For My Massachusetts Readers – Hearing On Suppressors Today

I should have gotten this out yesterday but better late than never. The Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will be holding hearings on two bills that would seek to legalize suppressor ownership there.

From the American Suppressor Association who will be testifying at the hearings:

On Thursday, November 16th at 11:00 AM in Room A-1,
the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland
Security will hear two bills which seek to legalize suppressor ownership
in Massachusetts. S. 1317, and, S. 1340,
would replace the current law that prohibits the possession of
suppressors by non-manufacturers with language that allows private
individuals to own and possess suppressors so long as they are not (1)
prohibited persons; (2) committing a violent felony; (3) committing a
crime of violence against a family member; or (4) possessing or selling
controlled substances.
The
American Suppressor Association will be on hand to testify in support
of these bills, but we need your help! If you are a Massachusetts
resident, please attend the hearing to show your support. Also,
using the contact form below, please contact members of the Joint
Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and politely urge them
to vote in support of S. 1317 and S. 1340. Do this, even if you plan to
attend the hearing in person. 

View our entire blog post HERE and our testimony submitted to the committee HERE.

The Truth Or Wishful Dreaming On His Part

I saw a note that firearm company stocks were up today on rumors of a deal on gun control. What spurred it was a tweet by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) who is one of the most ardent gun prohibitionists in both houses of Congress.

This leads to the question as to what gun legislation. Will it be merely a ban on bump stocks, a bill to improve NICS, or is it something more? Therein lies the question and I just don’t have a good answer to that.

I do know that the Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to hold hearings yesterday on “Firearm Accessory Regulation and Enforcing Federal and State Reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” However, that hearing has now been postponed to December 6th.

90% Of Success Is Just Showing Up

Adam Kraut, a firearms law attorney in Pennsylvania, is running for the NRA Board of Directors again this year. He qualified to be on the ballot by petition under the new, harder rules. Last year, he was about 60 votes shy of being the 76th Director. I supported Adam last year and I plan to vote for him again this year. I had dinner with Adam at the 2017 NRA Annual Meeting and came away impressed. I have spoken to him a few times since and his knowledge of firearms law has been helpful to me with my blogging. Frankly, we need energetic young people who will rock the status quo on the Board of Directors.

In addition to running for the Board, Adam has promulgated four bylaw changes that I think are well worth your time examining. The first proposed bylaw would require a candidate for the Board to run by petition-only after serving two consecutive terms. They would not be eligible to be nominated by the Nominating Committee. Think of it as a soft term limit. They wouldn’t be precluded from serving more than two terms on the Board but would be required to go to the voting members and get their support if they wanted to serve a third term or more.

The second proposed amendment would require attendance at two out of three Regular Meetings in order to be renominated by the Nominating Committee.

Proposed Amendment Two would require that a Director attend two of the three Regular Meetings held each year or lose their eligibility to be nominated by the Nominating Committee. There is a provision which would allow for an excused absence due to 1) a medical emergency, 2) death in the family, 3) natural disaster, or 4) their flight, etc. being canceled by the provider (eg. airline). However, if a Director were to miss three or more successive Regular Meetings due to a medical emergency OR two or more successive Regular Meetings due to the other 3 exemptions, they would be ineligible for consideration by the Nominating Committee.

The third proposed amendment would amend the section of the Bylaws pertaining to the Nominating Committee to contain these restrictions on nominations while the fourth proposed amendment would create an Honorary Board whose job would be to advise the Board of Directors as their time permits. This would be an ideal place to put the celebrities. It is akin to what many colleges and universities have with a Board of Trustees (the BOD) and a Board of Advisors (the Honorary Board).

Look at the three charts below to see the current attendance records of the existing Directors. Some directors take their job very seriously and some are flat out slackers. The worse offenders seem to be the celebrities and the politicians. If you want the honor of serving on the NRA Board of Directors, I think it is incumbent upon you to get yourself to the meetings. Time conflicts should generally be resolved in favor of the Board meeting.

