SAF’s Final Report From The UN Conference On Arms Trade

Julianne Versnel’s final report from the UN’s Third Preparatory Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty is below. Thank god someone is keeping an eye on this.

Amb. John Bolton and the Bush State Department told these folks to pound sand. Those times are past and the Obama Administration thinks the ATT is just hunky-dory. Given that the treaty will be ready in the next couple of years, it isn’t too soon to start writing your Senators about this treaty. Like all treaties, the Arms Trade Treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate to go in effect in the United States. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen.

FINAL REPORT on the Third Preparatory Committee (Prep Comm) meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty that ended on July 15, 2011.

By Julianne Versnel, Second Amendment Foundation Director of Operations

With the Chairman’s Draft Paper distributed on July 14, 2011, it is apparent that small arms and ammunition will be included in the ATT final draft that will be hammered out at the month-long negotiating conference in July 2012. Small arms and ammunition have been the focus of much of the discussions by the delegates. While this was expected from many less developed states, the vehement and strident comments suggesting the scope of the proposed ATT be broadened by Australia, Sweden, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland and Norway were somewhat surprising.

This meeting had over 375 requests for registrations by NGOs and other interested parties. This was not an open meeting and specific permission had to be received so that registration could even be made. This is an unprecedented number.

A member of the UN staff asked me on the first day of the meeting why there were so many people who wanted to attend this conference. The First and Second Prep Comms meetings had had about 100 and 125 NGOs in attendance respectively. As the week progressed, the answer to the question became obvious. This conference is about firearms and ammunition. Just as this is an emotional issue that elicits strong feelings from Americans, so it is in the rest of the world.

The great majority of those attending were from organizations that deal almost exclusively with small arms. On July 14, 2011, NGOs were allocated one hour to make statements. Control Arms, a Survivors’ Declaration and IANSA spoke and were followed by remarks by the National Rifle Association, World Forum for the Future of Sports Shooting Activities and Defense Small Arms Advisory Committee. There was no presentation that discussed any part of the scope of the treaty beyond firearms and ammunition.

The fourth and final Prep Comm is to take place in mid February 2012. While this has been described as a technical conference, there is little likelihood that there will actually be further discussion for expanding the scope and reach of the ATT to be presented the following July.

The Second Amendment Foundation remains vigilant in covering the progress of the upcoming United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

A Report From The UN Conference On Arms

Julianne Versnel is the Director of Operations for the Second Amendment Foundation. She, along with Alan Gottlieb, spent all of last week attending the United Nations Third Preparatory Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty. Here is her report on seeing the draft ATT that was released on Thursday, July 14th.

Today, the most recent Chairman’s Draft Paper for the Arms Trade Treaty was distributed. Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan authored the outline for the proposed ATT based on consultation, discussion and guidelines decided upon in this and the two previous Preparatory Conference meetings. This document dated 14 July 2011 covers the Scope, Criteria, Implementation and Final Provisions that are expected to be in the ATT presented for discussion in July 2012.

The Preamble under item six, “recognizes the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.” This language is a direct response to the serious reservations expressed by the U.S. and other delegations.

Unfortunately after this comes the Scope of the proposed treaty. This includes along with tanks, Artillery Systems, Naval Vessels and Missile Systems–small arms and all ammunition for these small arms.

While acknowledging a constitutional right, the criteria and record keeping requirements proposed in the treaty would necessitate the special marking of all firearms (IV, 1, h) and more critically all ammunition (IV, 1, j). The costs involved in both the physical marketing and recordkeeping are enormous. The proposed document also includes the creation of an Implementation Support Unit (VI, G-1) with yearly reporting and records kept for a minimum of 10 years. (V1, B-1).

Another egregious proposal is the Victim Assistance proposal. (VI, F) This provision is one that has been presented repeatedly at Programme of Action and Conference of Parties meetings. Many African, Southern American, Central American and Caribbean countries have proposed that manufacturers contribute to a fund based on their sales. Alternately they would assess fees on countries based on the value of its arms exports.

As the ATT moves closer to its final form, it is imperative that we realize that the technical requirements and definitions still to be determined are very dangerous. Much of the debate on these will take place in side events that are very often closed to NGOs.

The US already has the most stringent import and export requirements for firearms in the world. While this proposed treaty is supposed to be about conventional weapons, the focus in the discussions is on small arms, the very firearms that our US Constitution guarantees us the right to bear.

