. Ruger’s flash suppressor works; leave it alone.

Read the rest @ Field & Stream here

Virginia Democrats conspired against gun store, emails show

Democratic elected officials in Northern Virginia worked together to engineer a campaign against a Fairfax County firearms store in a bid to politicize gun violence and drum up support for a Democrat in an election Tuesday, an exchange of emails shows.
JB Gates, owner of Nova Firearms, opened a shop in McLean after protesters thwarted his expansion efforts in Arlington County by pressuring his landlord into breaking his lease.
 Delegate Kathleen Murphy, McLean Democrat, wrote an email to state Sen. Barbara Favola, Arlington Democrat, seeking help in shutting down the gun store. Ms. Favola was instrumental in organizing opposition to Mr. Gates’ shop in Arlington.

“Basically, we convinced the land owner that his business tenants would lose business,” Ms. Favola told Ms. Murphy in a reply. “In other words, moving a gun shop to a small cluster of shops in the middle of a neighborhood was bad for business.
“The argument has to be about supporting small businesses,” Ms. Favola wrote in her email. “The ‘we’ versus ‘they’ argument is winnable with the NRA.”
Ms. Murphy forwarded that email Sept. 25 to other Democrats in her district, including Fairfax County Supervisor John Foust, who is up for re-election Tuesday, saying, “Lets do it.”

Bearing Drift, a gun rights blog, obtained the officials’ emails via a Freedom of Information Act request and made them available to The Washington Times.
Ms. Murphy and Ms. Favola did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the emails. Mr. Foust declined to comment on the messages.
On Sept. 26, when Mr. Gates held the grand opening of his McLean gun shop, protesters picketed outside.
That same day, an online petition was created to thank the protesters and demand a boycott of the McLean Service Center, Mr. Gates’ new landlord.
Online forums on the Fairfax Underground public message board posted the landlord’s personal cellphone and home address and encouraged protesters to demand he break his lease with Mr. Gates.
“We’re not leaving, and our new landlords are backing us 100 percent,” Mr. Gates told The Times. “Our customers who live in the area have asked us not to back down and stay, and a lot of our customers are from McLean.
“They protested us the day we opened, had about 115 people there. But, to be honest, that helped us more than it hurt us,” he said. “[The protesters] put us on the map. I have people statewide, in Maryland, Pennsylvania, D.C., all the way down to Florida, saying they saw us on the news and want to support us. Business is good.”
Still, Mr. Gates is perturbed by the politicizing of the issue. His shop is less than two blocks from his previous location but is closer to a school, which Democrats have cited in efforts to pique voter turnout Tuesday.
Mr. Foust issued campaign handbills saying his Republican opponent, Jennifer Chronis, is “wrong on guns” and defends Mr. Gates’ shop.
“There have been 47 school shootings this year alone,” the Foust handbill reads. “Don’t let Jennifer Chronis become Supervisor. Because it’s not right to sell guns next to a school.”
However, Virginia county supervisors have no jurisdiction over gun stores that are established in accordance with national and state laws.
Mr. Foust acknowledged as much to his Democratic comrades, noting in an email that “State law pretty much prohibits the county from regulating guns.” He attached a verbatim copy of the law.
“They’re turning my store, my livelihood, into a political debate,” Mr. Gates said. “You have this guy running for supervisor, saying without a doubt he’s going to shut us down and equating our gun shop with the reason there’s gun violence. For one thing, he can’t shut us down because we operate within Virginia state and federal laws.
“It’s just insensitive and unwise. He is using it for political gain,” Mr. Gates said.
Mr. Foust sees things differently.
“Chronis remained silent while I and other McLean area elected officials were publicly condemning the gun store owner’s decision to locate next to an elementary school,” Mr. Foust said in an email to The Times. “It appears that the pro-gun shop people were and are supporting her.”
He cited a Nova Firearms Facebook post Oct. 6 — long after the store’s grand opening and subsequent protest — that displayed Ms. Chronis’ campaign banner and said, “Make the Second Amendment an Issue in the Local Election. By now you’ve learned about the efforts of NOVA Firearms, and the threats they’ve received from their local county Supervisor.”
Mr. Foust emailed The Times a screen shot of the post, which has since been taken down.
Mr. Gates blamed Mr. Foust for publicly agitating the issue of his store’s closure and helping to organize the protest, but he said Ms. Chronis has remained largely silent on the issue.
Ms. Chronis did make a statement at the McLean Citizens Association debate in October

