JUDGE KEEPS CALIFORNIA GUN FIGHT ALIVE
State imposed registration demand, but failed to provide system that workedPublished: 40 mins agoA federal judge has rejected the state of California’s request to dismiss a lawsuit by gun owners against an online firearms-registration program that did not function...
Sniper Fire - A must watch ^
Sheila Matthews on Number of Americans on Psych Drugs
Ammunition Company Slaps Anti-Gun Dick’s with $5 Mil Lawsuit
BY BEN MARQUIS
OCTOBER 30, 2018 AT 11:02AM
The Dick’s Sporting Goods retail chain drew the ire of the pro-gun community earlier this year when the corporation decided it would no longer sell firearms to individuals younger than age 21 and would no longer sell AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles to the general public in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting in Florida.
But now Dick’s is facing potential trouble in light of an unrelated incident that will nevertheless also enrage many within the pro-gun community, as the retail chain has been sued by an ammunition distributor and accused of both breach of contract and market manipulation in 2016.
Guns.com reported that Nevada-based ammunition distributor Battle Born Munitions has filed a lawsuit against Dick’s in federal court in Pennsylvania seeking to recoup more than $200,000 in various costs born by BBM as well as about $5 million in damages from a separate major contract for BBM that was lost due to Dick’s actions.
Advertisement - story continues below
According to the facts as laid out in the motion demanding a jury trial and judgment for breach of contract and fraud, BBM entered into an agreement with Dick’s in January 2016 to provide the retail chain with special ammunition packaged and stamped with Dick’s house brand “Field and Stream,” ammunition that was to have been delivered by November 2016 and fully paid for no more than two months later.
BBM, a State Department-registered and licensed international broker of arms and ammunition, subsequently farmed out and prepaid the order for the “Field and Stream” packaged and stamped ammunition of various calibers to two foreign manufacturers: Ingman, which was paid nearly $2.3 million, and RUAG, which received nearly $2.2 million, for a total capital investment of nearly $4.5 million.
However, Dick’s refused to accept delivery of the house branded ammunition in November 2016, according to the lawsuit, and didn’t pay for it at that time either. That forced BBM to warehouse the stock of specially branded ammunition at its own cost as it couldn’t be sold to any third-party retailer due to the special brand and licensing issues.
Dick’s eventually took possession of the ammunition and paid most of the outstanding invoices in August 2017, though BBM alleged that Dick’s took a 2 percent discount on the total cost that only should’ve applied if the company paid for the order within 30 days. BBM also said Dick’s had improperly deducted various chargebacks on parts of the inventory that the retail chain claimed, without providing documented evidence, didn’t meet their specifications.
Advertisement - story continues below
Adding together the improper discounts, chargebacks, warehousing fees, additional liability insurance for the warehoused ammo, BBM estimated that Dick’s owed the distributor roughly $200,000.
The motion also detailed a separate agreement entered into by BBM that would have netted the company $5 million in profit, only to have been canceled as a direct result of Dick’s failure to pay for the ammo order in a timely fashion.
In December 2016, BBM had arranged for the U.S. government-approved sale of 12 Bell helicopters to the government of Lebanon, a purchase order worth an estimated $48 million. BBM planned to purchase and transport the helicopters from Bell to Lebanon for a cost of $37.2 million but was required to make a 10 percent deposit of $3.72 million to get production started, the lawsuit said.
However, because of Dick’s failure to pay for the ammunition it had ordered and was supposed to have accepted one month earlier, BBM’s capital was still tied up with the foreign manufacturers, leaving the distributor incapable of making the deposit for the helicopters, BBM alleges. That resulted in Lebanon canceling the lucrative order in April 2017.
As if that weren’t bad enough, BBM also said in the motion that the reason for Dick’s refusal to accept the specially branded ammunition was the retail chain’s desire to manipulate the market on ammunition and drive up prices.
Advertisement - story continues below
Being a retail store, the value of stock in Dick’s is heavily dependent upon the retail chain’s inventory. Dick’s refusal to accept the ammunition it had ordered from BBM made it appear as though Dick’s had low inventory — which is attractive to investors — while in reality it merely had the specially branded inventory stored off-site — which could not be sold to a third-party, and was stored at the vendor’s expense — until such time as Dick’s needed it, presumably when prices were higher.