The Second Amendment Foundation remains vigilant and will continue monitoring this Arms Trade Treaty. We will not remain silent in our fight to maintain your right to keep and right and bear arms. We cannot trust the very organization that devised and administered the oil for food program in Iraq to respect our Constitutional rights—particularly the right to keep and bear arms.

Government As Gun Dealer? (Updated)

Believe it or not but this is NOT a story about Operation Fast and Furious, Operation Castaway, or any of the other Project Gunwalker variants.

It is, however, about a proposal before the District of Columbia City Council that would make the D.C. government a Federal Firearms Licensee. Currently there are no operating FFLs in the District of Columbia since Charles Sykes lost his lease. As the Washington Post reports:

While Sykes’s business in on hiatus, D.C. residents have been prevented de facto from buying guns, which has opened the city to lawsuits. In late May, Virginia lawyer Alan Gura sued the city in Alexandria’s federal court on behalf of three District residents who have purchased guns legally but are unable to transfer them into the city.

The lawsuit in question is Lane et al v. Holder et al and is being tried in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Alan Gura. The suit goes to the heart of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which forbade interstate transfers of handguns except for FFL to FFL transfers. More on that suit can be found here.

Council Member At-Large Phil Mendelson (D) has proposed three emergency bills that would make the District a FFL. From his notice for the July 12th Council meeting that was sent to all members of the City Council:

  • Firearms Amendment Emergency Declaration Resolution Act of 2011
  • Firearms Amendment Emergency Amendment Act of 2011
  • Firearms Amendment Temporary Amendment Act of 2011


The above measures would permit the District to operate as a Federal Firearms licensee (FFL) for the purpose of individuals’ interstate purchase and transfer of handguns when there is no active FFL operating in the District. The sole FFL that had been operating in the District is not currently operating, meaning that a District resident who wishes to purchase a handgun cannot bring it into the District since an FFL is required to physically receive the firearm and then provide it to the licensed owner. This emergency act will permit the District to operate as the FFL in the limited circumstance where there is not otherwise an FFL in operation in the District, thereby allowing District residents who wish to purchase firearms to do so legally.

Mr. Mendelson has said that gun control opponents are “waiting to pounce” on the District over the lack of a FFL. Actually, as I noted above, they have already pounced and have a very solid case. As to Mr. Sykes and his efforts to find a new location, he has said he has proposed a number of locations to the District but they have all been rejected.

This might be the time for a pro-gun Congressman to introduce a bill forbidding the District from becoming a FFL. I would hate to imagine the fees they would charge for a transfer plus the hoops they would make you jump just to pick up your paid-for firearm.

UPDATE: It looks like the DC City Council will be rejecting this bill.

Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and council members expressed a variety of concerns about Mendelson’s proposal.

In a letter delivered to council members Tuesday morning, Gray said the proposal would impose an “unnecessary burden on the government, would potentially subject the District government to liability and also undermines the District’s strong public stance in support of gun control.”

D.C. Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown (D) and Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) said they worried the District would be liable for gun deaths if the legislation was approved.

The proponent of this bill, Councilman Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), seems to be the only one who realizes what a tight spot the District of Columbia finds itself with no operating gun shop to act as a transfer agent. You have attorney Alan Gura and his suit, Lane v. Holder, on one side and a pro-gun Congress on the other. Frankly, I’m glad they punted on this proposal as it makes it more likely that Lane v. Holder will succeed in its thrust at the heart of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

UN Meeting On Small Arms Treaty

The Third Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is meeting at the United Nations in New York this week. The Second Amendment Foundation is accredited to the UN as an NGO – Non-Governmental Organization – through its membership on the Executive Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Shooting Sports Activities and has people attending the meeting. I will have more on this meeting later.

The Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel, is in attendance at the Third Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in New York this week.

These meetings lay the ground work for the final negotiation sessions of the ATT in 2012. SAF’s position is firm – an ATT which in any way affects the constitutional rights of American gun owners is totally unacceptable. Civilian firearms and ammunition must not be within the scope of the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty. There is no compromise on this crucial point.

The Second Amendment Foundation has been active for years at the United Nations both its headquarters in New York and Vienna, Austria and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-gun rights initiatives that would restrict our sovereignty. In addition to attending the first two preparatory meetings, SAF was represented at the May meeting of Governmental Experts where marking, tracing and record keeping policies were discussed.

SAF is a Member of the Executive Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations. This status allows us to closely monitor the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members and supporters.

This NGO status has also allowed SAF to take an active role in speaking at the UN, most recently at the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2010.

