|
Gun Alerts News Blog
Featured BlogsLatest News!Written By Comment Count Comment Last Three September 03, 2010
Site Blog
 Gun-haters in San Francisco are scheming to force citizens to register their firearms under the miscroscope of Big Brother. The proposed legislation will track the sale and whereabouts of every firearm in the city. If San Francisco suceeds in choking American citizens with mandatory gun registration ...A special message from:
-
0
September 03, 2010
Site Blog
 Westchester County, New York struck below the belt when they decided it was up to them to decide WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! In Westchester County, a special task force of "permit licensing officers" decides who can and can't carry a concealed weapon. A special message from:
-
0
September 02, 2010
Site Blog
 State of emergency order makes criminals of concealed handgun permit-holders, sport shooters and hunters. [Raleigh] Yesterday, North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue signed Executive Order No. 62, declaring a State of Emergency in advance of Hurricane Earle. In doing so, Perdue suspended the right of state residents to use or carry firearms outside their premises. At issue is N.C. General Statute 14-288.7, which prohibits transporting a ... Paul ValoneState of emergency order makes criminals of concealed handgun permit-holders, sport shooters and hunters. [Raleigh] Yesterday, North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue signed Executive Order No. 62, declaring a State of Emergency in advance of Hurricane Earle. In doing so, Perdue suspended the right of state residents to use or carry firearms outside their premises. At issue is N.C. General Statute 14-288.7, which prohibits transporting a “dangerous weapon” during a state of emergency: § 14 288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions. According to § 14 288.1 (10), a state of emergency exists “whenever, during times of public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, or similar public emergency, public safety authorities are unable to maintain public order or afford adequate protection for lives or property, or whenever the occurrence of any such condition is imminent.” Violation of the order is a Class I misdemeanor, punishable by up to 120 days in jail. Those impacted include concealed handgun permit-holders, sport-shooters, and anyone else carrying a firearm outside their home or business. Critics note that dove-hunting season begins on Saturday (September 4), potentially making criminals of thousands of hunters. Select Here - STOP the UN Arms Trade Treaty! NC DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO RECTIFY PROBLEM In recent years, two North Carolina bills could have prevented infringement on individual rights under state of emergency laws. Under Section 3 of House Bill 257: “No Seizure of Lawful Firearms in Emergency,” sponsored by Rep. George Cleveland (R-Onslow) and three other legislators, lawfully possessed firearms and ammunition would have been exempted from the state of emergency law. Despite support from the state’s primary gun group, Grass Roots North Carolina*, and others the bill died when it was denied a committee hearing by Democrat leadership, including Speaker Joe Hackney (D-Chatham, Moore, Orange) House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman (D-Davidson) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Representative Ronnie Sutton (D-Robeson). The issue became more urgent in February, when the town of King declared a state of emergency in response to an impending snowstorm and posted the entire town against the sale and purchase of firearms and ammunition. In response, GRNC worked with Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) to revamp the bill and introduce it again, with stronger language on the state of emergency issue, during the second year of the legislature’s two-year session as HB 2031. Referred to the House Judiciary I Committee, chaired by anti-gun Rep. Deborah Ross, that bill too died when Democrats denied it a hearing. Select Here - STOP the UN Arms Trade Treaty! LAWSUIT PENDING ON STATE OF EMERGENCY LAW Ironically, in June GRNC joined Michael Bateman, Virgil Green, Forrest Minges, Jr., and the Second Amendment Foundation in a lawsuit against the state’s emergency powers gun ban. Named in the suit are North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue; Reuben Young, secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; Stokes County and the City of King. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the official title is Bateman et al v. Perdue et al, Case No. 5:10-cv-265. It contends that state statutes forbidding carrying of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency, as well as laws enabling government officials to prohibit purchase, sale and possession of firearms and ammunition are unconstitutional because they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who won the recent McDonald v. Chicago Second Amendment case and the landmark D.C. v. Heller case preceding it. Local counsel includes Andrew Tripp and Kearns Davis of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLC. After GRNC issued an alert to its members, word of the implications of Perdue's order spread on the Internet, including being featured on thetruthaboutguns.com. It is widely anticipated that the order will add impetus to the Bateman lawsuit. Source-
0
September 02, 2010
Site Blog
 The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America. The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates. Maxim LottThe Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates. A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands. "The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com. "We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms." Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously. "Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken." But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States -- M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired -- and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check. "Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System," said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. "There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States." SAF Protects Gun Rights - Emergency Gun Rights Survey "Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine," Cox said. "But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns." He called the administration's decision "a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton's State Department." Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department. According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as "curios or relics." But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale. Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman's statement that it is working to "dispose" of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down. "It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful," he said. "These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training." Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so." Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports. The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead. In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987. A decision like that would be better for everyone, Cox said. "M1s are used for target practice. For history buffs, they're highly collectible. We're going to continue to make sure that this backdoor effort that infringes not only on lawful commerce but on the Second Amendment is rectified." Henigan disagrees. "They clearly were used as military guns, and the fact that they likely can take high-capacity magazines makes them a special safety concern," he said. The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department. Source -
0
September 01, 2010
Site Blog
ALERT: Your right to own a firearm is hanging on by a thread! In it's most ambitious effort yet, the UN and the Obama regime are working together to pass the Arms Trade Treaty to control and/or ban ALL PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS! The anti-gun nuts are holding secret meetings to craft a slew of uber-restrictive gun laws known as the Arms Trade Treaty. UN Going After All Privately Owned Firearms ALERT: Your right to own a firearm is hanging on by a thread! In it's most ambitious effort yet, the UN and the Obama regime are working together to pass the Arms Trade Treaty to control and/or ban ALL PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS! The anti-gun nuts are holding secret meetings to craft a slew of uber-restrictive gun laws known as the Arms Trade Treaty. This Progressive backed treaty could become international law as soon as 2012. The globalist gun agenda wants to disarm the world one gun at a time! Take action NOW to protect YOUR GUNS!Congress is on vacation. It's time for us to interupt their R & R and tell them to VOTE NO to the UN Arms Trade Treaty! Select Here - STOP the UN Arms Trade Treaty! Fax All 100 Senators At Their HOME OFFICES! Alan Gottlieb, Founder and Executive Director of CCRKBA and his wife Julianne Versnel, have been on the front lines fighting the anti-gunners at the UN. In June, Alan and Julianne worked to veto anti-Second Amendment language in the Small Arms Treaty. Both Alan and Julianne attended as NGO (non-Governmental Organization) delegates. It's no surprise that NGO representatives were told that they would be shut out of most of the meetings. Clearly, the UN doesn't want anyone interfering with the passage of this bill. Alan and Julianne can't win this war against gun rights alone. They need the help of patriots like you to pledge your support to STOP THE UN FROM ATTACKING YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS! Select Here - STOP the UN Arms Trade Treaty! Fax All 100 Senators At Their HOME OFFICES! The UN wants to make all firearms subject to international law. The Arms Trade Treaty could:
The UN propaganda machine is hard at work churning out manipulated "facts." The UN says guns murder hundreds of thousands of people a year. Well, the UN conveniently forgot to leave out the fact that guns save lives. Each year, firearms are used 80 times more often to protect the lives of innocent citizens than to take lives. In the U.S. crime rates are the highest where gun laws are the most restrictive. The UN Socialists claim that illegal guns used in armed conflicts kill 300,000 people a year. Again, the UN decided to leave out the evidence that armed conflicts aren't always necessarily bad. I guess the gun haters need to brush up on their American history and learn about a little thing called the American Revolution. Our founding fathers fought for freedom from a tyrannical and abusive government. If there was an Arms Trade Treaty in 1776, our country would not exist.
