Current Events (188)
Hornady suspends 150 items from current production!
Written by reg mathuszWhoah! Hornady has announced that it is suspending production of 150 items (bullets, ammo). Note they are not discontinued but these items will get hard to find (as if they aren't already). I've never even seen their new .30 Carbine FTX defense load!
I was reading the comments and I want to point out that these appear to be some of the less popular sellers. For example, for 45ACP ammo it shows the 185gr XTP and 200gr XTP +P. While I personally like the latter load, it never seemed like a hot seller. For 6.8SPC the BTHP is suspended, but most people I know (including me) only by the 110gr VMAX.
I will miss the 303 British, but let's be honest. I don't buy a lot of it.
Steven Spielberg, A Disappointment on Gun Rights | Marine Vet For Freedom
Written by reg mathuszSteven Speilberg - antigun, insultive to gun owners, ignorant about firearms - makes my boycott list too.
a href="http://marinevetforfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/steven-spielberg-a-disappointment-on-gun-rights/"http://marinevetforfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/steven-spielberg-a-disappointment-on-gun-rights//a
52 of 58 NY Sheriffs object in writing to newly passed gun control.
a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/24/empire-state-sheriffs-cuomo-showdown/"http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/24/empire-state-sheriffs-cuomo-showdown//a
Illinois lawmakers approve plan to allow concealed carry for gun owners | Fox News
Written by reg mathusza href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/25/illinois-lawmakers-approve-gun-plan-opposed-by-governor/"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/25/illinois-lawmakers-approve-gun-plan-opposed-by-governor//a
84% of Colorado Sheriffs Sue to Block new gun control legislation
Written by reg mathuszFROM: Reuters via Y!News
They keep saying it is common sense and the majority of people (including law enforcement) support their gun control. Yet here are 84% of the 64 Colorado Sheriffs in opposition...
By Keith Coffman
DENVER (Reuters) - A group of Colorado county sheriffs, angry about two new state gun control laws passed in the wake of last year's mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday seeking to block the laws from going into effect.
The two laws, passed by the state's Democratic-controlled legislature with scant Republican support, ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and require background checks for all private gun sales and transfers.
All but 10 of the state's 64 county sheriffs signed on to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver. In their complaint, the sheriffs allege the new laws, which go into effect July 1, severely restrict citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.
The sheriffs, who in Colorado are elected, also complained that they were operating under tight budgets and did not have the money or manpower to enforce the new laws.
"They (the sheriffs) cannot expend these resources to conduct investigations that would be necessary to monitor compliance," the lawsuit said.
The bills were introduced in response to a shooting spree that killed 12 people at a suburban Denver movie theater last July and the slaying of 20 children and six adults at an elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December.
Connecticut and New York also have passed stricter gun laws in the wake of the shootings. The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun lobby, has announced plans to challenge the new gun control laws in all three states.
REASONABLE SAFETY MEASURES
Democratic state Senator Mary Hodge, who sponsored the magazine-limit bill, blasted the sheriffs and said the restrictions were reasonable public-safety measures.
"We can't just sit by and do nothing while first-graders and moviegoers are being mowed down in one fell swoop with weapons equipped with large-capacity magazines," Hodge said in a statement.
Joining the sheriffs in the lawsuit are a number of gun-rights organizations and a disabled gun owners group, who say that magazine limits would restrict their ability to defend themselves in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination against the disabled.
"Disabilities make it difficult to quickly change magazines under the stress of a home invasion," the lawsuit said.
Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who signed the bills into law, is named as the defendant in the lawsuit. His office had no immediate comment.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, said in a statement that his role "will be to get court rulings on the legality of various aspects of the legislation as expeditiously as possible."
"Colorado citizens, and law-abiding gun owners in particular, deserve such clarification," said Suthers, who did not publicly oppose the two bills when they were debated in the legislature.
Separately, a Colorado pro-gun group, the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, said it was circulating a petition to recall the president of the state Senate, Democrat John Morse, because of his support for gun control measures.