Recall that this occurred in the lead-up to the 2016 election, in which gun control was a predominant issue and it was widely expected that, if Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had emerged victorious, there would have been a run on firearms and ammunition, which undoubtedly would have caused prices to soar. Yet Clinton didn’t win, and there was no run on firearms and ammunition, which resulted in prices holding steady or dropping instead of rising as anticipated.
In the end, BBM alleged that Dick’s was in breach of contract, in that it ordered the house-branded ammunition and then refused to accept delivery or pay for the stock at the time or amount stipulated. BBM further alleged that Dick’s had fraudulently induced the distributor into entering into an agreement it had no intention of upholding, and charged the retail chain with negligent misrepresentation for misleading BBM into believing it would be paid on time.
Thus, BBM requested that the court grant it a jury trial and judgment that would compel Dick’s to pay BBM $200,938 in incidental damages and $5.2 million in consequential damages for lost profits, not to mention pre- and post-judgment interest on both awards as well as all court costs, litigation expenses and attorney’s fees as a result of the lawsuit.
Advertisement - story continues below
It will be interesting to see how this legal battle out in the coming months, and whether Dick’s is held accountable for its alleged breach of contract and market manipulation that substantially damaged the profitability and reputation of a vendor.
Regardless, the allegations only serve to remind the pro-gun community that the retail chain is not a friend of the Second Amendment.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Summary More Info Recent Posts
Writer and researcher. Constitutional conservatarian with a strong focus on protecting the Second and First Amendments.
APPEALS COURT DROPS ENORMOUS RULING ON SECOND AMENDMENT!
JULY 24, 2018
It’s not terribly often that major, earthshaking rulings come down that reverberate throughout the entirety of the Second Amendment community.This week, however, is now an exception to that rule after a US appeals court made an incredibly bold decision on the nature of the Second Amendment.
On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense.
That ruling was a reversal of a decision by the U.S. District Court in Hawaii, which had ruled that state officials did not infringe on a citizen’s rights when they twice denied him a permit to carry a gun outside.
Two of the three 9th Circuit judges agreed to reverse the decision by the district court; Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote, “We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence. But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
This movement on the right to bear arms comes at a time in which the United States is facing an unprecedented amount of political animosity, with the mainstream media fanning the flames of their self-described “New Civil War”.
Furthermore, this ruling helps to corroborate a very poignant interpretation of the Second Amendment as being its own concealed carry permit outright. Proponents of this legal view believe that any sort of regulatory restrictions on the right to concealed carry are infringements of the right to bear arms and are thusly illegal and unconstitutional.
KYLE KASHUV POISED TO EDUCATE CLASSMATES ON 2ND AMENDMENT
JUNE 26, 2018
Unfortunately, in American society today there seems to be an inordinate amount of confusion regarding the Second Amendment and the reality of the liberal left’s wishes for repeal.Of course, this newfound kerfuffle can all be traced to a ruthless and inexcusable exploitation of the Valentine’s Day tragedy in Parkland, Florida in which a mentally ill teenager was allowed to enter Stoneman Douglas High School, unmolested by a single police officer or security guard, and murder 16 of his former classmates and a coach.
The perpetrator, Nikolas Cruz, was reported to the FBI in the days leading up to the massacre as a person that was likely to commit just such a crime, yet those calls went ignored.
Then, when the mentally ill teen walked into Stoneman Douglas High School, armed, he did so right in front of the face of a former Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy who was making $75K per year to keep the children safe. He did nothing.
In the ensuing rage, the left blamed “guns” in general for the violence, refusing to take into consideration Cruz’s horrific behavior and his admission that he was being guided by “demon voices” during this rampage. This allowed the mainstream media to focus on “educating” America on the “issue” at hand – as determined by them.
Now, one of the student survivors of the incident is working on a lesson plan of his own, and it’s not something that you’d find on the likes of CNN.
Turning Point USA is holding a High School Leadership Summit in D.C. and is offering travel and lodging scholarships to any student from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the site of the heinous February 14 attack.
The summit will be held July 24-26, 2018.