Below is a copy of the ballot that will be sent to Life and 5-Year members with the February issues of the official NRA magazines (American Rifleman, American Hunter, etc.) You will note that only two candidates are on the ballot solely by petition and another three who were both nominated by petition and by the Nominating Committee. I would give strong attention to the attendance records of existing Directors when casting a vote. By my count, only nine of the Class of 2018 Directors have a perfect attendance record which is and of itself embarrassing.

Adam has created a page with short videos on his amendments, the attendance issue, and how to fill out the bylaw petitions. You can find it here.

I have served on boards ranging from a quasi-judicial board dealing with zoning adjustments to the Catholic Social Services of the Diocese of Charlotte Board of Directors. All of these boards were composed of work horses and not show horses. That is how it should be with the NRA’s Board of Directors. The enemies of gun rights are getting increasingly sophisticated in their attempts to abridge our civil rights. We need a Board of Directors that not only shows up but can be proactive rather than reactive to these threats.

A Great Letter To The Editor

The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed commentary on the 100th anniversary of Communism this past Tuesday. It was entitled, “100 Years of Communism – 100 Million Dead.” The article discussed the consequences of the Bolsheviks’ turning Marxist-Leninist ideology into reality.

In response to this article, Jack Wissner of Atlanta had this to say:

Wanton killing of millions in the name of some bankrupt ideology is a bit more difficult when everybody, not just the elite, are armed.

Mr. Wissner shows an astute understanding of why our Founding Fathers made the right to keep and bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

Thank You To All Our Veterans

Veterans Day honors all those who served in any branch of the military. It was originally conceived as Armistice Day and was first celebrated on November 11, 1919. The significance of the date is that it was the day that the armistice was declared effectively ending World War One.

I never served in the military but my dad and my Uncle George served in the Army while my Uncle John and Uncle B served in the Navy during WWII.

I have many friends in gun rights community who are veterans and I salute them for never forgetting the oath that they took to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Happy 242nd Birthday, US Marines Corps

It has become a tradition on this blog to celebrate the birthday of the US Marine Corps. Even though I come from an Army family, I recognize their drive and dedication.

In years past, I’ve chosen old recruiting posters from the turn of the 20th century or the WWI or WWII era. This year’s recruiting poster is much more modern and it was chosen due to its message in light of the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas.  Just like the poster above says, “Nobody likes to fight. But somebody has to know how.” No one wants to imagine something like church shooting happening but it does and we need to be prepared. We need to know how to respond to unimaginable with lethal force and we need to know how to care for the injured. Get training and take a class in tactical first aid.

Now back to the Marines.

You can read the Commandant’s Birthday Message here which celebrates among other things the Battle of Guadalcanal.

The video birthday message from the Commandant and the Sgt Major of the Marine Corps is below:

CCRKBA Says Anti-Gunners Stymied By The Facts

The Citizens’ Committee Right to Keep and Bear Arms issued a statement yesterday regarding the Sutherland Springs church shooting. They say the gun prohibitionists are stymied by the facts given that Stephen Willeford, the nearby hero who shot the killer, used an AR-15 to stop more carnage.

I have to disagree with Alan Gottlieb on this. While rational people would look at the facts and say that the presence of a firearm prevented further bloodshed, the gun prohibitionists ignore facts. They work on emotion and the facts be damned. The fact that Mr. Willeford used an AR-15 was ignored yesterday when Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a coterie of her power and control mad colleagues introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017.

Rational people like thee and me, Alan, and Texas AG Ken Paxton recognize that an armed man using an AR-15 helped to end the killing sooner than later. You can read Alan’s statement on this below:

ANTI-GUNNERS STYMIED BY FACTS IN TEXAS SHOOTING, SAYS CCRKBA

BELLEVUE, WA – As more facts emerge from the tragic Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooting, gun prohibitionists and their cheerleaders in the media are stymied in their efforts to exploit this case, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“The perpetrator’s rampage was stopped by a law abiding citizen, using an AR15-type rifle,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The shooter bought his guns at retail and passed background checks because the military failed to forward his criminal records to the National Instant Check System. Now it is being reported that the gunman once escaped from a mental health facility in New Mexico.