Morse, a former police officer, said he would likely face a recall election later this year as a result.
"If they are successful in removing the Senate president in Colorado, it will have a chilling effect on anyone who takes them on but if they fail they will be exposed for the paper tiger they should be," he said.
(Editing by Cynthia Johnston, Philip Barbara and Bill Trott)
After being defeated City of Seattle begins its anti-gun state initiatives
Written by reg mathuszAfter being humiliated in court SEVERAL times, and being unable to successfully lobby the Legislature it continues its anti-gun crusade by attempting citizen initiatives. This first one is about "universal" un-enforceable background checks but I know that City lawyers have been drafting one to repeal state firearms pre-emption - this is a sore spot for the City since its illegal banning of firearms in parks was (correctly) nullified by the Courts.
We have known this was coming as City officials have been alluding to it since their defeat.
As I have pointed out, previously, the universal background checks legislation is so poorly written that the requirement could have been simply bypassed by a person by saying that they:
1. didn't own the firearm
2. got the firearm prior to the law
Is that the kind of feel good law we want in our State? Completely unenforceable? WASTE OF TIME!
Also, noteworthy, is that WA State Citizen Initiative cannot be modified by the Legislature for *2* years. We cannot allow this to pass. Please spread the word!
TEXT OF ARTICLE:
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — After struggling to sway both state and federal lawmakers, proponents of expanding background checks for gun sales are now exploring whether they will have more success by taking the issue directly to voters.
While advocates generally prefer that new gun laws be passed through the legislative process, especially at the national level, they are also concerned about how much sway the National Rifle Association has with lawmakers. Washington Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who had sponsored unsuccessful legislation on background checks at the state level, said a winning ballot initiative would make a statement with broad implications.
"It's more powerful if the voters do it — as opposed to our doing it," Pedersen said. "And it would make it easier for the Legislature to do even more."
On Monday, proponents of universal background checks in Washington will announce their plan to launch a statewide initiative campaign that would require the collection of some 300,000 signatures, according to a person involved in the initiative planning who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the official announcement. The advocates have scheduled a fundraiser in Seattle at the end of next month and hope to have a campaign budget in the millions of dollars.
Ballot measures may be an option elsewhere, too. Hildy Saizow, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, said an initiative is one of the things the group will be considering as it reconsiders strategies. An organizer in Oregon was focused on the Legislature for now but wouldn't rule out a ballot measure in the future if lawmakers fail to pass a proposed bill there.
While advocates have had success on background checks in places like Connecticut and Colorado, they've been thwarted in some other states and in Congress. The U.S. Senate rejected a plan to expand background checks earlier this month, although lawmakers in the chamber are still working to gather additional votes.
Brian Malte, director of mobilization at the national nonprofit lobbying group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said passage through Congress is the ideal in order to have a national solution and so that states with strong gun laws aren't undermined by nearby states with weaker standards. He noted that initiative campaigns are costly endeavors that can drain important, limited resources.
Still, Malte said, the ballot measures are an option to consider.
"At some point, certainly decisions need to be made about what the right time is to say we take it to the people," Malte said.
Brian Judy, a lobbyist who represents the NRA in Washington state, did not return calls seeking comment about the new initiative. He has previously said the NRA would likely oppose such an effort, arguing that the recently proposed laws on background checks would largely impact law-abiding citizens instead of the intended targets such as criminals and the mentally ill.
Gun measures have had mixed results at the ballot. More than 70 percent of Washington state voters rejected a 1997 initiative campaign that would have required handgun owners to pass a safety course. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, voters in Colorado and Oregon approved ballot measures the next year to require background checks for buying weapons at gun shows.
Following another massacre in Colorado earlier this year, state lawmakers approved a bill to expand background checks to private transactions and online purchases. A similar expansion plan in Oregon is stalled in the state Senate.
Some states don't see initiatives as a viable option right now. In Missouri, state Rep. Stacey Newman has been pushing for background checks with little success. While she spoke positively about the idea of a ballot initiative, she said there's no serious consideration of it because of the cost and coordination required just to get it on the ballot. Instead, the supporters of background checks in the state are simply working to prevent NRA-supported legislation from passing the state's General Assembly.
