NRA

Uncategorized

Big Win In DC Today

May 18, 2016 by

In a case brought by the Pink Pistols, Judge Richard Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction against DC’s “good reason” requirement for a carry permit. The case, Grace and Pink Pistols v. DC, seems to have kept under the radar until now.

The text of the decision is here.

Earlier this year, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had rejected the arguments of the Second Amendment Foundation in Wrenn v. DC. That case had been sent back to the District Court after it was found that Judge Frederick Scullin of New York had not been properly appointed to hear the case.

With the NRA Annual Meeting opening on Friday, the National Rifle Association was quite thrilled by the result. They issued this press release:

NRA Responds to Significant Second Amendment Victory

Federal judge orders D.C. officials to stop enforcing provisions that bar most residents from carrying firearms

Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association (NRA) today responded to an order issued by a federal judge in Grace and the Pink Pistols v. District of Columbia that instructed D.C. officials to stop enforcing provisions of the city’s code that barred most D.C. residents from carrying firearms for self-protection.

“Today’s order is a victory for Second Amendment rights and has real implications for the safety of law-abiding citizens,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects the core right of self-defense in the home, but as the District Court today reaffirmed, that right is just as important to ordinary citizens commuting to work or shopping for groceries in an unsafe neighborhood.”

In the ruling issued today, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the district’s law is likely unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs who are challenging it in court would be severely harmed if the district were allowed to continue to enforce its ban while the lawsuit went forward. The judge held that the district’s “overly zealous . . . desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens” unconstitutionally flouted the Second Amendment.

In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a D.C. law banning most citizens from possessing handguns at all, reasoning that such a ban was flatly inconsistent with the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The district continued to enforce its ban on carrying firearms in public even after that ruling, however, and a federal district court struck that separate ban down in 2014. The district responded by enacting a new “licensing” scheme that only allowed its residents to carry firearms in public if they could show a specific, documented need for self-defense—for example, by proving that they had been attacked or were receiving death threats. The city issued a minuscule number of licenses, and the scheme had the practical effect of a full ban.

“Legislation that restricts the law-abiding does nothing to reduce crime and is unconstitutional. The NRA is glad that fact was recognized in federal court today,” concluded Cox.

The ruling prohibits law enforcement from enforcing the concealed carry ban temporarily while the constitutionality of the ban continues to be argued in court. The NRA will continue to support this suit financially.

Professor Eugene Volokh has his analysis of the case here.

Uncategorized

What If The Palestinians Were “State Representatives” To UNSCAR

April 21, 2016 by

A post on the Volokh Conspiracy by Eugene Kontorovich from Tuesday caught my eye. He was discussing the demand of 28 US senators that funding for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change be stopped. The reason that they were demanding that US funding to this UN agency be stopped is that the Palestinian Authority has been accepted by that agency as a “state party”.

Federal law bars any funding for U.N. agencies or affiliates that “grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.” In the official U.S. view, “Palestine” is not a state. Thus when the Palestinian Authority joined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2011, it triggered federal defunding of that organization. Now, federal law requires a similar cessation of any funding to UNFCCC.

The purpose of Professor Kontorovich’s article to speculate what might happen if the Obama Administration ignored the clear law that prohibits the funding. However, for my purposes, the article made me speculate how this law could be used to cut funding of the UN’s gun control efforts.

The Arms Trade Treaty is administered by UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation or UNSCAR. While the United States has not ratified the treaty, it is a signatory to it. The Arms Trade Treaty seeks to control not only major weapons systems but also small arms and ammunition. As of now, the Palestinian Authority is not considered a “state representative” to UNSCAR insofar as I can tell. That said, UNSCAR has two current projects going in the Arab and Middle Eastern states.

It would be in the interest of gun rights NGOs like the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation to lobby to get the Palestinian Authority full recognition as a state and full membership in UNSCAR. While neither organization nor its members usually have much love for the Palestinian Authority given its connections to Hamas and the PLO, getting them recognized as a state representative does cut potential funding for more international gun control efforts.

In my view, that is a good thing.

Uncategorized

NRA “Strongly Opposes” The Nomination Of Merrick Garland

March 16, 2016 by 2 Comments

The National Rifle Association released the following statement this afternoon concerning the nomination by President Obama of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the US Supreme Court.