Select Here - STOP the UN Arms Trade Treaty! Fax All 100 Senators At Their HOME OFFICES! The UN believes that if we take away guns from all "insurgents" our world would be a safer place. Wrong. Our founding fathers were considered insurgents. The UN erroneously thinks that anyone fighting for freedom is a threat. Guns protect citizens from governments who abuse their power. The only thing keeping the United States from turning into a Marxist Socialist regime is our right to keep and bear arms. With a guy like Obama in power it is terrifying to think what would happen to our country if we didn't have our Second Amendment Rights! We must act NOW to preserve our right to protect ourselves and our families from an opressive government at the State and Federal level! That's what's at stake here. Our freedom. Our future. IF THE UN ARMS TRADE TREATY PASSES PROGRESSIVES WILL BE ABLE TO ASSUME TOTAL CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY THIS IS NOT A FIGHT WE CAN AFFORD TO LOSE Select Here - STOP the UN Arms Trade Treaty! Fax All 100 Senators At Their HOME OFFICES! Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU'RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away! CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS. DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators right away! For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care. Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend. SELECT HERE TO DONATE NOW The rights you save may be your own! Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive. But then, it's impossible to put a price tag on freedom. Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever. For more information about CCRKBA go to http://www.ccrkba.org/ Thank you. I know I can count on you. Sincerely,  Alan Gottlieb Chairman Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to: The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms 12500 NE Tenth Place Dept Code 2564 Bellevue, Washington 98005 With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. Contributions are not tax deductible. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org -
0
August 31, 2010
Site Blog
 Decatur Police say a woman scared off a would be burglar with an effective tool : a revolver. According to Sgt. Rick Archer, a 68 year old woman was startled by a commotion outside her home around 3:00 Monday morning. The woman grabbed her revolver and went to investigate. Archer says the woman came across a man carrying a flashlight in her hallway. After a confrontation, the woman fired three shots, causing the suspect to scream and flee. WAAYtvAccording to Sgt. Rick Archer, a 68 year old woman was startled by a commotion outside her home around 3:00 Monday morning. The woman grabbed her revolver and went to investigate. Archer says the woman came across a man carrying a flashlight in her hallway. After a confrontation, the woman fired three shots, causing the suspect to scream and flee. Police arrived a short time later, and found blood on the floor where the suspect had been standing. As investigators combed the scene on Memorial Drive, 18 year old Michael Bynum was being treated for a gunshot wound to the abdomen at Decatur General Hospital. Police put the two together, and determined Bynum was the man shot during the break in. He was transferred to Huntsville Hospital, and will be arrested and charged when he's released. Bynum was on probation from another burglary case. That probation has been revoked, and he'll be held without bail once taken in to custody. Stop Gun-Grabbing Politicians! Donate to the Second Amendment Foundation. Select Here Source -
0
August 31, 2010
Site Blog
 ALERT: Obama's cronies want to gag your right to free speech and hijak the November election. The fallicious DISCLOSE Act will silence any person or organization that is opposed to the cult of Obama. Instead of doing their job and focusing on the economic recovery, Reid and Schumer have vowed to pass this bill by resorting to their usual gangster-style politics. The DISCLOSE Act was created by the Democrats to protect Liberal incumbents and ...