Marjory Stoneman shooting survivor Kyle Kashuv is chairing the summit and hopes the scholarships will allow students to come hear messages far different than the gun control mantras being pushed by celebrities, establishment media, and gun control activists like David Hogg.
Kashuv told Breitbart News, “As the chair of the High School Leadership Summit, I can tell you that our lineup is going to be incredible. We have speakers — not all announced yet — from all walks of life and parts of government. This will give everyone the opportunity to engage with people from the First Family (Donald Trump Jr. has been announced), to members of the Cabinet, to current and former Senators, to White House officials, and more.”
Trending: Trump Staffers Gets Serious CCL Suggestion After Sarah Sanders Incident
Kashuv has become a sort of conservative folk hero in recent months as the antithesis to fellow Parkland student David Hogg – the left’s de facto spokesman for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
And, given his knowledge, poise, and eloquence, he may also be the precocious Hogg’s worst nightmare.
I Go to a School Where an Attack Was Foiled. Here’s Why I’m Against Limiting Gun Rights.
Nicole Martin / March 06, 2018
BY Nicole Martin
Nicole Martin is a freshman at Etowah High School in Woodstock, Georgia, northwest of Atlanta.
Police cars surrounded my high school as I walked fast across the street to the science building. Eyes were glancing in many directions. The slight panic—bordering on hysteria—was obvious.
Hundreds of students stayed home, but I did not. Why? Because the threat was safely locked away in jail.
Four months before the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, my own school in Cherokee County, Georgia, was under serious threat in October from two 17-year-old students.
Together, the two juniors at Etowah High School planned a Columbine-style attack using explosives, law enforcement authorities said.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out how you can support the efforts of The Daily Signal >>
But campus police and the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office learned about the pair’s plans ahead of time through a tip, and reacted immediately to the first report. The two students are charged as adults with attempted murder and other offenses.
If that threat had not been stopped, many people at my school would be dead. It could have been me, my brother, my closest friends, or all of us.
But it was stopped. We are alive.
Having this perspective, my heart was shattered into pieces when I heard the news Feb. 14 about Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. I have been praying for all of the students, teachers, and families who are going through hell right now.
“Take away gun rights. Something needs to be done,” my friends keep telling me.
Yes, something absolutely does need to be done, but not that way.
Reports and tips need to be taken seriously. Death is an unchangeable thing, and anyone who jokes about it is sick. A threat is not a joke; it is illegal, and it demands an immediate response.
Next, teachers should be trained and armed with guns, if they choose to be. I am constantly hearing friends say that if teachers were armed, they would be too scared to shoot back. That is an offensive statement, and it needs to stop.
A coach at Douglas High died because he ran into the shooting and jumped in front of a bullet. How could anyone say that man would have been afraid to shoot back? He chose to die so his students didn’t have to, yet people say teachers would have been hiding if they had guns.
Taking away gun rights isn’t going to help the cause. Immediately after our Founding Fathers listed our God-given rights, they decided that every American’s right “to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Everyone needs a way to defend himself or herself. I realize that many people simply want to add restrictions to buying a gun for everyone, which I thought seemed reasonable at first until I researched it.
Some of the most infamous shooters were approved to buy a gun because their previous felonies had not been reported to gun shop owners. Those shooters should not have been approved, but they were.
The system of background checks needs to be tightened to include felons and those who courts say are mentally ill.
Taking away Second Amendment rights from everyone is not the solution.
THE NUMBERS DON’T LIE: RASMUSSEN RELEASES BOMBSHELL GUN SURVEY
FEBRUARY 28, 2018
As lovers and keepers of the Second Amendment, conservative Americans are feeling the effects of a sustained attack on the right to bear arms in the mainstream media.Of course, this was all to predictable behavior from the vultures over at CNN, MSNBC, Google, and Facebook, who have all longed for another horrific tragedy to blame on firearms in America. In fact, the continued assault on our Constitution has been so methodical and ordinary, that the moment the anti-gun crowd’s boots hit the ground, they were being picked apart by the patriots of our great nation.
Even in the face of CNN inventing new ways in which guns fire, (“full semi auto“), our keepers of Second Amendment have stood strong.
To prove that, Rasmussen has released the findings of a recent poll regarding the Valentine’s Day Massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that completely blows the liberal narrative out of the water.
