- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged civil rights
Australians Have the Right to Self Defense in Name Only
From The Sydney Morning Herald:
Legally, Australians have a right to self-defence.
What we don’t have is the practical ability to exercise that right. Owning any object for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence. Those trapped within the Lindt cafe were left helpless, as carrying items for self-defence is not allowed under State law. What’s worse, the offender possibly knew it.
Prohibited self-defence items include pepper sprays, mace, clubs and personal Tasers. In some states, carrying a pocket-knife is illegal and even wearing a bullet-proof vest is banned.
New Gun Control Group Made Up of State Legislators Won’t Release Membership List
From NSSF:
A handful of state legislators from across the country gathered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to announce the creation of “American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention†or ASLGVP.  The new group, which claims to be non-partisan, will work to push new gun restrictions at the state level. But the coalition has one major problem – they will not let anyone know who they are.
ASLGVP boasts having 200 members from all 50 states but the group will not release a list of their membership, due to a fear of “political backlash.† So, outside of the eight members that participated in the inaugural press conference, no one knows who is or is not a member of this group. We are not witnessing a “Profiles in Courageâ€Â moment here.
Citizens across the country have a right to know whether or not their respective elected official is a member of this group. Considering that ASLGVP intends to potentially tamper with our Constitutional rights, it is unethical and secretive for members to keep their constituents in the dark about their participation in the group.  If a state legislator is too scared to reveal his or her affiliation with this group, shouldn’t that say something about the agenda that ASLGVP may be trying to move forward?
Perhaps members of this group have opted to keep their participation in ASLGVP a secret because they do not want people to know how out of touch they really are — with their constituents but also the country as a whole.  Last week, the Pew Research Center released the results from its newest poll which found that public support for gun rights has never been higher. The survey showed that 52 percent of Americans believe it is important to protect our Second Amendment rights, a figure that increased seven points over the past year. Since public opinion is not in their favor, ASLGVP members, once they reveal their identities, should indeed be fearful of “political backlash†– a vote out of office in the next election.
ASLGVP said it would meet this week in Washington, DC for the first time.  NSSF would like to attend and hear more about the group’s agenda, but the meeting time and location is secret. Of course it is. We assume disguises are optional? How about secret handshakes or de-coder rings?
How about this? Any elected public official who believes they must conduct themselves in such cartoonish secrecy is certainly raising questions about their fitness for their office. As for transparency, well they clearly don’t see any need for that quaint notion of representative government. They’ll tell us what they want to tell us when they’re ready. In the meantime, mum’s the word.
After Hostage Incident Australia Senator Says It’s a “Nation of Victims”
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 19/Dec/2014 07:00
From Australia Broadcasting Company:
“What happened in that cafe would have been most unlikely to have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or perhaps even Switzerland as well,” Senator Leyonhjelm told the ABC’s AM program.
“That nutcase who held them all hostage wouldn’t have known they were armed and bad guys don’t like to be shot back at,” Senator Leyonhjelm said.
Civil Disobedience in Olympia Over I-594
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 18/Dec/2014 07:00
From Townhall.com:
As the RSVPs in advance of the rally grew to over 6,000, the police – most who probably detest I-594 – decided not to enforce the law. The Washington State Patrol announced there would be no arrests for exchanging guns – not even for selling guns. Seim refused to obtain a permit to hold the rally, citing the right of people to peaceably assemble.
If you can choose when to enforce or not enforce laws then what is the point of having laws in the first place?
Freedoms Die When Public Health is Invoked
Newsweek wants to turn the gun issue into a public health issue because they know the argument is lost when it is framed as a gun issue.
…if we remove the debate from a gun context, if we approach our epidemic of gun violence from the point of view of a doctor serving the health and welfare of all Americans—well, that changes things. Or could if Murthy is given a chance.
The State’s Use Of Force To Enforce Law
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 11/Dec/2014 07:00
This article deals with the recent death of a New York man which was the result of cops enforcing a cigarette tax.
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law.
Austin Police Chief Wants To “Vet” Gun Enthusiasts
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 8/Dec/2014 13:08
From Western Journalism:
“It’s important for us as Americans to know our neighbors, to know our families,†he said. “Tell somebody if you know somebody that is acting pecu—with a lot of hatred toward any particular group.â€
He urged the city’s residents to pay distinct attention to anyone in their lives “who’s a gun enthusiast or is armed with these types of firearms and they’re showing any type of propensity for hatred.â€
Magpul To Be Out Of Colorado In Early 2015
From The Washington Times:
The firearms-accessories manufacturer announced that the company has finalized a contract on its headquarters in Austin, Texas, after entering into a deal on the property in March. In the interim, Magpul had used a temporary facility in Texas, according to a Wednesday press release.
Meanwhile, Magpul’s manufacturing and distribution center is slated to open in January in Cheyenne. A 50,000-square-foot addition is expected to be completed in December on the 185,000-square-foot facility.
Anti Gunners Admitting Laws Don’t Work
Posted by Brian in Law, News, Threat Watch on 2/Dec/2014 07:00
Tennessee Opinion Writer Tells The Truth: We Want To Ban Guns
From Tallahassee Democrat:
I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Elderly Man Shoots And Kills Home Invader
From The Daily Caller:
A 62-year-old Washington man was able to retrieve his gun after untying both himself and his wife during a home invasion earlier this week — a heroic act which left one of the bandits dead.
Does I-594 Cover Nail and Flare Guns?
From Whidbey News Times:
The definition of firearm contained in state law and in I-594 reads, “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.â€
 These flare guns have previously been determined to be firearms by the WSP Crime Lab in Tacoma because they fire a projectile by an explosive.
Home Depot, Lowe’s and other hardware stores sell Ramset nail guns, which use a gunpowder charge to fire nails, usually into concrete or steel.
Washington Museum To Return Firearms Because Of I-594
From Guns.com:
The controversial 18-page ballot referendum, which voters approved by a 9-point margin earlier this month, greatly expands background check requirements to include most private gun sales and transfers. While supporters held that the measure’s intent was to close a dangerous loophole which provided criminals with guns, all the Lynden Pioneer Museum knows is that they now have to pull 11 vintage rifles currently on display and return them to donors to become compliant with the new law.
Did Washingtonians know that this is what they were voting for? Laws like this actually create criminals where none existed before. Many museums are stocked with items that are on loan because they don’t have very much money. Now the people of Washington are denied the ability to learn and experience history. Thank you Bloomberg for denying children an education.
California Sued For Regulating Gun Ads
From WND:
Weapons retailers in California are suing the state over a ban on the display of images of handguns – even the word “handgun†– in what the business owners say is a violation of the First Amendment.
“I am one of the most heavily regulated and inspected businesses in existence, but it’s still illegal for me to show customers that I sell handguns until after they walk in the door,†said Baryla, who owns Tracy Rifle and Pistol.
“That’s about as silly a law as you could imagine, even here in California.â€
Connecticut Gun Laws Challenged
From Ammoland:
The case, Shew v. Malloy, was initiated on May 22, 2013, when lawyers on behalf of June Shew and several other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged several violations of the plaintiffs’ rights.
The complaint first claimed that the state’s bans on magazines and certain semi-automatic firearms are in violation of the right to “keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.†Next, the complaint argued that the firearm and magazine prohibitions violate the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the law, as several classes of government employees are exempt from the ban. Last, the complaint asserted that portions of the Act violate due process, as the ban is vague.