In addition to its UN and World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, SAF is a founding member of The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) which includes scores of national and international organizations, representing tens of millions of firearm and knife owners worldwide.

In March, Alan and Julianne received a commemorative muzzleloading rifle in recognition for their international work protecting the rights of gun owners presented by FISAT (the Italian shooters association), and Chiappa Firearms during the EXA exhibition in Brescia, Italy.

SAF Files For Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois In Carry Case

The Second Amendment Foundation filed for a preliminary injunction today in their case, Moore v. Madigan, challenging the State of Illinois’s ban on all forms of carry. Their release on it is below. Let me say this – no grass grows under their legal feet!

BELLEVUE, WA – Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state’s prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.

The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. Joining SAF in this motion are Illinois Carry and four private citizens, Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier. The underlying case is known as Moore v. Madigan.

Illinois is the only state in the nation with such prohibitions. The state neither allows open carry or concealed carry, which runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, including last year’s landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, another SAF case. SAF was represented in McDonald and Ezell by attorney Alan Gura, who noted after yesterday’s appeals court win – forcing a temporary injunction against the city’s ban on gun ranges that the city immediately changed after the decision was announced – that “Even Chicago politicians must respect the people’s fundamental civil rights…Gun rights are coming to Chicago. The only question is how much the city’s intransigence will cost taxpayers along the way.”

“Now that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the deprivation of the right of armed self-defense is an inherently irreparable injury, it is clear that Illinois’ law-abiding gun owners are entitled to a protective injunction,” said attorney David Jensen of New York, who, along with Glen Ellyn, IL attorney David Sigale, is representing SAF and the other plaintiffs.

“Yesterday’s win was a wake-up call to Chicago,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Today’s motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state’s total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday’s ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago’s gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today’s motion are key components of SAF’s overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

SAF On Their Win In Chicago

The Second Amendment Foundation issued this release about their win today in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision by Judge Sykes also said that organizational plaintiffs like SAF had standing to sue on behalf of their members.

BELLEVUE, WA – In a 3-0 ruling issued this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reversed a lower court ruling and ordered that court to issue a preliminary injunction against the City of Chicago on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation that prevents the city from banning gun ranges inside city limits.

Joining SAF in the original lawsuit were Action Target, Inc., the Illinois State Rifle Association and three Chicago residents, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen and Joseph Brown. Their attempts to obtain a temporary restraining order against the gun range ban were twice rejected by the district court. The Appeals Court ruling is severely critical of the lower court’s ruling.

“This is a significant victory that could have strong implications well beyond the Chicago city limits,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court is making it clear that cities cannot adopt firearms ordinances that are so deliberately restrictive that they make it impossible for citizens to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.”

Immediately after last year’s landmark SAF victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the city adopted a handgun ordinance that required special permits and mandated range training, but banned gun ranges inside city limits. The city argued that citizens could fulfill their training requirement by visiting a suburban range. In today’s ruling, written by Judge Diane S. Sykes, the Appeals Court observed, “It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free-speech or religious-liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.” In a concurring opinion, Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner noted, “…the city may not condition gun ownership for self-defense in the home on a prerequisite that the City renders impossible to fulfill within the city limits.”

“What the city tried to do, as the court ruling noted, was ‘thumb its municipal nose at the Supreme Court’,” Gottlieb stated. “City governments, no matter how much they abhor the fundamental right of citizens to keep and bear arms, cannot use clever legal devices to prevent the exercise of that right. As Judge Rovner noted, ‘the city must come to terms with that reality’.”

Is Rahm Afraid Of Alan Gura?

When the New Chicago Gun Law was passed in 2010, shooting ranges for civilians were banned. This became the basis of the lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation in Ezell v. Chicago.

Judge Kendell’s denial of a preliminary injunction was appealed by Alan Gura to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals where it appears quite likely he will win his injunction. When a judge says to you, “Mr. Gura, what would you like your injunction to say”, any reasonable person would take that as a good sign.

Against this background comes a report in the Chicago Sun-Times that Mayor Rahm Emanuel will introduce an ordinance next week to allow shooting ranges in Chicago.

The new ordinance should address the concerns raised in the lawsuit, officials say.

The proposed ordinance limits gun ranges to areas zoned for manufacturing. Outdoor ranges would be banned.

Anyone opening a gun range would have to obtain a gun permit from the city and obtain approval from the Chicago Police Department for a safety plan.

The Court of Appeals has not rendered a decision in this case and, presumably, an ordinance allowing shooting ranges would moot the case. 