“According to Rasmussen, 54% of Americans believe government failure is to ‘blame for the mass shooting.’ Only 33% of Americans blame guns. Eleven percent of Americans say they are unsure what contributed to the occurrence of the mass shooting.
“When the sample group was adjusted so as to focus only on Americans ‘who have children of elementary or secondary school age,’ the percentage of Americans who cite government failure as causal jumped to 61 and the percentage who blamed guns dropped to 23.”
This powerful statistic should be shared far and wide, in hopes of discrediting the leftist media who tend to claim otherwise.
This result certainly was somewhat predictable, given the massive failures that have been outlined in the wake of the Parkland incident, as well as the bizarre series of events that allowed mentally-ill Nikolaus Cruz to enter the school and commit his atrocities.
Breitbart laid out a pretty thorough list of the reasons why Americans aren’t buying the left’s nonsense this time around:
1. The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBCSO) received 911 calls about Nikolas Cruz in November 2017. The calls referenced violence and erratic behavior. CNN reports that in one of the calls with the host family, with whom Cruz was living after the death of his mother, told PBCSO they feared Cruz was going to turn a gun on the family. The family member told deputies that Cruz was “buying “tons of ammo” and had allegedly put “put [a] gun to others heads in the past.” No charges were filed, no arrest made.
2. On January 5, 2018, the FBI received a tip describing “Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.” The FBI did not act on the tip.
3. On February 14 Cruz attacked students and unarmed teachers in Stoneman Douglas High. A report from CNN claims four Broward County sheriff’s deputies were at the school as the attack was taking place but not one of them entered the school. On February 22 Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel told ABC 13 that video showed deputy Scott Peterson by building 12 on campus, yet Peterson never went inside to confront Cruz. The CNN report quotes Coral Springs sources that claim there were actually four Broward County deputies on scene who did not enter the building.
It truly doesn’t tend to get any clearer than that.
Furthermore, incredible doubts are to be had surrounding the story of David Hogg, a Parkland survivor who has repeatedly been a guest on a number of liberal news networks after his mid-shooting, calm, collected gun rights diatribe went viral.
No Weapons Violations in First Six Months of Campus Carry at KU Lawrence
Written by Bob Adelmann
In a report that the national media didn’t deem newsworthy, the Office of Public Safety at the Lawrence campus of the University of Kansas (KU) said last week that during the first six months that students were allowed to carry concealed on campus, there were no incidents — zero criminal weapons violations — to report. But the office did report that overall crime, mostly thefts, dropped by 13 percent.
The report said nothing about the freedom granted students starting last July to carry concealed on campus if they so desired, but instead stated that the drop in crime and the utter lack of weapons violations were likely due to “the use of security technology on campus, such as cameras … and more police and security officers [that] were added to the Public Safety Office in 2017.”
Undoubtedly, if there had been one weapons violation — just one — it would have made headline news in every liberal media outlet in the country. But in its absence, the media has remained silent.
The Kansas City Star noted that prior to July 1, there had been 14 weapons violations on the campus between 2008 and 2016. That was when the campus was a so-called gun-free zone. But since July 1, there has not been a single incident. A spokesman for KU Public Safety, Captain James Anguiano, said it was too early to tell if the decrease was permanent: “We know that crime could go up next year.”
And one can be certain that if it does the mainstream will cover it like a blanket.
The KU report, issued annually, didn’t surprise Dudley Brown, head of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR): “There’s no doubt that allowing citizens … to carry the tools of self-defense makes criminals think twice.” It’s also in line with the analysis John Lott provided in his book The War on Guns:
Since 2011, there have been only three mass public shootings in areas where concealed carry was allowed.… These cases are very rare. From 1950-2010, not a single mass shooting occurred in an area where general civilians are allowed to carry guns.
Over the entire period from 1950 through February 2016, just over 1 percent of mass public shootings occurred in such places.
Put another way, according to Lott, more than 98 percent of the time shooters choose places where their intended victims aren’t allowed to defend themselves with firearms.
Lott then reviews the shooters who left notes and plans behind, such as Khalil Abu-Rayyan, an ISIS supporter who was planning an attack on one of the biggest churches in Detroit. According to Lott, Rayyan explained his choice of target this way: “A lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus, it would make the news. Everybody [on the planet] would’ve heard [about it].”