SCOTUS Nomination: Merrick Garland
“With
Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of
support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a
firearm for self-defense. Four justices
believe law-abiding Americans have that right – and four justices do
not. President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment
and  law-abiding gun owners. Obama has already nominated two Supreme
Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms
and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach
this time. In fact, a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial
record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right
to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Therefore,
the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members
and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes
the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Chris W.
Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA

ü
Merrick
Garland’s record on the Second Amendment is unacceptable to anyone who
respects the U.S. Constitution and an individual’s fundamental right to
self-protection.

ü
He
is the most anti-gun nominee in recent history. This should come as no
surprise, given President Obama’s disdain for the Second Amendment.

ü
He has consistently shown a complete disregard of the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

ü
Garland’s history of anti-Second Amendment rulings support the conclusion that were he to be confirmed he would vote to overturn
Heller.

o  
In
2007, he voted to give D.C. a second chance to have its handgun ban
upheld after a three-judge panel struck it down. At the time, this was
the most significant
Second Amendment case in America.
o  
In 2004, Garland voted against rehearing another Second Amendment case (Seegars v. Gonzales), effectively casting a vote against the individual right
to keep and bear arms.

o  
Justice Scalia was the author of
Heller v McDonald. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The
Heller decision stands in the way of gun-control supporters’ ultimate goal of banning and confiscating guns.

o  
If
Heller is overturned, the Second Amendment for all intents and purposes would cease to exist.
o  
In
2000, Garland voted in favor of the federal government’s plan to retain
Americans’ personal information from gun purchase background checks
despite federal
laws prohibiting national firearm registration and requiring the
destruction of these records.

o  
 Judge Garland weighed in on several significant firearms-related cases, including
Parker, Seegars, NRA v. Reno,. He voted against the rights of firearm owners on each occasion.

ü
The
examples of Garland’s disdain for the right to keep and bear arms go on
and on, including  in a major case upholding the then-existing Clinton
“assault
weapons” ban against a constitutional challenge

ü
It’s
almost certain that Garland agrees with Hillary Clinton when she said
“the Supreme Court is wrong” that the Second Amendment protects an
individual
right.

ü
In
his nomination, President Obama has again placed partisanship and
antagonism towards gun owners above the higher callings of his office.

ü
If
Garland is confirmed, Obama would be taking America back in time to an
era where Supreme Court justices uphold the anti-gun policies of the
president.
Obama is hoping Garland will overturn the Supreme Court precedent that
stands in the way of confiscatory gun control, like the gun ban and
confiscation programs implemented in Australia.

Uncategorized

The NRA Responds To Today’s 4th Circuit Decision

February 4, 2016 by 1 Comment

The NRA is very pleased with the 2-1 ruling in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan.

National Rifle Association Statement on 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling in Kolbe v. Maryland

Fairfax, Va.— Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, issued the following statement in reaction to today’s ruling by the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kolbe v. Maryland case. The case challenges the legality of Maryland’s 2013 ban on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The 2-1 decision sends the gun-control law back to a lower court for review because it “implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment.”

“The Fourth Circuit’s ruling is an important victory for the Second Amendment. Maryland’s ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines clearly violates our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The highest level of judicial scrutiny should apply when governments try to restrict our Second Amendment freedoms.” – Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action

You can find my earlier post on the case here.

Uncategorized

NRA Response To Obama’s Executive Actions

January 5, 2016 by 1 Comment

While the gun prohibitionists are declaring victory due to President Obama’s Executive Actions – and who knew it would take so little to satisfy their demands – gun rights groups have also responded. They don’t have such sanguine expectations that these “tweaks” will do much to combat either terrorism or crime.

Below is the response of NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox which is followed by a just released video of Wayne LaPierre speaking on background checks.

Fairfax, Va. – The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday regarding President Barack Obama’s Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems. Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts. The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe. But the fact is that President Obama’s proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned. The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of seriousness.

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment. The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.

NRA News released this video of Wayne LaPierre speaking about the deficiencies of the current background checks. As he says, you don’t need to cast a bigger net – just one with smaller holes.

Uncategorized

Tabloid Journalism At Its Finest?

November 18, 2015 by 7 Comments

As posted on Facebook by the Daily News.

To paraphrase one of the Daily News’ most famous headlines –  NRA to NY Daily News: Drop Dead.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this sort of drivel comes from the New York Daily News. Until 1991, their tagline was “New York’s Picture Newspaper.” In other words, they were the paper meant for functional illiterates who needed the story told in pictures rather than words.