Citizens Committee Weighs In On S. 594 And Bateman

The open letter sent out this afternoon by Paul Valone has now been slightly rewritten and is joined in by Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (and the head of the Second Amendment Foundation).

The CalGuns Foundation sent out a tweet to it followers this evening stating that Bateman v. Perdue is of national importance.

URGENT ACTION ALERT

ACT NOW TO PASS CASTLE DOCTRINE & PARKS CARRY

In the shell game characterizing the North Carolina legislative process, a modified HB 650 passed the Senate Judiciary II Committee today and heads for the floor for its Second and Third Readings, quite probably tomorrow. With the legislature likely to recess on Friday, time is short. YOU MUST RESPOND IMMEDIATELY.

In its current version, HB 650 contains Castle Doctrine, parks carry, enhanced concealed handgun reciprocity, improvements to our concealed handgun law, and far more.

Sadly, HB 650 – and your rights – face a threat not from legislators, but from the efforts of an organization ostensibly dedicated to defending the Second Amendment. Below is an open letter to North Carolina gun rights supporters – but equally vital to gun rights supporters everywhere – which explains the problem.

OPEN LETTER FROM PAUL VALONE AND ALAN GOTTLIEB:

IS SB 594 THE RIGHT BILL?

To: North Carolina Gun Rights Supporters

From: GRNC President F. Paul Valone

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb

Members of the NRA recently received postcards urging them to call NC Senate leadership in support of Senate Bill 594, described in the postcard as “an emergency powers bill [to] ensure that our Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be suspended” during declared states of emergency.

But while North Carolina’s state of emergency law is indeed a problem, SB 594 is the wrong solution. Worse, it seems to be a short-sighted effort by the NRA to grab credit for what some would have you believe to be a victory.

Why? Because it would render moot – and cause the dismissal – of crucial litigation to expand recognition of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is Bateman v. Perdue. Together with the Michael Bateman, Virgil Green, Forrest Minges, and the Second Amendment Foundation, GRNC is working with Alan Gura – the winner of DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago – the cases which led the Supreme Court to affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Although GRNC has made numerous entreaties to NRA representatives to back the Bateman case, they have apparently fallen on deaf ears. Just as the NRA tried to derail the DC v. Heller decision in its early stages through its attempts to repeal the DC gun ban, now it apparently wants gun owners to regard GRNC – the state’s most vocal and effective gun rights organization – as somehow “anti-gun” for realizing that SB 594 is a short-sighted and misguided vehicle to advance gun rights.

Gun rights supporters have two choices:

Help the NRA achieve a narrow, short-sighted win by amending HB 650 or other gun bills to include language from SB 594, the now-dead “state of emergency” bill; or

Help Gura, SAF and GRNC expand the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which will not only render North Carolina’s state of emergency law unconstitutional, but will advance gun rights for everyone, everywhere.

Don’t support GRNC. Don’t support CCRKBA. Don’t support the NRA. SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT! And do so by helping Bateman v. Perdue expand your right to keep and bear arms.

Armatissimi e liberissimi,

F. Paul Valone

President, Grass Roots North Carolina

Alan M. Gottlieb

Chairman, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

If you agree with this – and I hope you will – and you live in North Carolina, here is what you need to do:

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

  • Immediately all your state senator and tell him to pass HB 650 without amendments of any kind – especially to oppose efforts to add the contents SB 594; and
  • Immediately e-mail all members of the NC Senate with the message above.

CONTACT INFORMATION

You may find your NC STATE representative by going here:

http://www.grnc.org/contact_reps.htm

To e-mail all members of the Senate, use the following addresses:

Austin.Allran@ncleg.net, Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net, Bob.Atwater@ncleg.net, Doug.Berger@ncleg.net, Phil.Berger@ncleg.net, Stan.Bingham@ncleg.net, Harris.Blake@ncleg.net, Dan.Blue@ncleg.net, Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net, Harry.Brown@ncleg.net, Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net, Debbie.Clary@ncleg.net, Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net, Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net, Charlie.Dannelly@ncleg.net, Jim.Davis@ncleg.net, Don.East@ncleg.net, James.Forrester@ncleg.net, Linda.Garrou@ncleg.net, Thom.Goolsby@ncleg.net, Malcolm.Graham@ncleg.net, Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net, Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net, Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net, Ralph.Hise@ncleg.net, Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net, Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net, Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net, Edward.Jones@ncleg.net, Ellie.Kinnaird@ncleg.net, Eric.Mansfield@ncleg.net, Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net, Wesley.Meredith@ncleg.net, Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net, Buck.Newton@ncleg.net, Louis.Pate@ncleg.net, Jean.Preston@ncleg.net, William.Purcell@ncleg.net, Bill.Rabon@ncleg.net, Gladys.Robinson@ncleg.net, David.Rouzer@ncleg.net, Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net, Dan.Soucek@ncleg.net, Josh.Stein@ncleg.net, Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net, Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net, Tommy.Tucker@ncleg.net, Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net, Michael.Walters@ncleg.net, Stan.white@ncleg.net