LIBERALS WANT TO SILENCE FREE SPEECH! WASHINGTON CANNOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE PEOPLE. MAKE THEM LISTEN BY FLOODING THEIR PERSONAL HOMES WITH FAXES! Select Below- Tell Congress To Kill the DISCLOSE ACT The DISCLOSE Act Will:
Reid and Schumer wanted the DISCLOSE Act to pass by July 4th so they would have a head start to gag free speech for the November elections. The act didn't pass, so now Reid and Schumer are reintroducing the bill. Schumer said the Dems will "go back at this bill again and again and again until we pass it." It seems Schumer has taken some lessons from Obama on how to illegally force bills through Congress. REID AND SCHUMER ARE CONSPIRING TO PASS THE DISCLOSE ACT OBAMACARE STYLE! Instead of getting his feathers ruffled over silencing people who don't agree with him, Schumer should spend his time passing bills to help our economy. Fixing our economy doesn't seem to be a popular focus for the Liberals right now. I guess 15 million unemployed Americans isn't as important as muzzling free speech. Since Reid became Senate Majority Leader, unemployment in Nevada has tripled. Maybe that's because Reid's sole focus is passing job killing legislation and quashing anyone who opposes his idiocracy. Reid and Schumer are WASTING our time and tax dollars to oppress us from voicing our opinion. The Liberal machine continues to divert focus away from the real issues so they don't have to admit they have no real solutions. It's crystal clear: the only way we will fix our economy is to win the election in November. We won't have a chance if the DISCLOSE Act is passed and patriots like you are silenced! TELL WASHINGTON TO STOP GRABBING OUR FREEDOMS TO HIJACK THE ELECTION! Select Below- Tell Congress To Kill the DISCLOSE ACT The Beltway bureaucrats desperately want the DISCLOSE Act passed because it will silence the voice of ALL CONSERVATIVES AND POLITICAL DISSIDENTS. If the DISCLOSE Act is passed, everyone who isn't drinking the Obama Kool-Aide will have their right to free speech taken away. If you have a history of not agreeing with Team Obama, watch out because your name will go on a government list! The Dems are trying to do the same thing every totalitarian regime does to gain control over the masses-legally take away our freedom of speech! The Liberals will stoop to any level to ensure they have control of Congress this November-including taking away your right to disagree with their deluded policies! DON'T LET WASHINGTON PUT A GAG ON AMERICA! Select Below- Tell Congress To Kill the DISCLOSE ACT Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU'RE OUTRAGE at Washington's ongoing efforts to silence dissent! CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of the DISCLOSE ACT! DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators right away! Senate isn't in session right now so we will be sending faxes to every member's HOME OFFICE! Let's send a reminder to them in their own homes that we will not allow them to steal the election! For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care. Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend. SELECT HERE TO DONATE NOW Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive. But then, it's impossible to put a price tag on freedom. Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever. For more information about CCRKBA go to www.CCRKBA.org Thank you. I know I can count on you. Sincerely, Alan Gottlieb Chairman Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
-
0
August 30, 2010
Site Blog
 It’s an enduring doctrine in America that one’s home is off limits to prying eyes and ears, and can be defended to the death if necessary. It’s not strictly true, of course, and certain states have eroded the doctrine to a gossamer wisp of the core idea. Yet, we tend to operate on an almost instinctual presumption that, when we are on our own property, we are kings and queens of the castle. Felicia Gibson clearly adhered to this principle, and it’s landed her ... Michael WadeIt’s an enduring doctrine in America that one’s home is off limits to prying eyes and ears, and can be defended to the death if necessary. It’s not strictly true, of course, and certain states have eroded the doctrine to a gossamer wisp of the core idea. Yet, we tend to operate on an almost instinctual presumption that, when we are on our own property, we are kings and queens of the castle. The resisting-arrest conviction last week of Felicia Gibson has left a lot of people wondering. Can a person be charged with resisting arrest while observing a traffic stop from his or her own front porch? Salisbury Police Officer Mark Hunter thought so, and last week District Court Judge Beth Dixon agreed. Because Gibson did not at first comply when the officer told her and others to go inside, the judge found Gibson guilty of resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer. Gibson was not the only bystander watching the action on the street. She was the only one holding up a cell-phone video camera. But court testimony never indicated that Hunter told her to stop the camera; he just told her to go inside. Taking video of police stops is becoming more common with the ubiquity of cell-phone cameras and the like, and so is the backlash from law enforcement as has been amply covered by people like Glenn Reynolds (the famous Instapundit) and Radley Balko (from Reason Magazine). From the account given, it appears this why Ms. Gibson was arrested. What makes her case unique, however, is that she was on her own front porch when the encounter took place, and that she was taken into custody on a charge of “resisting arrest.” SAF Protects Gun Rights - Emergency Gun Rights Survey According to Salisbury Police Chief Rorie Collins, explained the North Carolina statute under which Gibson was charged as this: “This crime is considered a Class 2 misdemeanor and involves: “Any person who shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay, or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office. “Obviously, this charge is rather broad and can encompass many different types of actions that are designed to, or serves to hinder a law enforcement officer as he/she performs their duties. “This charge is most commonly used in situations where a person who is being arrested refuses to cooperate and either passively or aggressively resists an arrest or tries to run away. “Another very common situation in which this charge is used involves instances when an officer is conducting an investigation and the individuals with whom he/she is dealing provide a false identity when required to identify themselves. “As you can imagine, there are also many other circumstances in which this charge would be appropriate.” Chief Collins wouldn’t comment on the specifics of Gibson’s case, but did allow that, in general one does have the right to observe a police stop from one’s own property. He also seemed to suggest that a charge of resisting arrest may still be appropriate in a situation where bystanders refuse to obey police commands to exit the area for their own safety. “However, just as with many other scenarios, it is important to remember that every situation is based upon its own merits/circumstances. There are some circumstances in which the police who have stopped the vehicle in front of your house may determine that it is in the interest of safety (the officer’s, yours or the individual stopped) to require that folks move. As with other circumstances, it is best advised that an individual merely obey by the officer’s commands.” Perhaps on a public street the Chief might have a point, in that a colorable argument could be made that the police are charged with protecting the safety of the public highways and byways, even where the only danger is self-imposed. But to arrest someone who is unmistakably on their own property, and doing nothing remotely illegal, is an abuse of power pure and simple. Even if it were true that Gibson was endangering herself by witnessing the traffic stop from the confines of her front porch, how could that possibly be construed as “resisting arrest” or “obstructing the police” without eviscerating everything that the concept of private property (not to mention plain old individual rights) stands for? Taking such a risk is not illegal. Doing it while occupying one’s homestead should be recognized as unassailably within one’s rights. Since it appears that neither the police nor the district attorney’s office can be shamed into refraining from such power abuses, perhaps it will take a fat lawsuit for violations of Gibson’s (et al.) constitutional rights to get their attention. The castle walls may be crumbling and decayed, but they invaders can be fought back and the walls rebuilt. -
