- 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 gun rights
Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act of 2015
The bill has been introduced by Rep. Honda (D-CA of course):
Considers as a banned hazardous product under the Consumer Product Safety Act: (1) any firearm receiver casting or firearm receiver blank (do-it-yourself assault weapon) that does not meet the definition of a firearm under the federal criminal code at the point of sale but that can be completed after purchase by the consumer to function as a firearm frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon or machine gun, or (2) an assault weapon parts kit or machine gun parts kit.
Makes it unlawful to market or advertise any of such weapons for sale on any medium of electronic communications, including over the Internet. Requires marketing or advertising violations to be treated as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Gun Control Pushed in Wake of Charleston Shooting
From The Washington Post:
In the wake of the Charleston shooting, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) are considering ways to renew their failed push to expand meaningful background checks on gun purchases.
Politicians can’t let a crisis go to waste.
Is Karl Rove Against the Second Amendment?
From Washington Examiner:
Karl Rove, appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, stated in no uncertain terms that the only way to stop gun violence is to remove the Second Amendment rights of citizens. Another journalist referred to Rove as a longtime advocate of gun control.
No Guns in Uber Cars?
From Shotgun News:
Uber has forbidden all its supposed free-agent drivers to carry guns or to pick up anyone with a gun. So Uber gets to tell you how you may protect yourself (prayer, maybe?) and restricts you from carrying a whole class of passengers.
In concealed carry states no one is supposed to know/see that you have a gun so how would this be enforced? Quick answer: it can’t. It won’t be long now before criminals start targeting Uber cars to rob driver and passenger.
Update: I called it.
From Brietbart.com:
On Wednesday, an Uber driver in Queens was robbed by a man who allegedly got in his car, pointed a rifle at him, and demanded his money.
NY SAFE Act Registration Numbers Indicate Mass Non-compliance
From TimesUnion.com:
Since New York’s SAFE Act gun control law went into effect in January 2013, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their newly defined assault-style weapons with theState Police.
Those individuals have registered a total of 44,485Â weapons.
New York State has a population of just under 20 million.
Gun Restrictions From the 20s and 30s
From Time.com:
…the campaign to staunch the flow of such weapons into society began in the states the previous decade, when at least 27 states enacted measures to restrict or outlaw the sale and possession of fully automatic weapons prior to 1934…
Gun People Are Second Class Citizens
From Huffington Post:
The Court’s widely-noted failure to clarify the scope of Americans’ Second Amendment rights is shocking and inexcusable. Justice Thomas ruefully observed that the Court has granted review in decisions “involving alleged violations of rights it has never previously enforced” and involving rights claims that are “expressly foreclosed by precedent.” And yet, in the Second Amendment context, the Court has refused to give law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their rights the certain protection they deserve.
SF Gun Laws Don’t Trump My Safety
From David French of National Review:
If I lived in San Francisco, I would violate that law. San Francisco’s anti-gun ideology is simply not worth risking my family’s safety. I do not have confidence that — even with practice — my wife and older children would be able to unlock a safe as quickly as necessary, under extreme stress (nor am I completely confident that I could do it). In fact, it’s hard to see a clear downside to violating the law. Yes, there are criminal penalties for noncompliance, but San Francisco isn’t doing house-to-house searches for gun safes. It simply doesn’t have the resources to systematically enforce this law, and it never had any intention of systematically enforcing the law. Instead, it’s counting on the least dangerous gun owners in America (the law-abiding cohort) to voluntarily render themselves more vulnerable. I would dissent. In fact, I have dissented in other, similar jurisdictions in years past.
Act Would Limit BATFE’s Arbitrary Limits on Guns
From NRA-ILA:
The term “sporting purposes†is undefined by federal statute and has been subject to several reinterpretations by the BATFE and its predecessor agency. BATFE and anti-gun administrations have exploited the lack of a clear definition of “sporting purposes†to bypass Congress and impose gun control through executive fiat. The most recent (and perhaps most infamous) example of this was the Obama administration’s attempt to ban a highly popular form of ammunition for the AR-15, America’s most popular rifle.
More from NRA:
“This important legislation would prevent arbitrary ammunition bans like the one attempted earlier this year by the Obama Administration,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “With the support of America’s law-abiding gun owners, the NRA was able to beat back Obama’s attempt to ban ammunition used by millions of law-abiding Americans every day for target shooting, hunting, and self-defense. This legislation would fix the law to protect us from similar government overreach in the future.”
State Department Gun Regs Designed To Counter Defense Distributed Lawsuit
According to Sean Davis at The Federalist the new regulations are nothing more than retaliation against Defense Distributed:
On June 3, just four weeks after Defense Distributed filed its complaint in federal court, the State Department suddenly decided to propose a new rule giving it the authority to pre-approve speech related to publicly available firearm plans. The State Department’s play here is obvious: it hopes to promulgate a new rule making its previous anti-speech efforts superficially legal in order to short-circuit Defense Distributed’s court case. If that were to happen, the non-profit would then have to file a new and separate suit alleging the unconstitutionality of the new rule.
Supreme Court Declines To Hear San Fran Gun Case
By declining to hear the case the Supreme Court has essentially given the “thumbs up” to this law and signaled to other cities that they may do the same.
From Yahoo News:
By declining to hear an appeal filed by gun owners and the National Rifle Association, the court left intact a March 2014 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the measure.
The regulation, issued in 2007, states that anyone who keeps a handgun at home must either store it in a locked container or disable it with a trigger lock.
Feds Want To Restrict Talking About Guns On The Net
The State Department has proposed new ITAR rules that would cover merely talking about guns according to the NRA.
From The Washington Examiner:
…the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:
“In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the ‘public domain.’ Essentially, this means data ‘which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public’ through a variety of specified means. These include ‘at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.’ Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
“The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been ‘exported,’ as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
“With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released’ into the ‘public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.”
Open Carry and College Carry Move Forward In Texas
From The Washington Times:
If passed, Texas would be one of the last states to allow some form of open carry, but would be the largest by population to do so.
The session’s other gun-rights bill, allowing concealed handguns in college classrooms, lurched toward resolution with an agreement to let schools create “reasonable†gun-free zones. The last point to resolve is whether to force private universities to allow weapons.
D.C. Court Rules “May Issue” Unconstitutional
From Firearms Policy Center:
The District of Columbia’s arbitrary “good reasonâ€/â€proper reason†requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Accordingly, at this point in the litigation and based on the current record, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the District of Columbia’s “good reasonâ€/â€proper reason†requirement runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
Full decision here.