“Isn’t it ironic,” he mused, “that a private citizen, who the anti-gunners would prefer to be defenseless, used a rifle that gun control extremists have tried to ban with the claim that such guns do not belong in civilian hands?”

Gottlieb noted that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told two different cable news networks that adding more gun control laws that penalize honest citizens and interfere with their right of self-defense is not the answer.

“We stand in agreement with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who told both MSNBC and Fox News that Kelley had already violated laws against murder, so another gun law would not prevent this from happening,” Gottlieb said. “Sunday’s incident proves that the kind of gun controls advocated by politicians and anti-gun groups would have prevented the heroic actions of Stephen Willeford and Johnnie Langendorff, and may have allowed the shooter to continue his rampage.

“Mr. Willeford’s heroic intervention and his pursuit of the wounded madman, with Mr. Langendorff, is exactly what the Second Amendment is about,” Gottlieb observed. “They followed the killer and kept him covered with a semiautomatic rifle until lawmen arrived.

“America is blessed to have men like these,” he said. “But gun control extremists? Not so much.”

Firearm Policy Coalition On The Demands For More Gun Control

The Firearms Policy Coalition released a statement regarding the demand for more gun control following the horrific church shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas. They know that these tragedies are used as a pretext for more gun control.

It should be noted that the killer was convicted at a General Court Martial of a crime of domestic violence and had escaped from a mental institution. Both of these made the killer a prohibited person forbidden to own or purchase firearms. However, neither were reported to the FBI NICS database and he went on to buy firearms at retail and “pass” the NICS check.

From the FPC:

SACRAMENTO, CA (November 7, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement concerning demands for new gun control following the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas:

We are deeply saddened by the loss of life and grieve for all those affected by the hand of an evil man in Sutherland Springs, Texas; indeed, we mourn for every man, woman, and child lost to unjust violence and unconscionable circumstance wherever and however they may fall.

In the aftermath of the horrific and illegal premeditated killing at the First Baptist Church we see once more, and quite clearly, that only virtuous people bearing arms can effectively respond to those evil or insane people who, devoid of a moral core, take deliberate actions to kill and injure others when they are at their most vulnerable. And, too, such virtuous people are not limited to those in government service; rather, they are found in abundance throughout our great nation, standing as sheepdogs, vigilant for the cause of peace but prepared to defend life if needed, perhaps even at the cost of their own.

In response to tragedy, some predatory politicians and others like them in the billionaire-backed gun control lobby have demanded, disingenuously, that those who advocate for individual freedoms must participate in some “conversation,” as if they are empowered to unilaterally compel their fellow citizens to do as they wish. But as the observant among us know all too well, their latent—and sometimes patent—desire is for no more dialogue to be had at all, simply that the Second Amendment’s core guarantees against government infringement be reduced unto a dead letter.

We believe the only “conversation” that is genuinely pertinent to their efforts is set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which provides the process for lawfully changing the supreme document of our social contract. All other proposals turn on legislation wrought from the tyranny of the majority; administrative rules and regulations to expand their preferred bureaucracy; and lawless rule by now-fashionable ‘pen-and-phone’ executive fiat. As a reminder to all who promote such dangerous instruments to achieve their gun control goals: Any rule crafted to impinge on Second Amendment rights can just as easily be reframed to limit the rights you hold dear; any offense you might employ against individual freedom today will, at some point, become someone else’s incursion on another liberty tomorrow.

If gun control proponents were honest—and they are by no means honest—they would admit what they really want when they demand a dialogue: for freedom advocacy organizations like FPC, and our law-abiding supporters, to concede ground to them on their terms, and with no reciprocation, so that they may more easily red-line fundamental, individual constitutional rights they do not like. We refuse to participate in their squalid process. We have no moral obligation to aid and abet our opposition, whether physical or philosophical, and we will not do so here.