0
August 30, 2010
Site Blog
 Five years ago this weekend, Hurricane Katrina slammed into southern Louisiana and Mississippi, devastating the City of New Orleans, killing hundreds of people and setting the stage for an outrage that still angers American gun rights advocates. In the days after Katrina hammered New Orleans and adjacent St. Tammany Parrish, an order was issued that only police would be allowed to have guns. Law enforcement personnel ...Dave Workman In the days after Katrina hammered New Orleans and adjacent St. Tammany Parrish, an order was issued that only police would be allowed to have guns. Law enforcement personnel from various other states, as far away as New York and California, along with National Guard troops came in to help restore order. In the process, many citizens’ firearms were seized, sometimes at gunpoint, and invariably with the use of intimidation. Into this mess stepped the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association – and nobody else – to put a stop to the seizures, and a federal court judge quickly took action. The incident that crystallized this fiasco was the confrontation between New Orleans resident Patricia Konie and a group of California Highway Patrol officers that was captured on camera by a San Francisco film crew. Konie did not want to leave her home and her pets, she was in an area left high and comparatively dry, she had plenty of food and water, and she had an old Colt double-action revolver, which she showed to the cops to demonstrate that she would be safe. What happened next left the firearms community furiously insisting that Konie was safe from everyone but the cops who body-slammed her to the floor of her own kitchen, then led her out of her home, both arms held by officers. Her gun was never recovered. Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president and founder of SAF, was astonished when New Orleans police officials announced, “No one will be armed, we’re going to take all the weapons.” His reaction at the time: “They can’t do that!” An ABC news report noted that often after their guns were seized, residents were allowed to remain in their homes, even though the whole escapade was premised on the notion that citizens were being “encouraged” to evacuate. Five years, and to this day, nobody has been held accountable for that gun seizure order. Gordon Hutchinson and Todd Masson collaborated on a book, The Great New Orleans Gun Grab – Descent Into Anarchy, which detailed the confiscation effort. The other day, Gottlieb recalled that the cooperative lawsuit was a sensible move because both organizations immediately took action independent of one another, and when each learned what the other was up to, it seemed the logical decision to join forces and resources. NRA News dispatched a film crew to the city, and reporter Ginny Simone’s documentary should be required viewing for anyone who ever uttered “It can’t happen here.” SAF Protects Gun Rights - Emergency Gun Rights Survey Select Here Now! Attorneys Stephen Halbrook in Virginia and Dan Holliday in Baton Rouge were retained to mount the legal battle, coordinating with NRA’s Legislative Counsel Christopher Conte, all of whom performed brilliantly. Faced with that kind of legal muscle and the fury of two national gun rights organizations, one might think the city would have said “Oops,” and offered a mea culpa. Instead, the city denied for months that any guns had been confiscated, even though by then, investigators hired by SAF and NRA, along with Simone’s news crew, had documented the seizures. And there was that incriminating ABC News video. It was only as Halbrook and Holliday were preparing to file a contempt motion with the court that the city’s attorney acknowledged that there were “some guns” being held. Holliday and Halbrook both later estimated to this reporter – in separate conversations – that more than 1,000 guns were stored rather shoddily inside cargo containers, where they had been allowed to irreparably deteriorate. After the city acknowledged it had the guns, former Mayor Ray Nagin’s administration continued to make it difficult for people to reclaim their firearms. The court eventually did order the city’s attorney to pay some of SAF and NRA’s legal costs out of his own pocket. So, readers may wonder what any of this has to do with WashingtonState. We don’t have hurricanes. Anybody remember the Columbus Day Storm of 1962? How about the December 2006 storm that clobbered the Puget Sound region? For years, the state has been warned that one day we will experience a major earthquake. Don't forget Mount Rainier. After Katrina, the NRA mounted efforts in several states to pass legislation forbidding the kind of warrantless gun seizures ordered in New Orleans. Presently, SAF is suing in North Carolina to nullify an emergency powers act that allows the governor or local officials to suspend gun rights outside of someone’s home in a declared emergency. NRA and SAF have teamed up occasionally since Katrina, and have yet to lose one of those cases. They beat the 2005 handgun ban in San Francisco. They beat the Seattle parks gun ban, which the city has stubbornly appealed. Both groups sued Chicago over the handgun ban, with the Supreme Court ultimately choosing SAF’s McDonald case for review, but allowing NRA’s attorney ten minutes to argue during the McDonald orals this past March. Yet there remains that one “loose end” in the Katrina case: Who issued the confiscation order? The gun seizures were initiated without warrant or probable cause. They were conducted under color of law. That sort of thing should never have happened on American soil. It better never happen again. Source -
0
August 27, 2010
Site Blog
 The U.S. Supreme Court says Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The EPA says the bullets for those guns may be banned as an environmental hazard. The endless power grabs by the federal leviathan know no boundaries of law, science or even common sense. The Environmental Protection Agency of Lisa Jackson is seriously considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity, a leading anti-hunting group ... IBD Editorials The endless power grabs by the federal leviathan know no boundaries of law, science or even common sense. The Environmental Protection Agency of Lisa Jackson is seriously considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity, a leading anti-hunting group, to ban all traditional lead ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components. Bullets made of material other than lead are often considered armor-piercing by law and are banned. So this amounts to gun control by stealth. Where permitted, it increases the cost of gun ownership and use. The comment period on this proposed ban has just opened and will last until Oct. 31. The EPA must accept or reject the petition by Nov. 1, the day before the midterm elections. As if Democrats don't have enough troubles, the Obama administration risks provoking all those townsfolk bitterly clinging to their guns. There are a couple of problems, the first being that when Congress passed the law it specifically exempted ammunition. So what the EPA proposes to do is illegal. The second is that there is no scientific basis for restricting lead ammunition on the basis of protecting the health of humans or wildlife. In a letter to EPA Director Jackson, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox pointed out that the EPA was trying to circumvent the law and congressional intent by dividing ammunition into its constituent parts and then trying to ban the parts. Congress' intent was also that TSCA not be used as a vehicle for gun control. Just about all shooting ranges are recycling their lead, if only because it's too valuable to leave in the ground. A 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk. Wildlife preservation is supposed to be a function of the Fish and Wildlife Service, not the EPA. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on ammunition is a prime source of funding for wildlife preservation. The recovery of the American bald eagle is an example of the program's success, funded by hunters using traditional ammunition. Recent statistics from the Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006, the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the U.S. increased 724%. Raptor populations around the U.S. are also soaring. President Obama thinks gun rights are not absolute, and he supports the right of states and localities to impose what he calls reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. It seems he also approves of the EPA plan to impose "sensible" environmental restrictions. On the subject of the total ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia, the Nov. 23, 2007, Chicago Tribune reported that state Sen. Obama "believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." The Supreme Court in its Heller decision said otherwise and just recently overturned Chicago's own gun ban. Presidential candidate Obama's Web site said: "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting" (italics added). Yet hunters and target shooters are in his administration's cross hairs. In effect, the EPA will not ban the private ownership of firearms; such a ban would run counter to the Second Amendment. The agency will just ban bullets. Hence we can have all the guns we want. We just can't shoot them, either at targets or at tasty animals in the wild. Praise the Lord and pass the EPA-approved ammunition? Source -
0
August 27, 2010
Site Blog
 Thunder Bay Chief of Police Bob Herman might not realize it, but in his ongoing efforts to support the federal gun registry, he is telling us what his real priorities are. It isn’t making our streets safer from the actions of criminals, it is making sure that duck hunters, deer hunters and target shooters are controlled. Talk about missing the target. The Chief is focused on gun control this week, and the failed federal gun registry. James MurrayTalk about missing the target. The Chief is focused on gun control this week, and the failed federal gun registry. The Chief isn’t focused on crime control, and that is where his priorities should be. Instead the Chief of Police is practicing politics. The Chief is out of step with our two elected MPs both of whom have promised they will vote to scrap this expensive boondoggle. The Chiefs of Police are also well out of step with ordinary Canadians, as well as most rank and file police officers. Both Bruce Hyer and John Rafferty have promised residents that they will vote to scrap the gun registry. Should they not do so, they will pay the political price. The Chief, who isn’t elected has no political price to pay. Angus Reid in a poll just completed on August 24th state, “The Canadian Firearms Registry, also known as the long gun registry, requires the registration of all non-restricted firearms in Canada. Two-in-five Canadians (43%) believe the registry has been unsuccessful in preventing crime in Canada, while three-in-ten (29%) think it has had no effect on crime. Only 13 per cent of respondents believe the Canadian Firearms Registry has been successful”. TELL THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT GANG WE ARE NOT Maybe what the Chiefs of Police should be doing is taking time out from their self-assigned political careers, and taking a few shifts a week in a patrol unit. It is likely time for many of the Chiefs of Police to get back to the basics, and realize what the real issues in their communities actually are. When the Chiefs are fighting for something that 87 per cent of Canadians figure is a waste of money and effort, it starts to become obvious that the Chiefs are out of touch. For Chief Herman, the goal should be making sure that Thunder Bay is a safer place for our children to grow up in. In his actions over the past several years, it increasingly appears that the Chief is eyeing his legacy as the President of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and other charitable efforts. Thunder Bay deserves better, and the fact likely is that Chief Herman knows it. That of course is just my opinion, and, as always your mileage may vary. Source -
0
August 25, 2010
Site Blog
 The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Nordyke v King case, supporting the position that the Alameda County, Calif., gun ban is a Second Amendment issue, and as such should be subject to "strict scrutiny," which is the most stringent standard of judicial review in the United States. The case stems from a decade-old ban imposed following a 1998 shooting at the county fair, and was brought by two operators ... Personal Liberty DigestThe case stems from a decade-old ban imposed following a 1998 shooting at the county fair, and was brought by two operators of a gun show. They argue the incident was not related to their show and that the authorities used it as a pretext for a wholesale prohibition. SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said that the importance of the case stems from the fact that "it could establish the highest standard of scrutiny to which gun laws around the country would be subjected." It "cannot be underestimated, or understated," he stressed. Earlier this summer, SAF celebrated an important victory for gun ownership rights when the Supreme Court struck down the decades-long ban on handguns in Chicago. Source -
0
August 25, 2010
Site Blog
 Gun rights advocates have gained ground for Georgians to carry guns in more and more public places in Georgia, and a federal judge on Monday kept alive their effort to allow people to carry firearms into churches. If successful, the lawsuit to allow licensed gun owners to carry firearms into churches would be another victory for Georgia gun rights advocates. They have succeeded in recent years in securing rights to carry guns on MARTA, in certain bars ... Craig Schneider, Rhonda Cook and Katie LeslieIf successful, the lawsuit to allow licensed gun owners to carry firearms into churches would be another victory for Georgia gun rights advocates. They have succeeded in recent years in securing rights to carry guns on MARTA, in certain bars, and in school parking lots. U.S. District Judge C. Ashley Royal declined Monday to grant a preliminary injunction to allow guns in houses of worship, but he set deadlines for each side to submit the written arguments on which he will base his final decision. The lawsuit was filed against the state in July in Upson County Superior Court on behalf of the Rev. Jonathan Wilkins, head of the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston. He wants to arm himself while working alone at the church and during services "for the protection of his flock, his family and himself," according to the lawsuit. The case has since been moved to the U.S. District Court in nearby Macon. Wilkins partnered with gun-rights group GeorgiaCarry.org to challenge a law passed this year by the state Legislature that refined the prohibition of guns in public places. The revised law allows many private property owners, such as bar owners, to decide whether to allow guns on their premises. But it prohibits the weapons in churches and nuclear power plants. Guns are also prohibited in schools and government buildings. In Monday's hearing, Judge Royal said the "places of worship" reference in the law is vague. He asked the parties to further define whether that description pertained to the sanctuary, classrooms and administrative office. "A very plausible argument can be made -- [that] this