“I know John [Foust] has already addressed that there are very few things really that can be done at the county level, other than addressing potentially some zoning changes,” she said at the forum, according to a transcript posted on her campaign website. “So here’s where I disagree with the way that my opponent has handled the situation. I believe it is the role of elected officials to do something about solving the problem, to de-escalate the situation and work with both parties to come to resolution.
“It is not the role of our elected leaders to publicly insult law-abiding business owners, and in my opinion, to fan the flames of an issue and only make worse the fears of the parents for political gain,” Ms. Chronis said.
Mr. Gates said Mr. Foust has yet to sit down with him to discuss the issue.

 source

Washington: Seattle City Council Unanimously Passes Anti-Gun Ordinances

More

On Monday, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed two anti-gun ordinances.  As previously reported, these ordinances disregard Washington’s preemption law and victimize law-abiding gun owners and licensed firearm dealers.
The first ordinance seeks to levy reparations from those who lawfully engage in the expression of their Second Amendment rights by imposing a tax on each firearm and round of ammunition that is legally sold in Seattle.  The proposal would take the paid taxes and use it to pay for crimes committed by others.  Such an ordinance would simply force the law-abiding to pay for the actions of criminals.
The second ordinance would mandate that gun owners who have become the victim of a burglary or other such theft report that a firearm has become lost or stolen within 24 hours.  Notwithstanding the unreasonable requirement for individuals to have an immediate inventory of all items that are lost during such a traumatic event, this ordinance would further punish victims of these occurrences by fining them upwards of $500.
Your NRA-ILA is currently exploring legal options to combat these anti-gun ordinances.  Please stay tuned to your inbox and www.NRAILA.org for more updates on this and other Second Amendment issues in Washington

Were Guns "Much More" Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s?

[Recently], Time magazine published a piece that pushes the narrative that today's firearms laws are permissive in comparison to those of the early 20th century. Titled, "Guns Were Much More Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s than They Are Today," the piece contends that "Those who look to America's past to extol a time when nothing stood between an American and a gun need to look again." The obvious goal of the work is to convince the uninformed that any notions they might have about America's long-standing culture of gun ownership should pose no barrier to future restrictions, particularly on the ownership of semi-automatic firearms.
The piece was written by long-time anti-gun author and SUNY Cortland Political Science Professor Robert J. Spitzer. Since the 1990s, Spitzer has been writing columns and books advocating for gun control; often focusing on semi-automatic firearms. In these pieces Spitzer pushed - now mostly recognized as silly – misconceptions about popular semi-autos, such as "The lighter weight, compact design, and pistol grips give the ability to 'spray fire' - often from the hip," and, "Their concealability adds to their criminal appeal."
Further, Spitzer advocated for the - now thoroughly rejected - notion that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms. In his 1995 book, The Politics of Gun Control, Spitzer claimed, "The desire to treat the Second Amendment as a constitutional touchstone by gun control opponents is understandable… Such claims are, however, without historical, constitutional, or legal foundation."
However, the thesis laid out in the column's title only works if one completely ignores the federal government's entrance into the field of firearms control, and subsequent restrictions on firearms enacted in several states. In the 1920s and 1930s, Americans purchasing firearms could simply order rifles or shotguns by mail right to their front door. The Gun Control Act of 1968 brought about much of the modern federal gun control regime, including federal prohibitions certain categories of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, importation restrictions, and the licensing and regulation of firearms dealers. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993, which requires background checks on those purchasing a firearm from a dealer. In the 1990s and 2000s, several states restricted access to semi-automatic firearms, and some states have continually expanded their categories of prohibited persons. A quick glance at two of BATFE's publications, the "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide," and "State Laws and Published Ordinances," makes it abundantly clear that 2015 America isn't some sort of unfettered gun rights utopia in comparison to the early 20th century.
Perhaps most bizarre about Spitzer and his work is that even after decades of advocating for gun restrictions, the professor still appears to know little of the firearms he seeks to ban, botching terminology at every turn. In his latest piece, Spitzer notes that modern hunters are likely to use something he describes as a "semi-automatic long barrel gun." Later, he claims that in the early 20th century states had little patience for "semi-automatic firing married to the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading." Anyone with a cursory knowledge of firearms would know that the latter characteristic is a prerequisite of the former. Further on, Spitzer uses the term "large capacity bullet magazines."
Over the years Spitzer has been wrong on the history of gun control, wrong on the Second Amendment, and displayed a severe lack of basic firearms knowledge. Unfortunately, when it comes to an anti-gun periodical like Time, the ability to further the publication's political agenda, rather than accuracy, appears to be the chief requirement for publication.
© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Make No Mistake: “The Trace” is No Impartial News Organization