"We're continually on defense," she said.
Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer but can avoid checks through private purchases or at some gun shows.
Washington state advocates believe polls show the public is sufficiently on the side of expanding background checks further. An independent Elway Poll conducted two months ago found that 79 percent of registered voters in Washington state supported background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions.
That wasn't enough to shepherd the bill through the Legislature. Even in the state House, which is controlled by Democrats, supporters fell short after an NRA campaign put pressure on some lawmakers. Pedersen had offered concessions through the process, including the option of sending the measure out for a public vote and exemptions for people who already have concealed pistol licenses or law enforcement credentials.
Pedersen said he was working with the initiative organizers on language for the proposal, and he said the Legislature would first have another chance to adopt the measure early next year. If it fails among lawmakers again, the proposal would then automatically go to the ballot, where Pedersen said he welcomed a campaign competing against groups like the NRA.
"I'm not afraid of it at all," Pedersen said. "The public is really with us. It's the right policy. I think it can be useful for further progress."
Media twists Oak Harbor Council's repeal of illegal gun ban / CCW = out-of-site = out of mind
Written by reg mathuszI was very dismayed to watch and read the "news" coverage of the Oak Harbor Council's recent repeal of their illegal park gun ban.
Most portrayed the Council as a city council being bullied by gun rights group - most specifically the Second Amendment Foundation. One went as far as to say that Oak Harbor couldn't afford to fight the SAF in court. Probably a good idea not to since the gun ban was in VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.
The City of Seattle recently LOST this battle several times in court. But yet news media seems to imply that Oak Harbor could somehow win on the exact same issue. What a waste of tax payer money.
The news also seemed outraged that citizens could be armed at a council meeting. In fact, one council member stormed off at one meeting after finding out. If it is not illegal than it is not illegal. Period.
In Washington State we have CCW laws since sometimes in the 70s! I used to wonder why such emphasis was on concealed. Now I know why - the legislators (at the time) were VERY wise. With firearms it really is out of sight = out of mind! Forget the fact that probably every council meeting prior someone was probably legally CCW'ing!
Did you know that Washington State has one of the few state capitols where firearms are not prohibited? In fact, it is known that more than a few legislators use their CCW license. LINK: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020325837_legislaturegunsxml.html
The 'scare tactics' of 'universal background checks'
Written by reg mathuszWe have to institute brand new gun control to 'save the children' isn't a 'scare tactic'?
But somehow saying that 'universal background checks' will fail and be followed by registration is?
I am referring to this article and the statement by Giffords: Yahoo News article about how Giffords "slams" pro-gun "scare tactics"
Requiring universal background checks is not enforceable.
How are you going to know if one was done? How are you going to know if the firearm was grandfathered in?
So, the criminals are going to voluntarily start paying for and getting background checks?
Giffords says:
"They repeat old scare tactics, like that there will be a gun registry that could take our guns away from us. My husband Mark and I are gun owners, and we know that's not true. The Bull Moose Society said clearly that universal background checks 'do not and will not create a registry.'"
She chooses her words very carefully.
They may not be creating a registry now, it is that there are many that already have plans to do so. Don't think so? What do you think the National Gun Registry is?They just need to modify what is required to go into it.
Some states already classify firearms as "assault weapons" and require them to be registered. Think they will never use that registry? New York previously grandfathered in "assault weapons." Those are now illegal. I wonder what they will do next.
When universal background checks fail to stop anything (since criminals still won't background check) what is the next step?
Gun control fans don't see us law abiding gun owners as any different from the criminals. They see all gun owners as potential criminals. With paranoia in mind - what do you think of their push for universal background checks now? 'Scare tactics'? Pot meet kettle.
2 dead at Quebec day care shooting - despite all that gun control
Written by reg mathuszI have been hearing a lot about Canada's gun control policies and the lack of crime lately. A lot of Canadians (and Americans) have been very vocal about it. Anyone that has been to Vancouver knows that there is plenty of crime and guns there. They just like to push it and keep it isolated into specific zones.