Dylann Roof, the shooter at the 2015 Charleston, South Carolina, church, was originally going to shoot up a nearby campus but changed his plans when he learned that his target, the College of Charleston, had armed guards.
James Holmes, the “Batman movie killer,” was originally planning to attack a nearby airport but decided not to, as he wrote in his diary, because of “substantial security” there. Holmes then selected a move theater that was a gun-free zone, even though there were six other theaters closer to where he lived.
It’s a general rule that where people are free to defend themselves with firearms, crime will decline. Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire’s editor-in-chief, published a chart showing (and contrasting) the percent changes in firearm ownership in the country versus the nation’s gun homicide rate from 1993 through 2013. While the number of privately owned firearms increased by 56 percent, the gun homicide rate dropped by 49 percent. Tweeted Shapiro, “Please explain how more guns inevitably mean more murder?”
Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center noted that between 2007 and 2015, the number of concealed carry permits issued nationally skyrocketed by 215 percent, while the murder rate dropped by 14 percent and the overall crime rate dropped by 21 percent.
Kansas is one of just eight states that allow concealed carry on campus, while 23 states leave that decision up to the schools and universities themselves. Sixteen states still ban outright the possession of firearms on campus.
It should be no surprise that there were no criminal weapons violations on KU’s Lawrence campus. It’s also no surprise that the national mainstream media didn’t consider it worthy of a single headline.
Image: Screenshot of a University of Kansas ad
An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Clarence Thomas rebukes California and 9th Circuit over gun control
February 21, 2018
MitchellShapiroPhotography / CCL
Clarence Thomas rebuked the Supreme Court for passing up two challenges to California gun control laws Tuesday.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court turned down a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for purchasers who are already licensed and own registered weapons. In his dissent, Thomas accused the court of bias against the Second Amendment, opining that the high court would have considered challenges to a waiting period on things such as abortion.
The Court also refused to hear a challenge to a law imposing gun sales fees that go toward enforcement against illegal guns purchasers.
Thomas blasts SCOTUS for gun biasThe high court denied a petition to hear a case challenging California’s “cooling off period” for gun purchases Tuesday. California law requires gun buyers, including those with concealed carry licenses and who have passed background checks, to wait 10 days before receiving their guns.
California claims the waiting period can prevent those with homicidal or suicidal intentions from acting impulsively to kill others or themselves. It also provides state authorities with extra time to run background checks.
Plaintiffs Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs, two legal gun owners, alongside the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, challenged the waiting period in 2011 on the basis that it invalidated the Second Amendment rights of licensed gun owners who already have registered guns. Their complaint, which received a favorable ruling in district court, was reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thomas saw the high court’s decision to let the lower court’s unfavorable decision remain as clear evidence of bias against gun rights.
“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt this court would intervene,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
The Court also refused to consider a challenge by the National Rifle Association to a law that requires fees on firearms purchases go towards funding programs to track illegal guns purchasers. That challenge rested on the notion that criminal misuse of guns is not legally related to the legitimate use of firearms by licensed gun-owners.
That law was also upheld by the 9th Court.
Abortion good, guns badThomas accused the court of singling out the Second Amendment to be cavalierly dismissed, writing that the high court would have had no problem challenging waiting periods for things such as abortion.
Rights not secured by the Constitution get a more sympathetic hearing from the high court than the right to bear arms, he said, noting that the SCOTUS has not heard a significant case on gun rights in over eight years.
Whereas four members of the high court would have agreed to hear cases on waiting periods for abortions and publication of racist speech, gun rights get short shrift, he said.
“The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights,” Thomas wrote. “The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”
Lower courts like the 9th Circuit have taken the high court’s cue on gun rights, he said.
“In the Ninth Circuit, it seems, rights that have no basis in the Constitution receive greater protection than the Second Amendment, which is enumerated in our text,” he wrote.
Thomas criticized the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in 2016 to reverse a previous favorable ruling by the district court, calling its decision “symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”
If the Supreme Court won’t uphold the law of the land, where can gun rights’ advocates turn?
It’s a good thing we have justices like Thomas who don’t let partisan prejudices tip the scales.