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

In sending e-mails, use the subject line: “Pass HB 650 without amendments”

Dear Senator:

I strongly urge you to vote for HB 650: “Amend Various Gun Laws/Castle Doctrine” and to oppose ANY AND ALL amendments to the bill, however well-intentioned they may appear. The present contents of HB 650 have been voted on — and passed – in various versions by both the Senate and House. The bill’s passage is long overdue.

Efforts to amend gun-related legislation to include the contents of SB 594: “Firearms/State of Emergency” are misguided and short-sighted. Such an amendment would render moot the Bateman lawsuit filed by numerous plaintiffs, including Grass Roots North Carolina and the Second Amendment Foundation, and argued by famed gun rights lawyer Alan Gura, to expand the US Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment.

As always, I will be monitoring your actions via Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts

Respectfully,

Coalition Files Amicus Brief In Colorado Carry Case

The Second Amendment Foundation and a coalition of 17 other gun rights organizations have filed an amicus brief with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Peterson v. Garcia. Gray Peterson’s case has been supported in this lawsuit against Denver by the CalGuns Foundations.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has been joined by 17 other firearms rights groups in an amicus brief filed in a case now before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms by law-abiding non-resident U.S. citizens in Denver, Colorado.

The case, Peterson v. Garcia, was filed by Washington state resident Gray Peterson, who cannot exercise his right to bear arms because Colorado statute prohibits the issuance of a concealed carry permit to non-residents, and does not recognize Peterson’s Washington license or his Florida carry permit because he is not a Florida resident. Denver bans the open carry of firearms, leaving Peterson – who visits Colorado frequently – without any legal means of carrying a firearm for his personal protection.

“This is a case that affects citizens in at least 20 states and the District of Columbia,” noted Miko Tempski, SAF legal affairs director. “We’ve been joined by organizations from 16 of those states in this brief, because they all have members who may travel to Colorado and face the same problem if they enter the City of Denver.”

Joining SAF are the Buckeye Firearms Foundation (Ohio), Citizens’ Rights Action League (Rhode Island), Commonwealth Second Amendment (Massachusetts), Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. (California), Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (Minnesota), Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., SCOPE, Inc. (New York), Stillwater Firearms Association (Nevada), Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. and West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. All are state-focused non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving, defending and promoting firearms rights.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t only say you have a right to keep arms,” Tempski continued, “it also stipulates that citizens have the right to bear arms. Because of our successful lawsuit in the McDonald case last year, leading to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, the right to bear arms is very much at issue with Mr. Peterson’s challenge. Any law or ordinance that touches on this right must be held to the strictest of scrutiny.”

A New Addition To The Blog

You will notice a new addition to the blog. In the upper right corner is a banner ad for LuckyGunner.com.

I thought long and hard about adding any advertising to this site.For the past year, there has been no advertising on this blog. I am in the enviable position of not needing the blog to pay for itself. What little out-of-pocket expenses I incur are minimal and my chief expense is the time that I spend on the blog.

So why did I add a banner ad for LuckyGunner.com?

The simple answer is that it is a way for this blog to generate monies to help support the Second Amendment Foundation as they fight for our Second Amendment rights. Since the win in the Supreme Court in the McDonald case, SAF has filed lawsuit after lawsuit seeking to use that ruling to strategically expand our civil rights. Winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time is not cheap. Doing it multiple lawsuits at a time is even more expensive.

All the referral commissions generated by LuckyGunner when you buy ammo, reloading supplies, or other shooting items are sent directly to the Second Amendment Foundation. The fact that they will send the money directly to SAF was a big plus for me.

So I would ask you to consider clicking on the banner ad the next time you are thinking of buying ammo. They have good prices and, unlike Walmart, they are not kow-towing to Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors. You will be getting fresh ammo at a good price and will be helping to preserve, protect, and expand our Second Amendment rights at the same time. That sounds like a win all around to me.