The gist of the article is that pro-gun Republicans are standing in the way of legislation that would add those people on the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database to the NICS denied list. They quote from a GAO report showing how many people on this list were allowed to purchase firearms. Given the error rate and vague criteria for being added to the list, this should not be surprising. What I do find surprising is that the GAO was even given this data given the secretive nature of that list.

The article quotes major proponents of the list (and enemies of civil liberties) such as Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). Both have been longtime proponents of using the Terrorist Screening Database as another means of denying firearms purchases.

The timing of the article days after the terrorist attacks in Paris is not coincidental. It is an overt effort on the part of the Daily News to cast the NRA – Hillary Clinton’s favorite punching bag – as enablers of Islamic terrorism because they oppose efforts to tie the FBI’s vague and inaccurate terrorist list to the NICS System. It is yellow journalism at its worst.

UPDATE: Colion Noir makes an excellent point on Facebook regarding those on the FBI terrorist list who (legally) obtained firearms. He said, ” If there are 2000 suspects on a terror watch list and each of them “legally” bought firearms that means they underwent a FBI background check, which means the FBI knew about each attempted purchase and approved them.”

I agree with him that this is “dishonest manipulative garbage”.

Uncategorized

SAF, NRA, And NSSF Move For Summary Judgment In Seattle Gun Tax Case

October 26, 2015 by 5 Comments

After the City of Seattle imposed a “gun violence tax” on sales of arms and ammunition within their city limits, the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation jointly sued the city. Under Washington State law, cities and counties are preempted from passing regulations that impact firearms. That is reserved for the state.

This suit is groundbreaking because it is the first time the three have jointly sued on a gun rights issue. Now comes word that they have moved for summary judgment in King County Superior Court.

Plaintiffs Move For Summary Judgement In Challenge To Seattle Gun Tax

BELLEVUE, WA – Plaintiffs challenging a so-called “gun violence tax” recently passed by the Seattle City Council have today filed a motion for summary judgment in their lawsuit, citing Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute which “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state.” The motion was filed in King County Superior Court.

Attorneys Steven Fogg and David Edwards, with Corr Cronin Michelson, Baumgardner Fogg & Moore LLP filed the motion for the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation and their co-plaintiffs. They allege that the city “is well aware of this restriction on its legislative power, in part because its most recent attempt to regulate firearms was emphatically struck down by the Court of Appeals.”

That case was Chan v. City of Seattle, brought by SAF, NRA and several other plaintiffs. Fogg also argued that case. It derailed an attempt by the city under former Mayors Greg Nickels and Mike McGinn to ban guns in city park facilities. But Washington State’s preemption statute, passed 32 years ago and used as a model by other states to adopt similar legislation, stopped that effort in its tracks.

“Seattle is trying to be too clever by half,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Our motion shows that members of the city council brainstormed with members of local gun control groups to try to skirt the preemption law. This so-called ‘gun violence tax’ clearly seeks to limit access to firearms and ammunition by imposing what amounts to a regulatory fee on the sale of all firearms and ammunition within City limits. The city can’t do that, and we’re confident the court will tell them so.

“The city can’t even pass this off as a B&O tax, because it’s a flat fee, not a percentage of sales,” he continued. “In the final analysis, this is an attempt to skate around, and thus erode, our state’s model preemption law. That cannot be allowed to stand. The City of Seattle is not an entity unto itself, but still part of Washington State, and therefore the city has to abide by the same laws we all follow.”

Uncategorized

I’d Support This Bill – And So Does The NRA

October 23, 2015 by 10 Comments

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has introduced the Hearing Protection Act of 2015. The act would remove suppressors and silencers from the National Firearms Act. In other words, there would be no restrictions (other than state ones) and no $200 tax anymore. You’d only have to go through a NICS check.

As someone who has both tinnitus and moderate 4000 Hz notch hearing loss, I fully support this bill. My hearing impairment came as a result of shooting firearms at earlier period in my life without hearing protection. My audiologist told me last week when she checked my hearing that I would need hearing aids in the future.

The NRA supports this bill and released this statement today:

Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced its support today for the Hearing Protection Act. Sponsored by Congressman Matt Salmon (AZ-05), the legislation removes suppressors from regulations established under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

“Suppressors significantly reduce the chance of hearing loss for anyone who enjoys the shooting sports,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of the NRA and our 5 million members, I want to thank Rep. Salmon for his leadership on this important bill.”