Ginny Simone Reporting | S5 E20: "Servin' Up the Second Amendment"
Published on Nov 25, 2014
Good food, friendly service and a huge helping of freedom — that’s what they’re dishing up at Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado. “It’s not about politics, it’s a way of life,” says one of the servers, who can be seen with a Ruger Blackhawk .357 strapped on her hip. But she’s not alone, customers carry too and owner Lauren Boebert wouldn’t have it any other way. “We’re certainly able to protect ourselves,” she says. Featuring menu items such as the "Locked and Loaded Nachos," "The Rifle Breakfast" and "The M16 Burrito," Shooters is a favorite of locals who grew up with guns and visitors who think more establishments could stand to put the Second Amendment on the menu. The restaurant also offers firearms classes to patrons and staff—they always fill up fast, and the price includes dinner!
House passes concealed carry gun bill
BY CRISTINA MARCOS -
12/06/17 04:45 PM EST
Two months after the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history, the House on Wednesday passed legislation that would allow people to use permits for carrying concealed handguns across state lines while also boosting the background check system.Despite bipartisan support for enhancing background checks for gun purchases, the bill passed along party lines, 231-198, due to Democratic opposition to the concealed-carry reciprocity measure.
Six centrist Democrats voted with Republicans to approve the package: Reps. Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Ron Kind (Wis.), Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Kurt Schrader (Ore.).
Fourteen Republicans voted “no,” including a mix of conservatives and centrists.
Conservative Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) held the mirror opposite position of Democrats who voted against the legislation: he supports concealed-carry reciprocity but didn’t want the background check measure attached.
"It throws millions of dollars at a faulty program and it will result in more law-abiding citizens being deprived of their right to keep and bear arms," Massie wrote in a Facebook post ahead of the vote.The gun policy measures were originally two separate bills. But House GOP leaders opted to combine them so that lawmakers only had to cast one vote.
Attaching the concealed-carry reciprocity measure puts the bipartisan measure to beef up background checks in jeopardy in the Senate.
The legislation as passed by the House faces an uncertain future in the upper chamber, where Democrats are sure to block the concealed-carry measure, but a bipartisan coalition has enough votes to break a filibuster on enhancing background checks.
Under the House legislation, people with permits for carrying concealed handguns could do so in any state that allows concealed weapons.
People could only use their concealed-carry permits in other states that allow the practice if they are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID and are lawfully licensed to possess a concealed handgun. They would still have to adhere to established state and local laws.
Concealed-carry reciprocity is a top legislative priority for the National Rifle Association, which has resisted proposals to restrict access to guns in response to mass shootings.
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the author of the concealed-carry bill, compared the concealed-carry reciprocity measure to how driver’s licenses and marriage licenses are recognized across states.
He gave an example of a single mother in south Philadelphia who had twice been mugged and purchased a handgun to protect herself. But she traveled to New Jersey, which didn’t recognize her Pennsylvania concealed-carry permit.
"If I get married in North Carolina but I move to Arizona, I’m not a single man again. They recognize that marriage," Hudson said during House floor debate. "The concealed-carry permit should be recognized the same way."
Gun reform groups lobbied against the concealed-carry measure. Mark Kelly, the co-founder of a group named after his wife, ex-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said that the policy doesn’t work if people aren’t properly trained.
Kelly recalled how a well-intentioned man with a concealed gun almost shot one of the people responsible for wrestling the shooter who nearly killed Giffords in a 2011 shooting to the ground.
“The situation that played out in the Safeway parking lot that day shows the potential for tragedy and bloodshed when untrained people carrying loaded guns react to a crisis. Even with the best intentions, an armed person without the extensive firearms training that is required to respond under pressure in a crisis will risk making the situation worse, not better,” Kelly wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.
States have varying requirements for carrying concealed weapons, like gun safety training, age limits, and prohibitions on individuals known to have abusive pasts.
The package also included a bill from Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) that would ensure authorities report criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and penalize agencies that don’t report to the FBI.
Democrats supported the background check measure but balked at including the concealed-carry reciprocity.
“Unfortunately, the dangers posed by the concealed carry reciprocity portion of the bill greatly outweigh the benefits of the NICS improvements,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), the acting ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
The shooter responsible for the Nov. 5 massacre at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, was prohibited from buying or possessing a gun due to a domestic violence conviction while serving in the Air Force. But the Air Force failed to enter the criminal record into the federal database used for gun background checks.