Editor's Note: TheTrace.org recently contacted Buckeye Firearms Association about the closing of the media access loophole. The resulting article, entitled "Another State Just Made It Impossible for Reporters to Access Concealed Carry Records," is posted here.
Readers Beware.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently revealed a new tactic in his ongoing campaign to impose his anti-gun agenda on Americans with the launch of “The Trace .” The new website describes itself as a “media organization dedicated to expanding coverage of guns in the United States.” Bloomberg, of course, already owns and controls one of the largest media empires in the world in Bloomberg LP , but apparently it is not adequately biased to serve his anti-gun agenda.
According to editorial director James Burnett, “The Trace” is not an “anti-gun” organization, but hopes to “appeal to people across the spectrum on the issue.” But the content makes it clear that the organization is just another Bloomberg-funded gun control project. The site even states, “We bring an admitted bias to our beat.”
Huffington Post further illustrated this intentional bias while celebrating the launch of the new “news” organization. “We believe that the rate of gun violence is too high and we believe that there is not enough information about the issue as a whole,” editorial director James Burnett said in his interview. “As journalists, we have it as our mission to address that shortage of information.”
Like other Bloomberg backed organizations (Everytown for Gun Safety, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America), “The Trace” has already earned a lack of credibility among gun owners. Within the first few days of operation, the organization has readers outraged over one-sided reporting on issues and reckless disregard for facts.
It is clear that Bloomberg’s true goal is not to increase education and awareness on firearms and firearm safety, but to even more thoroughly color the information that reaches Americans about their Second Amendment rights. Orwellian propagandists have nothing on the sprawling Bloomberg newspeak machine.
Readers who may stumble across an article in “The Trace” — and any legitimate reporters seeking to inform themselves and the public on Second Amendment issues — should ignore the advocacy “journalists” at the “The Trace” and treat them like the Bloomberg, anti-gun staffers they are.
Click here to read the entire op-ed at NSSFBlog.com.

Gay Marriage Organizers Set their Sights on Guns

h/t MaddMedic

Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.

Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…
When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.

Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.
We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.
- See more at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/07/11/gay-marriage-organizers-set-sights-guns/#sthash.T00mwuJi.dpuf

Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.

Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…
When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.

Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.
We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.

From here

Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.

Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…
When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.

Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.
We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.
- See more at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/07/11/gay-marriage-organizers-set-sights-guns/#sthash.T00mwuJi.dpuf

Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.

Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…
When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.

Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.
We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.
- See more at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/07/11/gay-marriage-organizers-set-sights-guns/#sthash.T00mwuJi.dpuf

Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.

Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…
When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.

Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.
We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.
- See more at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/07/11/gay-marriage-organizers-set-sights-guns/#sthash.T00mwuJi.dpuf

Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.

Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…
When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.

Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.
We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.
- See more at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/07/11/gay-marriage-organizers-set-sights-guns/#sthash.T00mwuJi.dpuf

The Second Amendment doesn't grant Americans anything

 Via Buckeye Firearms Assoc.

by Gary Evens

I recently was watching one of the firearms-related outdoors programs on television where one of my favorite nationally-known firearms instructors was being interviewed.
I became somewhat “shocked!” when that individual stated that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants us the right to possess and carry firearms. I thought I might have mis-heard what he said so I hit the replay button on my remote to see it again. He did say it! And, he was WRONG!! (I hope he was just being inarticulate in discussing the issue with the interviewer.) However, this got me thinking that many people—especially the more liberal-minded among us—might also have such a misconception about the Second Amendment and the Constitution.
The right to keep and bear arms was something the framers (i.e. the authors) of the U.S. Constitution assumed everyone already had—along with other rights like the freedom of speech, religion, etc. Since these rights already existed, they were not something that the government could give us; we already had those rights, much like the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
What the Second Amendment (and the other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights) does is restrict the government from trying to take the rights away from U.S. citizens!!! The founders of our country had seen what happens when governments try to deny “God-given/inalienable rights” to their citizens and they wanted to ensure in perpetuity—that means “forever”—that the government could not take those rights away from its citizens.
So, the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, does not say what citizens can or cannot do. Instead it outlines how our government is to be structured and operated and places restrictions on what that government can do.

David Codrea: Case SCOTUS Didn’t Hear Points to Larger Concern for Gun Owners

Via David Codrea

The fallout from two recent Supreme Court rulings is receiving needed attention, as it’s up to activist gun owners to keep apprised of looming threats and opportunities, and to minimize damage/maximize gains of case outcomes. For one decision, Gun Owners of America has been at the forefront of warning against the anti-gun dangers hidden in Obamacare. On the flip side, some are looking at the same sex marriage ruling to prompt states to recognize concealed carry permits. But as important as those concerns are, they may ultimately become moot points if a case SCOTUS declined to hear is an indicator of things to come . . .

“The Supreme Court … refused to accept a case which sought to allow states to supplement a federal voter registration form so as to require proof of citizenship to vote,” Legal Insurrection reported Monday. “This is not just a battle of forms. It’s a battle for preventing theft of elections.”
“A new study … indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterm,” National Review reported in November. “Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic … Al Franken’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race [is] one likely tipped by non-citizen voting.”
While Obamacare is cited as a law that was passed by adding Franken’s 60^th vote to the total, his hostility to gun rights and his affirmation of anti-gun nominees to administration and federal court positions were also enabled by his questionable win. A co-sponsor of the “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act,” which called for up to a 10-year prison sentence for violations, Franken is rated “F” by both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.
Still, the High Court’s deliberate indifference may have been based on recognizing that ascertaining proof of citizenship may itself soon be a moot point if establishment Democrats and Republicans have their way. That’s because the Obama administration is paving a “pathway to citizenship” for foreign nationals illegally residing in the U.S. Likely Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has pledged that as a priority. And GOP leadership and current flip-flopping frontrunner Jeb Bush are servicing their Chamber of Commerce patrons to ensure a continued source of “cheap” (meaning paid for by everyone else) labor.
Add to that an overlooked but undeniable danger identified by activist and journalist Rick Oltman in an exclusive report the media and political establishments have ignored, but that merits widespread attention: Expect a “massive naturalization of legal permanent residents [LPRs] before the 2016 election,” a move that will overwhelmingly favor Democrats.
That’s especially dangerous, because the Democrat Party includes “gun control” as a central part of its national platform:

Read the rest @ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/david-codrea/case-scotus-didnt-hear-points-to-larger-concern-for-gun-owners/

Gun blogger, others sue ATF over records request

 Via David Codrea

Three gun rights advocates sued the ATF on Tuesday after filing a records request they say wasn’t fulfilled by the federal agency.   

David Codrea, a pro-gun blogger, Len Savage, a federally-licensed gun dealer and the FFL Defense Research Center, a not-for-profit corporation that defends federal firearms license holders, claim the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives failed to fulfill a Freedom of Information Act request filed in March.

The FOIA request asked for clarification on how the ATF classifies firearms receivers, specifically how complete the component must be to be considered a firearm.

“Phrased otherwise, the point when a ‘receiver blank’ becomes a ‘receiver.’ … We have heard reference to ’80% complete’ as the standard, but whether this is correct, and if so, what features make it so complete, we cannot find,” the complaint read.