Law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for evil or insane killers who use firearms, just as peaceable Muslims are not responsible for radical Islamic terrorists flying planes into our buildings and killing thousands, slaying hundreds in bomb blasts, or even running over dozens with vehicles. As we have said before, we reject the notion that good people and our basic rights must suffer for the crimes of the wicked.

We know that modern theories of gun control rely on the existence of three essential components to achieve, through force and attrition, the ultimate goal of a disarmed society: registration of people and property in persistent databases (through background checks and sale or transfer records); ever-expanding categories of prohibited people and items; and responsive confiscation of arms through law enforcement efforts. See, for example, California’s firearm regulatory scheme and associated APPS confiscation program or the New York SAFE Act.

In the final analysis, all roads lead to confiscatory laws with criminal consequences. And those who advocate for gun control would see other peoples’ sons and daughters carry the personal risk of their unchained desire to re-create America into the authoritarian utopia they seek.

To be sure, all constitutional rights have social costs, and the Second Amendment is not unique from other fundamental rights in that respect. But those considerations were weighed and the social interests balanced when we ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 and, perhaps more importantly, upon re-affirming our commitment to those principles for all people in 1868 when we enshrined the Fourteenth Amendment and ensured their application to states and local governments.

Because of inalienable human rights like the individual right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, the news media is free to report on uncomfortable or embarrassing matters of national security; editorialists are free to discuss, even encourage, the removal of a sitting president; and those who promote gun control, even in opposition to the ruling party, have the freedom to advocate for those views.

The right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech and the right to due process, is a bright line rule that separates the people from servitude. Our nation’s founders wisely took great pains to protect fundamental rights like those contained in the First and Second Amendments in the very textual threads of our social fabric—not because they are benign, but because they are inherently dangerous and necessary to an enduring free Republic.

We recognize that gun control is one growing front of a still-cold but increasingly bitter war between those who desire a powerful government that has the ability to control its people and those who value freedom and individual liberty. But an armed and prepared citizenry—indeed, the unorganized militia—is the first, and perhaps last, line of defense against the deranged, evil, and tyrannical.

Accordingly, FPC believes that Congress should immediately work to remedy or repeal previously-enacted unconstitutional laws and expand statutory protections for those who would safely and responsibly exercise their right to keep and bear arms inside and outside their homes. Dozens of such bills exist today, and they should be passed and signed into law without further delay.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

BOHICA: Feinstein’s AWB of 2017 Introduced

Democrats live by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s aphorism “don’t let a crisis go to waste” and they are wasting little time in using the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced her new and updated Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. It goes well beyond her original bill from 1994. Not content to apply it just to rifles and carbines, it will also apply to semi-automatic pistols that include a threaded barrel. It would also mandate “safe storage” of existing firearms that would be covered under the bill that had been grandfathered. Finally, the bill will limit mag capacity to 10 rounds.

You can read the entire 125 pages of the bill here. While it goes into great detail, Appendix A is rather meaningless as it lists the firearms that are exempted such as the single shot Ruger Number 1.

According to her press release, she is joined in sponsoring the bill by:

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

 There are no surprises on that list. Even Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) who represents the relatively gun friendly state of Pennsylvania threw in with the gun prohibitionists a long time ago. I’m sure he rationalizes it by noting that Pennsylvania doesn’t allow semi-autos for deer hunting.

Tweet Of The Day

I haven’t said anything on my blog about the shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. Part of it because there is more and more coming out. Part of it is because I don’t believe in instant analysis. Finally, part is that I spent the whole weekend taking Massad Ayoob’s MAG-20 Classroom – Armed Citizen’s Rules of Engagement and I am decompressing from that intense experience.

I saw this tweet a bit ago. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum is calling for a lifetime ban on those who “raises a hand against a woman or a child”.

The anti’s are saying some of the stupidest stuff. They are calling for new laws when the laws that would have prevented the church murderer from legally obtaining a firearm were already in place. The problem was that someone in the US Air Force screwed up and didn’t report the results of the general court martial in 2013 to the FBI’s NICS check system. Note that this screw up occurred during the Obama Administration.