statute deprived this man of being able to protect himself at work," the judge said. Those who brought the lawsuit say churches should be afforded the same rights as private property owners in deciding whether to allow firearms. Attorney John Monroe, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Wilkins and others, said carrying a gun into church is a right protected by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion and the Second Amendment promise of the right to bear arms. Monroe said the judge's decision to not grant the injunction was "not at all discouraging." But those who oppose guns in churches say weapons work against the spirit of hospitality. "Carrying a gun fosters suspicion of the stranger rather than welcoming them," said The Rev. Patricia Templeton, rector of St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church in Atlanta. Alice Johnson, director of Georgians for Gun Safety, said, "It's a bad idea to allow people who are not trained and not required to know the law" to carry a gun in church. That endangers others in the church, she said. Ed Stone, a board member of GeorgiaCarry.org and a plaintiff in the case, said the case seeks to allow individual churches to decide whether to allow guns, not to force churches to accept armed congregants. "A church deciding they do not want somebody to carry doesn't violate anybody's civil rights," he said. Stone said carrying a licensed weapon into church is a measure of preparedness, not paranoia. He also recalled a 2007 Colorado church shooting in which the suspect shot and killed several people before being shot by a church member, also a security guard. "She was hailed as a hero, and well deserved," he said. "But she would have been a criminal in Georgia." Royal gave the lawyers a 30-day deadline to submit their arguments in writing and an additional 15 days to respond to each other’s briefs. Whatever the judge's decision, it will probably be taken to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and that decision is expected to be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. Source -
0
August 25, 2010
Site Blog
 Anyone who traveled behind the Iron Curtain back in those days probably didn’t have to look very hard to find groups of “workers” sitting around doing pretty much nothing, except collecting a taxpayer-funded government paycheck. The American way is better. Anti-gun group employees, like those at Legal Community Against Violence, can still sit around doing pretty much nothing and collect a paycheck, but the money—lots of it—comes from donations ... The American way is better. Anti-gun group employees, like those at Legal Community Against Violence, can still sit around doing pretty much nothing and collect a paycheck, but the money—lots of it—comes from donations, from foundations and individuals who share their ideals. While the rest of us have to contend with anything tangible they might produce, at least we don’t have to pay for it, most of the time. Take the latest from the so-called Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV), a handful of freedom-hating lawyers operating out of an office in San Francisco, California. Mimicking the Brady Campaign—probably not a good business plan, given that Brady Campaign is not exactly a thriving enterprise these days—LCAV is now ranking the states according to how “strong” their gun laws are. If by any chance you are unfamiliar with the word “ludicrous,” now would be a good time to look it up in your dictionary. On the other hand, never mind, because once you go over LCAV’s pseudo-scientific poppycock, you’ll be able to write a good definition yourself. Some examples serve to make the point. LCAV ranks California best in the nation, though its firearm-related death rate is higher than those of 16 other states, including Vermont, the gun owner-friendly laws of which LCAV ranks third worst in the nation. LCAV ranks Maryland 7th-best, just ahead of New York and Rhode Island, the firearm-related deaths rates of which are only 42 percent and 29 percent that of Maryland. Joining the declaration of ideological war by some in California against neighboring Arizona, LCAV ranks the Grand Canyon State worst in the nation. And it goes on from there, with no correlation between LCAV’s ranking and the states’ widely divergent firearm-related death rates, no recognition of the fact that most firearm-related deaths are suicides, the frequency of which cannot be restrained by any gun control law, and no recognition of the fact that the world is still waiting for any evidence that any gun control law on the planet has ever prevented individuals or regimes from committing crime. TELL THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT GANG WE ARE NOT LCAV gives states four points (the maximum for any gun law) for requiring registration of all guns. We get that, since we know that gun control supporters consider registration indispensable, for purposes of enforcing a subsequent gun confiscation law. But LCAV gives almost as many points (three) for banning .50 caliber rifles (which are probably the type of gun least frequently involved in firearm deaths, or darned close), three points for requiring a dealer to be licensed (even though federal law requires that in every state anyway), and . . . well, you get the idea. Similar to Violence to Policy Center, LCAV is especially apoplectic about “assault weapons” (three points for a ban), standard self-defense magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (three points for a ban), and anything at all to do with carrying a firearm for protection. Relative to the latter, a state gets a minus-1 point for a “shall issue” carry permit law, minus-1 for open carry without a permit, and minus-two points for concealed carry without a permit. All this malarky, with the number of carry states at an all-time high and the nation’s violent crime rate at a 35-year low. We’re not sure how often LCAV will have the opportunity to repeat its state ranking exercise, though. One bad gun law at a time, NRA, its members, and their friends elected to state office have been eliminating gun control laws left and right for the last two decades in most states. And, Americans have responded by exercising their right to acquire arms in record numbers. U.S. Firearm Production Soars In Response Some evidence to that effect was put forward by the BATFE recently, in the form of its report on U.S. firearm manufacturing in the first half of 2009. In the first half of 2009, U.S. manufacturers produced more rifles, more pistols, more revolvers and more shotguns, than in all of 2008. Coupled with increases in NICS checks of 11 percent between 2006 and 2007, another 14 percent between 2007 and 2008, and another 10 percent between 2008 and 2009, the evidence is pretty clear that the gun control laws LCAV wants have been on the wane, while the ones it most despises have become the norm. Source -
0
August 24, 2010
Site Blog
 Recently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center. Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S. They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Lesley SwannRecently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center. Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S. They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Our Founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed, in Article 5. It is quite illogical to conceive that our Founders would write such a brilliant document to be the foundation of our union, only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty we had worked so hard to achieve. In fact, our Founders themselves said otherwise. “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton “I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.” – James Madison “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson So, when I began re-reading this section of the Constitution I realized that they didn’t leave a backdoor, but in fact were expressly forbidding this type of maneuver in Article VI. The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.