Codrea called the ATF’s determination process contradictory.

“The information requested is critical to ensure that citizens don’t suffer penalties due to conflicting rulings. Without clear policies, enforcing compliance and demanding accountability can become inconsistent and arbitrary,” Codrea wrote on Thursday.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs filed the request  March 12 and the federal agency failed to provide the documentation within the mandatory 20-day period, which expired April 13.

The ATF declined to comment citing the lawsuit and the federal agency’s policy against commenting on litigation.

Obama, Senators Want to Resurrect Gun Ban

Via GOA

 

-- Seek to blame all gun owners for actions of a lone Dirt Bag

“The President wants to blame an inanimate object — the gun,” [said] Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America. “But that just deflects blame away from the real culprit: gun-control policies that leave people defenseless in the face of evil perpetrators who are never effectively prevented from acquiring weapons.” -- Newsmax, June 20, 2015

They’re coming for you.
Anti-gun Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey just announced they want to bring back their toxic legislation stripping Americans of their gun rights without due process of law.
And the President is ready to sign this gun ban into law.
You may recall our battle against the Manchin-Toomey language in 2013. Their legislation sought to BAN private sales of firearms, forcing all gun buyers to run to a dealer and submit to a background check before purchasing a firearm from their neighbor.
Thankfully, Senators Toomey and Manchin failed because Gun Owners of America and its members got in their way. According to the New York Times, and other liberal media outlets, GOA was able to put enough heat on the Senate to defeat this pernicious legislation.
The new Toomey-Manchin proposal will be an infringement of Second Amendment rights, and it will do nothing to stop real criminals from getting guns.
Realize that this background check expansion is just a ploy to erect more obstacles to owning guns. The more that people have to seek permission to buy a gun, the easier it becomes for gun control advocates to find reasons to deny them.
We’ve already seen this in the way veterans have been targeted and prevented from owning guns because they suffer from PTSD -- symptoms related to their service for our country.
Ironically, the recent South Carolina shooting demonstrates the FAILURE of gun control. The Charleston gunman bought his gun from a dealer and passed a background check.
The result: Nine people died at the church ... from gunfire ... in a gun-free zone.
Clearly, more gun-free zones and more background checks are NOT the answer.
But making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed WILL make a difference. That will save lives. And that’s why your Senators should cosponsor S. 498, introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).
Please note: While The Washington Post is reporting that Senators Manchin and Toomey want to resurrect a new version of their 2013 legislation, they have not introduced it yet. But Senator Manchin says he won’t bring the bill up “until he is sure he has rounded up the necessary votes.”
So that’s where you come in!
ACTION: Use the provided pre-written letter to urge your Senators to OPPOSE the new Manchin-Toomey gun grab.

Gun rights in California: court to hear another showdown

By Howard Mintz

hmintz@mercurynews.com

It is time for another duel over gun rights in California.

In a hearing set for Tuesday in San Francisco, a special 11-judge federal appeals court panel will consider whether to side with the gun lobby's effort to dramatically loosen California's restrictions on carrying concealed firearms.

While the case involves challenges to regulations in San Diego and Yolo Counties, it has implications for local gun control efforts across the state, including most Bay Area counties that have similar restrictions in place.

And depending on how the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules, the outcome could force the U.S. Supreme Court to address what many legal experts consider one of the most important unresolved issues in the gun debate -- how far the constitutional right to bear arms extends outside the home.

Concord resident Alany Helmantoler carries her unloaded firearm as she waits to have dinner outside a restaurant in this 2011 file photo. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group archive)

"It may be the biggest unanswered question in the Second Amendment," said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. "This is a big question and an important one."

The 9th Circuit case has attracted national attention, in part because the court is reconsidering an earlier ruling that broke new ground by invalidating San Diego's strict but common guidelines for issuing concealed-carry gun permits. In that ruling last year, a divided three-judge panel found San Diego's restrictions trampled on the Second Amendment rights of private citizens to carry a gun for self-defense.