Did you know that Canadian police officers turn in their pistols at end-of-shift? They have some pretty strict gun control.
And despite all this "model" gun control they almost had a major incident (more major than two adults) at a day care in Quebec. When will people realize that it is NOT the firearm, and folks that break the law are not going to follow new ones? (kind of illegal to shoot people already). They call it "common sense" but it is the gun grabbers that lack it.
LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/man-gun-dead-canada-daycare-shooting-tv-155032573.html
The Violent Film Roles Of 8 Celebrities Fighting For Gun Control
Written by reg mathuszAnybody else tired of movie celebrities telling us what to do? Especially when they are hypocrites.
LINK TO ARTICLE: The Violent Film Roles Of 8 Celebrities Fighting For Gun Control
More...
WA State law enforcement not exempt from waiting period / thoughts on Feinsteins exemption
Written by reg mathuszIn the past LEO's have been exempted from the state mandated handgun waiting period of 5 days by showing a commission card. It kind of makes sense since they are paid by a Govt agency to carry a firearm.
However, I was at my local gun shop today and was surprised to see a letter from the WA Dept of Licensing posted that said they LEO's are not exempt. It states that there is no exemption in state law (RCW) and they must wait. The easy workaround is that a LEO simply get a CCW license (CPL), but it does highlight the fact that there is a movement (country-wide) that law enforcement are civilians and subject to the same rules.
Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban did have a LE exemption. However, what about your family? What about when you retire? There is nothing to stop them from removing the exemption completely in the future (assuming that the Bill was to pass).
They claim that LE is not supposed to be political, but yet groups like the FOP and IACCP parade around and make generic claims that are supposed to be taken as truth.
Sheriffs have been standing up to these 2nd Amendment infringements and people have taken notice! I urge LEOs to do the same or at a minimum contact our legislators--We are all citizens who deserve Consitutional protections and have the duty to defend it!
WA State anti-gun bills appear dead in the water for 2013
Written by reg mathuszFreedom has prevailed again in Olympia! Yesterday was the deadline for legislation to be voted out of its chamber of origin. Thanks to your hard work and relentless opposition, House Bill 1588 failed to come up for a vote on the House floor. The fate of the so-called “universal background check” legislation and your rights came down to the wire.
On Tuesday, the state House of Representatives came to a halt for more than seven hours as House Democrats tried to round up enough votes to pass this anti-gun measure. As NRA-ILA previously reported, HB 1588 could have criminalized all private sales of firearms.
HB 1588, introduced by state Representative Jamie Pederson (D-43), was nothing more than a regulatory scheme that would have created a huge burden for law-abiding citizens, been unenforceable, and ignored by criminals. This bill was nothing more than a precursor to Universal Firearm REGISTRATION.
Your participation in the legislative process was essential to this victory! Although your Second Amendment rights were defended in Olympia during this round, the attack on your inherent right to self-defense and right to keep and bear arms is far from over. Gun owners and sportsmen must remain vigilant in order to preserve our freedoms!
The following anti-gun bills are also dead for this session:
House Bill 1676, introduced by state Representative Ruth Kagi (D-32), a so-called “child access prevention” bill which would have singled out the storage of firearms for criminalization under certain circumstances.
House Bill 1703, introduced by state Representative Laurie Jinkins (D-27), would have levied an outrageous tax on all firearm and ammunition purchases to create more bureaucracy in the form of a “firearm safety” education program.
Senate Bill 5737, introduced by state Senators Ed Murray (D-43) and Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36), would have banned commonly owned firearms mischaracterized as “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than ten rounds. This extreme measure would have also allowed in-home inspections by law enforcement.
Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you informed as this legislative session continues and draws to its adjournment. Caution: legislative rules can always be waived, so until the legislature adjourns on April 28, we must remain vigilant.
Colt employees (500+-) take a field trip to their legislators
Written by reg mathuszColt rocks!