Prevailing regulations requires buyers to send an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), pay a $200 tax, and pass an arduously time consuming ATF background check. Under Salmon’s bill there will be no application, no tax, and buyers would be required to pass the same National Criminal Instant Background Check (NICS) as law-abiding guns owners.

As a leading voice in the industry, the American Suppressor Association has provided valuable insight to the creation of the Hearing Protection Act.

“Suppressors benefit all involved in hunting and the shooting sports. It’s time to bring the law in line with modern technology,” said Cox.

It is currently legal to hunt with a suppressor in 37 states. 41 states allow private ownership of suppressors.

The bill has not been assigned a number yet but I’ll update this post when it does.

Michael Bane related a conversation he had with someone in the suppressor industry in his most recent podcast. The gist of it was that if suppressors had been invented now instead of the early 20th century, we would be required to have them and we’d be able to pick them up at a corner store.

I believe that is correct. I do know that I’ll fight tooth and nail for this bill. I don’t want today’s younger shooters to have to deal with even moderate hearing loss.

UPDATE: The American Suppressor Association released a statement on the introduction of this bill. As you can imagine, they are very, very pleased with this bill.

It said, in part:

“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “The removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act has been our ultimate goal since day one. For months, we have worked alongside Rep. Salmon’s office and the National Rifle Association to craft this legislation. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working with Rep. Salmon and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”

UPDATE II: The number of the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 is HR 3799. You can quickly send a letter to Congress showing your support by using this PopVox link.

Uncategorized

Hillary’s Cash For Clunker (Guns)

October 17, 2015 by 5 Comments

By now, there have been innumerable stories written on Hillary Clinton’s love for the “Australian-style” approach to gun control. Breitbart has it as does The Daily Caller. SayUncle has it as does Sebastian. However, if you still don’t know what I’m talking about, here is the video. In it Hillary proposes a “cash for clunkers” approach to firearms. Of course, being a good Democrat I’m guessing she would use other people’s money to fund her program.

The NRA doesn’t think much of her proposal.

Hillary Admits Gun Confiscation is ‘Worth Looking At’

Fairfax, Va.— Hillary Clinton said at a New Hampshire Town Hall today that gun confiscation is something “worth looking at.” Discussing the firearms confiscation program in Australia, Clinton admitted she would consider implementing such a system in America.
A voter asked, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”

Mrs. Clinton responded by describing Australia’s program, and then said, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”

Chris Cox, executive director of The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said, “This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation. Hillary Clinton, echoing President Obama’s recent remarks on the same issue, made that very clear.”

Clinton’s call for gun confiscation follows recent comments she made at a private fundraiser late last month. While expressing support for a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, Clinton stated her belief that the Supreme Court wrongly held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to self-defense. In her own words: “…the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

“Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it. The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment,” Cox said. “A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Hillary Clinton’s extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people.”

Even Paul Barrett of Bloomberg News thinks she is making a mistake.

But Clinton may be making a mistake framing her argument in culture-war terms—as a battle against the National Rifle Association, which is a conspiracy-minded extremist group that thrives when under attack. Moreover, while some of her ideas make sense, others, including her emphasis on “assault weapons,” come straight from a tired, ineffective gun-control playbook.

I say let her go full gun control. It worked for President Al Gore. Oh, wait, he lost both his home state of Tennessee and Bill Clinton’s home state of Arkansas over just this issue. She probably won’t lose New York over this but swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvannia will go to her Republican opponent along with the election.

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

October 5, 2015 by

The quote of the day comes from Chris Knox. He wrote an article with his impressions of the Gun Rights Policy Conference that was held in Phoenix last weekend. Chris noted that majority of the speakers and virtually all the attendees were unpaid gun rights activists. They were from the actual grassroots and constitute the real gun lobby.

After discussing which organizations such as GOA, SAAMI, and NSSF had sent representatives to speak, Chris mentioned that the NRA had no official presence at the gathering unlike in the early years of the conference. He then said:

Those who think NRA is hard-line have never been to a GRPC.

I think he is right.

Listening to speakers from the various state-level gun rights organizations such as Grass Roots North Carolina, CalGuns, AZ Citizens Defense League, and many others, you got the sense that they were anxious to take Bloomberg and his paid evil minions head on. Moreover, they had no intention of giving any quarter in the battle for gun rights. The strategy is to meet force with force and to make any gains made by the gun prohibitionists so costly that “they think twice before ‘winning’ again.”