After a tortured procedural battle, prompted by San Diego abandoning defense of the law, the 9th Circuit voted on its own to rehear the case. Most legal experts predict the court is likely to uphold the regulations, particularly given that much of the 11-judge panel is comprised of liberal to moderate Democratic appointees.


The judges in recent months have been inundated with legal arguments pitting the gun lobby against gun control advocates and Attorney General Kamala Harris, who urged the 9th Circuit to uphold such regulations.
The case was triggered by a former police officer, Edward Peruta, who is backed by groups such as the National Rifle Association. Peruta sued San Diego County in 2010 when he was denied a concealed carry permit because authorities found he did not prove "good cause" for needing one.
Twenty-one states have jumped into the case backing Peruta, arguing that regulations such as San Diego's violate the right to bear arms in self-defense. Among other arguments, gun rights groups say their position is backed by two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past decade striking down bans on handguns in the home.
Chuck Michel, a top lawyer for the NRA, said gun control groups are waging war on those rulings in the lower courts.
"They want to make (them) mean essentially nothing," he said. "That it's no protection at all of those (Second Amendment) rights."
But gun control groups argue that local law enforcement has a right to restrict concealed carry of weapons to protect public safety. Major California law enforcement organizations have backed gun control groups in the case.
"The reality is that this completely affects the law throughout the state," said Mike McLively, attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.


Striking down such restrictions would be a sea change for most Bay Area counties, where sheriffs generally require applicants to show evidence their safety is at such great risk that it can only be addressed by giving them a permit to carry a gun.
State law generally discourages concealed weapons in public but leaves it to local authorities to regulate exceptions. By state law, requirements for concealed-carry permits include demonstrating "good moral character," taking a training course and establishing "good cause." Gun rights groups say those requirements arbitrarily result in gun owners being denied permits.
Harris, however, argued that imposing strict limits is constitutional, telling the court they "do not burden the core Second Amendment right to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
Three other federal appeals courts have already upheld such regulations, making it unclear whether the Supreme Court might get involved. Legal experts say the high court is reluctant to take on new gun rights cases, citing the justices' refusal last week to hear a hotly contested challenge to a San Francisco gun control law.
But if there is anything the two sides in the debate agree on, it's that the Supreme Court might have no choice but to clarify its previous rulings, in 2008 and 2010, finding a right to possess guns in the home for self-defense. And the Peruta case may be the right legal vehicle.
"After (those decisions), one of the big questions is does the Second Amendment apply outside the home," said McLively. "Getting an answer to that question is important in terms of policy."

Media-touted FBI "Mass Shooting" Report Debunked

Via NRA-ILA

A misleading 2014 FBI report that fueled media claims that mass shooting incidents in the U.S. are rising sharply has been thoroughly debunked. In a piece appearing in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences' March 2015 ACJS Today newsletter, Economist John R. Lott carefully lays out the flaws in the Bureaus' "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013" report.

First, Lott takes the media to task for misrepresenting the underlying scope of the report, and for FBI's failure to adequately explain the content to its readers. Rather than track mass shootings or murders, the report in fact attempts to track "active shooter incidents." This is significant because it encompasses events where no one was shot or killed.

Despite this, media outlets ran sensational headlines, like the New York Times', "F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000." Lott contends that FBI exacerbated this misperception, noting, "The report discusses mass public shootings, but it never makes it clear to the readers that these types of fatalities and attacks are actually not increasing over time."

The media's distortion of findings to fit their own anti-gun agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected. When done under the auspices of the FBI, such behavior is unacceptable. Whether this report is simply shoddy work, or veiled advocacy, is not altogether clear; however, Lott concludes, "The FBI report appears to be politically driven."

Next, Lott criticizes the authors for selecting their data to show a notable increase in "active shooter incidents." Lott shows that the inclusion of non-mass shooting incidents where zero or one person was killed have the effect of skewing the data to show a surge. Further, Lott explains that the researchers failed to include at least 20 shooting incidents, and that the omitted events were disproportionately from the earlier years of the period studied.