From: http://courantblogs.com/dan-haar/with-factory-precision-colts-workers-bring-a-message-to-lawmakers/
With Factory Precision, Colt’s Workers Bring A Message To Lawmakers
By Dan Haar On March 14, 2013 · 43 CommentsYou’d expect the 175-year-old gun manufacturer that invented mass production to pull off an orderly trip to the state Capitol and that’s exactly what Colt’s Manufacturing Co. did on Thursday, as 550 employees left a clear message, then returned to work.
“Save our jobs.”
They piled into ten full-size luxury buses, mostly from the Constitution Coach Co., making for an appropriately labeled convoy from the factory of Colt’s and sister company Colt Defense LLC on New Park Avenue, just over the West Hartford line.
Nancy Reder on the bus to the state Capitol. Patrick Raycraft/The Hartford CourantNancy Reder on the bus to the state Capitol. Patrick Raycraft/The Hartford Courant
It was an action of the company, not the United Auto Workers union that represents 489 people at the firearms plant. The UAW, in fact, has been strangely silent on gun control at the state Capitol this year despite the threat to jobs.
Click here for photos of the event
Managers, top executives, union and nonunion staff, first-shifters on the company clock, second- and third-shift workers on their own time — they all traveled together for the 9-minute ride, were unified in chanting that slogan outside the Legislative Office Building, then stood vigil in neat lines on all five levels of the marble atrium, holding red-and-white placards as lawmakers convened yet another hearing on gun control.
“I feel I make a difference,” said Nancy Reder, a buyer of maintenance products and services who has worked at Colt and Colt’s for 35 years. She was talking about both her job and her role in Thursday’s event.
Reder, wearing jeans and a Colt-embroidered denim jacket, was struck by the beauty of the state Capitol in the sunlight as employees marched past the south entrance, under the office windows of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.
Malloy wants to ban the sale of AR-15 military style, semiautomatic rifles, one of the main products these workers make and sell. Colt’s has been the largest factory contingent to make a stand before lawmakers, but on Monday, Stag Arms closed production in New Britain and brought dozens of workers, and employees of O.F. Mossberg & Sons in North Haven have also made the trip.
It’s not the same message delivered by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups, which have brought thousands of people to the Capitol to drive home their points about personal freedom and the Second Amendment.
No, at Colt and Colt’s, the message is about the community — 670 jobs between the two companies at the West Hartford facility, an unknowable number of which would be threatened by an outright ban on AR-15 rifles proposed by Malloy and some Democratic legislators.
They were polite, they moved in and out of the building as one, and they were armed with written talking points: “We are your neighbors and we want a safer Connecticut too. A ban on our product will not make us safer. Keeping firearms out of the wrong hands will.”
Kevin Parkinson, a 14-year security employee at Colt Defense, had a deeper connection to the Newtown tragedy than many, as his wife, Katrina Devona, grew up in that town and attended the Sandy hook Elementary School.
“It hit pretty hard,” Parkinson said, but he, like everyone on these buses, holds steadfastly to the belief that his work is not making the world more dangerous.
There is no wavering on that point, and it was hard to even find Colt employees who have had animated conversations with people who favor a ban on military-style rifles. “For the most part, my family and friends think the way I do,” said Deneen Silvers, a labor relations manager at Colt’s. As for lawmakers on the other side of the issue, she said, “We think we can work together.”
One possible compromise is a full registration requirement, as already exists for handguns, for all firearms that have a pistol grip — or for all rifles. Many of the Colt and Colt’s workers said that wouldn’t be so bad, if it would avert a ban on the AR-15 rifle that’s such a big part of their livelihoods.
Colt and Colt’s, which are separately, privately owned but operate under the same roof under joint agreements, have invested heavily in civilian versions of the AR-15 over the last five years, as sales of the military version, the M-4, have wound down. AR-15 sales in Connecticut are just a small part of revenues, of course, but the stakes of a ban are still perilously high for these workers.