Another provision in the bill is in direct response to the Oct. 1 shooting in Las Vegas, which killed nearly 60 people and injured more than 500 others.
Law enforcement authorities found a dozen devices known as bump stocks, which are used to make weapons fire more rapidly, in the Las Vegas shooter’s hotel room.
The measure would require the Justice Department to report to Congress on the number of times a bump stock has been used in a crime. It’s far less stringent than bipartisan bills introduced in Congress since the Las Vegas shooting to prohibit the manufacture, sale and use of the devices.
But ahead of Wednesday’s vote, the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced on Tuesday that it is considering a possible ban on certain bump stocks.
Lawmakers had been pushing for the Trump administration to clarify whether bump stocks violate the ban on fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986.
“The regulatory clarification we begin today will help us to continue to protect the American people by carrying out the laws duly enacted by our representatives in Congress,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) introduced a bipartisan bill after the Las Vegas shooting to ban bump stocks. He voted against the Wednesday legislation, citing the lack of an effort to prohibit the devices.
“[T]he refusal to meaningfully address dangerous bump stocks in this legislation is inexplicable and contrary to the position held by most Americans and the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners,” Curbelo said in a statement.
Florida Expedites 82,000 Carry Licenses to Military Personnel After Chattanooga Terror Attack
AP Photo/Julie Jacobson, Fileby AWR HAWKINS
19 Jul 2017
The state of Florida has expedited 82,000 concealed carry licenses to military personnel in the two years since the heinous attack on unarmed members of USMC and the U.S. Navy.Florida responded to the attack by announcing an expedited concealed carry permitting process which allows military personnel to acquire a carry permit quicker–and at a younger age–than regular civilians. The issuance of the permits has been overseen by State Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam.
The Chattanooga terror attack occurred July 16, 2015. The following day, Breitbart Newsreported that retired Marine Colonel Gary Anderson pointed to gun control as a problematic contributor; one that kept the victims from being able to shoot back in defense of themselves and their fellow military members. Florida’s response was to be sure more military personnel are carrying guns in more places.
According to News4Jax, the Sunshine State “has fast-tracked concealed-weapons licenses to 82,000 military members and honorably discharged veterans since [the] terror-related shootings.”
Putnam commented on the issuance of the expedited permits, saying, “This is just one example of what we do through our department to make Florida the most veteran- and military-friendly state in the nation.”
Looking at concealed carry broadly, since 2010 Florida has gone from roughly 800,000 to nearly 1.8 million. It is one of the most gun-friendly states in the union for military personnel and civilians alike.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at firstname.lastname@example.org.
CONGRESSMAN SAYS HE’LL CARRY GUN AFTER SCALISE SHOOTING
JUNE 15, 2017
To no surprise, anti-gun fanatics instantly took to every form of media possible to call for more and stricter gun control after a Sanders’ supporter shot Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), House Majority Whip. The topic of gun control became an instant political hot-potato. One Congressman, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) told the media that the shooting was directed at Trump supporters and that from this day on, he will carry his gun in his pocket. The shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and four others at a baseball practice for Republican members of Congress on Wednesday morning in Alexandria, Virginia, was always going to quickly turn to politics.
Rep. Chris Collins, one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent congressional supporters, insisted that the shooting was directly tied to anti-Trump rhetoric from the left. “I can only hope that the Democrats do tone down the rhetoric,” Collins said on a local radio station in upstate New York. “The rhetoric has been outrageous — the finger-pointing, just the tone and the angst and the anger directed at Donald Trump, his supporters. Really, then, you know, some people react to things like that. They get angry as well. And then you fuel the fires.”
Collins also said in the same interview he would have his gun “in my pocket from this day forward.” …
If more law-abiding citizens carried a gun with them at all times, there would be far fewer shootings and less violent crime. Notice that most mass or public shootings take place in gun free zones or in cities with strict gun control laws already in place that make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to be armed and ready to defend themselves and others. The solution to violence and shootings is to arm the people!
READ MORE HERE
Canadian News Anchor Gives Warning To American Gun Owners | Canadian Gun Laws | American Gun Laws