In reading through the entire Constitution, you will notice that whenever the Constitution refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used. The only exceptions to this are the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used, and here in the latter part of Article VI. In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it clear that the Constitution is referring to itself. In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well. The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written. The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all. The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement. A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships. Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object. In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words “Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase. This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws. It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states. There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution. While some well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) politicians may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders. Will this knowledge stop those who would seek to take our freedoms from shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass such treaties? Probably not. But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law. More importantly, we can use this knowledge as intellectual firepower to stop the enemies of liberty and the Second Amendment from doing so. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/18/firearms-and-the-constitution-versus-treaties/ -
0
August 24, 2010
Site Blog
 Second Amendment Foundation This is the second such contribution from a New York group. Earlier, the Shooters Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) contributed to the SAF legal action effort. “SAF is very grateful for this level of support from Long Island Firearms,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The level of support we are getting from New York gun owners clearly demonstrates their dedication to correcting the Empire State’s onerous gun laws. For far too long, officials in the Empire State have treated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a highly-regulated privilege. It is time for that to end.” On July 16, SAF filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied. Kachalsky’s denial was because he could not “demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public.” Nikolov’s was denied because she could not demonstrate that there was “any type of threat to her own safety anywhere.” In addition to Westchester County, Susan Cacace and Jeffrey Cohen, both serving at times as handgun permit licensing officers, are named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division. “Long Island Firearms recognizes the implications of our lawsuit,” Gottlieb noted, “and they have generously put their money on the line. We certainly appreciate the support, and we’re going to use every penny wisely in our effort to restore gun rights one lawsuit at a time.” Long Island Firearms maintains a website that promotes firearms education, gun reviews and other activities. Their website is LongIslandFirearms.com. The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right. -
0
August 20, 2010
Site Blog
 In the latest gun rights-related lawsuit, three residents and a gun range designer, Action Target, have taken on the city of Chicago over the law banning shooting ranges within municipal boundaries. Filed in the United States District Court in Chicago, the lawsuit — which is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois Rifle Association — claims the ban violates the U.S. Constitution. SAF executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb ... Filed in the United States District Court in Chicago, the lawsuit — which is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois Rifle Association — claims the ban violates the U.S. Constitution. SAF executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb also pointed to the apparent contradiction of the ordinance, which prohibits public gun ranges inside the city but requires handgun owners to complete at least one hour of range training time. "This is a ‘Catch-22' scenario," Gottlieb emphasized, adding that it "seems deliberately designed to discourage Chicago residents from exercising their firearm civil rights barely two months after those rights were restored by the Supreme Court." According to WLS 809 AM, which cited the lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs, Rhonda Ezell, is the victim of three attempted burglaries, applied for a firearms permit, but finds it hard to travel outside the city to practice due to ill health.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19926861-ADNFCR Source -
0
August 20, 2010
Site Blog
Concerned Citizen,
The ruling struck down the Chicago handgun ban, thus opening the door to legal self-defense by Windy City residents. Alan M. Gottlieb (SAF Founder) joined attorney Alan Gura and Chicago resident Otis McDonald on the steps of the United States Supreme Court after hearing the court's ruling in the historic McDonald v. City of Chicago gun rights case filed by SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents.  Did you know that SAF just filed new lawsuits to fight for gun rights in current cases in North Carolina, New York and Maryland? Did you know that since Barack Obama was elected President 3 people make a donation to an anti-gun group every minute? That's almost a million and a half contributions aimed at you - and your gun rights every year! With Obama in the White House and anti-gunners in control of key committees in Congress, the gun grabbers are out for blood. Make no mistake. Our guns and our right to use them could be wiped away by Barack Obama, the most anti-gun rights President in history, at any moment. They already are being attacked in Congress, state legislatures and cities and towns from coast-to-coast.
We at the Second Amendment Foundation have filed these new lawsuits and launched this new nationwide campaign to rally gun owners and freedom loving Americans behind an effort to protect our constitutional rights. I could only afford to send out surveys today to a special group of key people like you who I knew would be most interested in helping us at this time. THIS IS IMPORTANT. EVEN IF YOU DON'T WISH TO ANSWER YOUR SURVEY, OR ARE UNDECIDED ABOUT SOME QUESTIONS, PLEASE FILL IT OUT TODAY by SELECTING HERE. Our survey is costly for us to send out so it's very important that you send it back to me today. Your help today is a critical part of our three prong nationwide attack on the gun grabbers.
Right now, groups like the Brady Gun Control Center and the Ban the Gun Coalition are filing legal briefs, running anti-gun commercials, newspaper, internet website and magazine ads, and are appearing on radio talk shows. Sadly, these and other actions by the "ban the gun crowd" are resulting in thousands of "new" supporters for their cause who will be making additional contributions against you and your gun rights for years to come. Over the last few years the anti-gun movement has been quietly organizing and increasing their funding base while waiting for an anti-gun rights President to appoint more anti-gun judges to the federal courts. Today with Barack Obama in the White House, they are one of the best funded operations I have ever seen. Of course, they could have never gotten to where they are without help from the anti-gunners in the media and Hollywood. We must respond - and respond fast. To do so we need your help to "take up the slack" by providing us with as much help as you can. We are urgently trying to find the extra funding to help with our important work to protect your gun rights. I personally feel - and I know you agree - WE MUST PUT OUR FOOT DOWN NOW BEFORE THIS GETS OUT OF HAND AND OUR GUN RIGHTS ARE GONE FOREVER. I've been actively involved in this fight for over thirty years. But, without your help and the help of other concerned citizens there is little that I can do. If you're like me, the thought of someone making a donation every 20 seconds - for the purpose of taking away our freedom - is frightening indeed.
But with enough public support we can cut the gun grabbers down to size. That is the major reason why I have actively devoted over three decades of my life to this cause. I have spent much time traveling away from home and my wife and children - to do television and radio shows in all 50 states - to defend our constitutional rights. I have seen the anti-gun movement in action and I personally am not about to sit back and do nothing to protect our freedom. Now I know we can't stop them cold, once and for all. But we can curb them from their goal to disarm us. But all the know-how in the world won't accomplish anything without the support of concerned people like you. What we need right now are folks who are willing to back up their beliefs - that gun confiscation is wrong - with ACTION. That's why I'm hoping you'll take just the few minutes needed to complete your survey today. And when you do I hope you'll consider making a generous contribution to the Second Amendment Foundation.