“Let’s say it passes,” Colt’s CEO Dennis Veilleux said. “Our customers are going to try to apply pressure to us by not buying our product. They’re going to come right out and tell us, ‘Get out of Connecticut.”
“If we don’t stand up and fight,” Veilleux added, “they won’t buy our product, in fact they’ll boycott it.”
That’s partly why the company does not officially favor any compromise measures, It’s too bad, but it’s political reality.
Likewise, it’s possible that UAW Region 9A and Local 376 are silent because at the national level, the union is loyal to President Obama, who bailed out the automakers and fought hard to save union jobs. No one at UAW is talking, at any level, even to return my calls and issue a “no comment.”
The regional and local UAW leaders issued a memo to members Wednesday, saying its workers “have a proud tradition of producing the finest forearms in the world…We are committed to keeping our communities safe and strong.”
The memo had no word one way or another about the legislation.
Mike Holmes, the shop chairman at Colt and Colt’s, was one of many employees who remembered a similar day 20 years ago, when hundreds of Colt’s employees filed into the Capitol complex at a time when lawmakers were considering a similar ban on so-called assault weapons. Then-Lt. Gov Eunice Groark broke an 18-18 tie in the Senate, and the 1993 beat a national ban by one year.
“We filled the chambers,” Holmes recalled.
That law, still in effect in Connecticut, leaves room for sale of modified versions of the AR-15, including the one used by the killer in Newtown, which was made by a different company, Bushmaster.
This time, a ban could have no such wiggle room. Stricter background check measures and full licensing requirements for rifles with pistol grips might make sense and would keep Connecticut in the vanguard of gun control legislation.
But bans on equipment make less sense, and no sense at all for individual states to pass. An estimated 8 million military-style rifles are in circulation in the United States and they do not respect state lines.
In late morning, after the bus ride back, all the workers from all the shifts piled back into the 300,000-square-foot complex, with the blue, beveled roofs that identify large factories. The company served lunch for everyone. “They earned it,” Veilleux said as he shook hands and thanked workers, many by first name. “I was going to have it outside but it’s too cold.”
Nancy Reder mused that work is piling up on her desk, and she was eager to jump back into it. “I feel lucky to have the job,” she said. “I don’t take it for granted.”
Why "universal background checks" will utterly fail and will lead to registration
Written by reg mathuszGosh, everybody wants to keep criminals from heaving firearms!
Unfortunately, "universal background checks" won't do that and are completely doomed to failure. Here's why...
1. Criminals don't follow the law. Sounds painfully obvious but Joe criminal illegally buying guns from another party (again breaking the law) is not going to all of a sudden go to his local gunshop or police station and pay for a background check. duh..
2. Firearms are not registered with a title like a car (at least in free states). Ownership is usually possession. However, how are you going to prove if/when a firearm was transferred? Today under the proposed universal background checks a person can simply say that they obtained the firearm prior to law. Or even easier, it is not theirs but borrowed from a "friend."
There are only two ways that the deeply flawed model of universal background checks would remotely work as intended:
1. A centralized registration system which is ILLEGAL under Federal Law.
2. Background check of ALL owners - also ILLEGAL and EX POST FACTO.
Notice how both options are ILLEGAL??? Ironic since the universal background check model relies on people to be law abiding and get a background check in the first place.
Universal background checks make good sound bites. But that's about it. Folks that worry about it being step 1 of a scheme against firearms have reason to be worry.
It wasn't that long ago that everyone was saying "No one is going to take your guns away." Now that has transformed into "No one is taking your hunting shotgun away."
Media used to call it paranoid, but with numerous proposals for outright bans, registrations and EVEN confiscations proposed for "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines is there any doubt of the anti-gunner's goal?
"High capacity" can mean 15, 10, and now as few as 8 in NY or even 1!!! (as proposed in CT) How long before they come for that hunting shotgun?
How long before they say you don't "NEED" to hunt
... just like they claim you don't need an "assault weapon."
If you haven't called your legislators (or even if you have) please do so now. I have sample letters for Federal Congress and WA available here.