Lott also takes issue with the limited time period studied by the researchers. When data on mass shootings from 1977 through 2014 are used, and the incidents studied are limited to those where at least two or more people were murdered, the supposed annual increase in shootings is "no longer statistically significant."

A pair of researchers who worked on the FBI report issued a defense of their work in the May edition of ACJS Today. The researchers attempted to shift blame for the misunderstanding to the media, noting, "We wonder if some members of the media intentionally misreported findings in an attempt to generate a bigger headline or advance their own agendas." As to why their report was missing so many relevant incidents, they admit, "We acknowledge in the FBI report that our data are imperfect."

The media's distortion of findings to fit their own anti-gun agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected. When done under the auspices of the FBI, such behavior is unacceptable. Whether this report is simply shoddy work, or veiled advocacy, is not altogether clear; however, Lott concludes, "The FBI report appears to be politically driven."

Gun groups denounce push for handgun licenses

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights advocates are assailing Democrats for a controversial legislative proposal that they say would restrict access to handguns.
People would be required to obtain a license before purchasing some firearms under the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act, which was introduced Thursday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and a trio of Connecticut lawmakers.

 The legislation also seeks to expand background checks to all handgun sales and block people under the age of 21 from purchasing those firearms.
States could refuse to implement the handgun regulations, but would risk losing federal funding for doing so.
Though the legislation stands virtually no chance of passing the Republican Congress, the NRA expressed outrage at the proposal, calling it an attempt by Democrats to “delay and deny” gun purchases.
“They cannot ban guns because of the Constitution, so they want to make it so difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to self-protection,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.
"Someone should send them a copy of the Constitution — specifically, a copy of the Second Amendment,” she added.
The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act would zero in on handgun purchases, but exempt rifles and other types of firearms.
It is backed by a study from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research that found handgun licenses dramatically reduce homicide rates.
“Of the thousands of Americans murdered every single year by firearms, nearly 90 percent of those deaths occur with a handgun,” Van Hollen said. “With mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends dying every day because of guns, there is no question that gun violence is tearing at the fabric of our communities."
In addition to Van Hollen, who is running for the Senate, three Connecticut Democrats back the handgun bill: Rep. Elizabeth Esty, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen. Chris Murphy. Connecticut was the site of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in 2012.
Their bill would provide states with an incentive to strengthen their guns laws. States that follow through with the handgun regulations would receive federal funding to carry them out, while those that refused would risk losing money.
To qualify, states would have to implement laws that require prospective gun owners to apply for a firearms license from a local police station. They would be required to pass a background check, including submitting fingerprints and photographs.
Those who pass the background check would receive a firearms license that they must provide to purchase a handgun.
The Democrats say the handgun bill would help law enforcement officials weed out criminals and other people who are not allowed to purchase guns.
But Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, called it a "blatant attempt to fingerprint every law-abiding gun owner in the country like a common criminal."
"Since they support licensing for exercising Second Amendment freedoms, do they also support licensing of newspaper columns, political speeches and sermons?” asked Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America.
The lawmakers called it a gun safety solution.
“States require licenses to drive a car or even to fish in local rivers, so requiring a license to buy a deadly handgun is a commonsense step that could save countless lives,” Van Hollen said.
"Requiring a license to purchase a deadly weapon is at least as important as requiring one to drive a car,” Blumenthal said.
But gun rights advocates warned the proposal would effectively create a national gun registry.
"Driving a car and fishing are not constitutionally-protected rights,” Baker responded. “The Second Amendment protects our individual right to own a gun."
"One does not need the permission of the government in order to exercise a fundamental constitutional right,” added Larry Keane, senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
The bill is just the latest attempt by gun control advocates in Congress to close a background check loophole they say makes it easier for criminals to purchase guns.
Even though most gun owners go through lengthy background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, these same requirements do not always apply when buying guns online or at gun shows.
Gun safety advocates say toughening the rules would reduce gun violence around the country.
"It shows the tremendous opportunity we have to prevent gun deaths and make all of us safer just by keeping guns out of the wrong hands through good policy like expanded background checks,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Via The Hill  http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/244908-gun-groups-denounce-push-for-handgun-licenses#disqus_thread