Just to mail a direct mail survey cost us about 28¢. So for us to reach just one million other Americans will cost us about $280,000. Add to that the need for the National Gun Rights advertising campaign, our priority lobbying needs and our important pro-gun rights educational projects, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that's money we simply don't have right now to fight Barack Obama and the gun ban crowd. Can I count on you to help us today? I hope so. Because quite frankly with gun grabbers like Senators John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, not to mention House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, our gun rights could vanish at any time. Please imagine for a moment the loss of your gun rights, and the fact that your children may not have the same freedom you took for granted. Remember too, all the countries where this freedom has already been lost. Now I know you are called upon to help many worthy causes these days. But our gun rights are simply one freedom we cannot afford to put on "the back burner." The biggest danger facing us today is if too many people think their individual participation isn't really needed or won't make a difference. I sincerely hope you don't feel that way.
I must be careful to maximize every dollar the Second Amendment Foundation spends. That's why I wrote to you instead of someone else who is not as concerned about our freedom. Please do whatever you can to help. Our major enemies are time and the lack of funds. Remember, every 20 seconds another contribution to take away your gun rights, goes to our opponents. For more information about SAF go to http://www.saf.org Let me hear from you today, while it's fresh on your mind. Sincerely yours,  Alan M. Gottlieb Founder P.S. Your survey is registered under your name here at the Second Amendment Foundation. Remember, even if you don't wish to answer all of it, fill it out immediately. But I hope you will do your part - and send along a generous contribution to help save our gun rights. And remember, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the Gun Grabbers don't want you to respond to this urgent appeal. Also, keep in mind that Obama can also attack our gun rights without Congressional approval by making anti-gun appointments to the courts, participating with gun banners at the United Nations, using the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives against us, giving credence and funding to the world gun ban effort through the Department of State, forcing huge changes
on hunters and gun owners through the Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Agency, and your right to have a gun at work through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. And this is just to name a few of the tools Obama can use against our gun rights. If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to: Second Amendment Foundation James Madison Building Dept Code 2564 12500 NE 10th Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Paid for by Second Amendment Foundation 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Contributions are tax deductable. Copyright © 2010 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved. -
0
August 19, 2010
Site Blog
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in the long-running Nordyke v. King case in California, arguing that Second Amendment issues must be decided on a "strict scrutiny" basis, and that ... SAF This case was a catalyst for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear SAF's case challenging the handgun ban in Chicago, because in an earlier Nordyke ruling – subsequently set aside in favor of a full en banc hearing by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – created a conflict in the circuits over Second Amendment incorporation. SAF's brief was written by attorney Alan Gura, who argued the landmark 2008 Heller case and represented SAF and its co-plaintiffs in the recent McDonald case, and is currently working with the foundation on other cases in Maryland, Illinois, New York and North Carolina. Alameda County passed an ordinance more than ten years ago prohibiting the carrying of firearms on county property following a shooting at the county fair in 1998. Russell and Sallie Nordyke operated a gun show at the county fairgrounds. The shooting incident was not related to their gun show, but county officials used that as an excuse to adopt the prohibition. "This is a very important case," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, "because it could establish the highest standard of scrutiny to which gun laws around the country would be subjected. While gun prohibitionists were upset by the 2008 Heller ruling and demoralized by our victory this year in the McDonald case, they are terrified of a strict scrutiny standard that could be established by the Nordyke case." The Nordyke case's importance, Gottlieb stated, "cannot be underestimated, or understated." "Strict scrutiny is the standard of review to which all constitutionally-protected fundamental civil rights must be held," he observed. "This case has survived for more than a decade, a fact in itself that is remarkable. We believe, in the wake of Heller and McDonald, that the Ninth Circuit must act decisively to protect the Second Amendment from willy-nilly regulation by anti-gun public officials." The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. -
0
August 17, 2010
Site Blog
 Gun rights advocates have filed another lawsuit against the City of Chicago's new handgun ordinance, claiming that it violates the Second Amendment because it doesn't allow shooting ranges for the public. The lawsuit filed on Monday, claiming that by "by banning gun ranges open to the public… under color of law," the new Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Two gun rights advocacy groups ... CBSGun rights advocates have filed another lawsuit against the City of Chicago's new handgun ordinance, claiming that it violates the Second Amendment because it doesn't allow shooting ranges for the public. The lawsuit filed on Monday, claiming that by "by banning gun ranges open to the public… under color of law," the new Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Two gun rights advocacy groups – the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association – filed the lawsuit, along with shooting range equipment maker Action Target Inc. and three individual plaintiffs. "While the city has adopted new regulations that make it legal to own handguns," Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said in a news release, "they have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training. The new ordinance prohibits public gun ranges inside the city yet the city demands that handgun owners get at least one hour of range training time." The plaintiffs in the case include Rhonda Ezell, whom the news release says has been the victim of attempted burglaries three times and has a disability that makes it difficult for her to leave the city; Joseph Brown, a World War II U.S. Army veteran; and William Hespen, a retired Chicago Police detective. On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of every American to own firearms for protection, in a ruling on McDonald's lawsuit challenging the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. The ruling did not flat-out strike down the handgun ban, but remanded it to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and essentially instructed the lower court to rule against the ban. The Chicago handgun ban had been in place since 1982. The City Council quickly passed the new ordinance to replace the gun ban. The ordinance limits gun purchases to one per month, bans gun shops in city limits and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages. Gun rights advocates have already filed other lawsuits to nullify the new law, claiming that it still violates the Second Amendment. The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, and a Lake Villa gun shop owner who says he wants to open new firearms dealerships in the Lincoln Park neighborhood and on the Magnificent Mile, are among the plaintiffs. Source -
0
|
WESTCHESTER CAN DENY EVERYONE A PERMIT! 
