- 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 second amendment
Photo ID Requirement For Gun Challenged By Amish Man
From Penn Live:
Andrew Hertzler claims in a suit filed Friday in U.S. Middle District Court that the requirement is a violation of his constitutional right to possess a firearm and of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Hertzler states he is an active member of the Amish faith and community in Lancaster County with a sincerely held religious belief that prohibits photographs being taken of him.
Hillary Thinks Australia’s Gun Confiscation is a Good Example
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 1/Nov/2015 07:00
From Reason.com:
When it comes to gun control, Hillary Clinton said last Friday, “Australia is a good example” for the United States to follow. That comment suggested the leading Democratic presidential candidate’s plans in this area are much more ambitious than she usually lets on—so ambitious that implementing them would require ignoring or repealing the Second Amendment.
By Monday a spokeswoman for the former secretary of state was already backpedaling, saying Clinton did not mean to endorse mass gun confiscation, a central element of Australia’s approach to firearms. But if that was not Clinton’s intent, she has an alarmingly cavalier attitude toward laws that impinge on constitutional rights: The details don’t matter as long as you mean well.
https://youtu.be/rZzCTKWK3j8
Black Panthers and the Origins of Gun Control
From The Root:
On May 7, 1967, the Black Panthers showed up on the steps of the California Capitol in Sacramento brandishing loaded rifles and black berets in a show of defiance that would forever brand them as enemies of the establishment. They were there to protest the passage of the Mulford Act (nicknamed the “Black Panther Bill†by the press), which had been fast-tracked through the Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Reagan. The bill reversed an existing California law that made it legal to carry a loaded firearm in public as long as it was not concealed or brandished in a threatening manner. Reagan himself was quoted as saying that he saw “no reason why, on the street today, a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.â€
Tom Gresham of Gun Talk on NPR
Tom Gresham sat down with John Hockenberry on his program for a short interview:
Clinton Reverses Herself on Australian-style Gun Ban
Posted by Brian in Law, News, Threat Watch on 26/Oct/2015 07:00
From Breitbart.com:
Clinton said “the [Australian] government was able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.†She went on to say, “it would be worth considering doing it on the national level†here in the U.S.
But Monday morning, Palmieri told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that Clinton was not suggesting firearm confiscation.
Mitchell asked: “Was [Clinton] suggesting in her town hall meetings in New Hampshire on Friday, when she said she would look into the Australian system, was she suggesting confiscation of guns?â€
Palmieri responded, “Of course not. What she was referring to is places where there have been mass shootings and the countries have done something to act on it. She has put forward a very common-sense proposal that would have background checks for everyone, that would remove the special protections the gun industry has from liability, but it’s all very common-sense measures the majority of the public supports.â€
Court Upholds NY SAFE Act
Posted by Brian in Law, News, Threat Watch on 21/Oct/2015 15:20
From Rochester Democrat and Chronicle:
The decision Monday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the SAFE Act in New York and laws in Connecticut following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012 do not infringe on the Second Amendment, as gun-rights groups contended in their lawsuits.
“We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness,” the court ruling states.
From American Thinker:
The SAFE (“Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement”) Act was presented to the New York State Senate and passed into law in 15 minutes. Â No debate was allowed, and senators did not have time to read the bill before voting it into law.
The SAFE Act is a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all military-style semi-automatic rifles manufactured within the past several decades. Â It is a total ban on the AR-15, AK-47, M-14/M-1a, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and many other civilian copies of military firearms. Â Prior to the passage of the law, Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that he was considering “confiscation” of existing rifles, but the final version of the law allowed existing owners to keep their rifles as long as they registered them with the State. Â Upon the death of the owner, the rifle will be confiscated; it cannot be transferred to an heir within New York State.
The full decision is here with the names of the judges attached.
Supreme Court May Hear Gun Ban Case
Posted by Brian in Law, News, Threat Watch on 16/Oct/2015 07:00
From MSNBC:
If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.
Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
Bill Whittle: America Was Designed To Be Free
Posted by Brian in Opinion, Threat Watch on 13/Oct/2015 07:00
Guns: U.S. vs Australia
Posted by Brian in Law, Opinion, Threat Watch on 12/Oct/2015 07:00
From National Review:
“Australia†is Obama’s preferred euphemism for that most cherished of gun-control ideals: mass confiscation of the citizenry’s weapons.
You will notice that the president doesn’t exactly spell out what following Australia’s model would entail. He speaks instead of “commonsense gun-control legislation,†“closing the gun-show loophole,†and “universal background checks.â€
But the Australian 1996 National Agreement on Firearms was not a benign set of commonsense gun-control rules: It was a gun-confiscation program rushed through the Australian parliament just twelve days after a 28-year-old man killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur. The Council of Foreign relations summarizes the Aussie measure nicely:
One Gun Bigot Admits The Goal Is To Rid Society (Civilians) Of All Guns
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 8/Oct/2015 13:01
From The Washington Post:
Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.
Prohibition.
Mass buyback.
A gun-free society.
Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.
Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?
How The Government Prevents Citizens From Protecting Themselves
From PennLive:
But a serious problem not receiving attention is the issue of law-abiding citizens being prosecuted for failing to realize an action or misdemeanor conviction years ago bars them from owning firearms under federal law.
Our government’s attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal, mental health and drug histories is a worthy goal.
In practice, however, the effort has led to an unfair and overly complicated federal government application to purchase firearms.
Last Gun Store In San Fran
From Chris Cheng:
Earlier this week, San Francisco’s last gun shop, Highbridge Arms, announced that it is closing its doors in October 2015. Here’s an excerpt from their Facebook page.As Highbridge Arms was my home gun shop, I will be very sad to see it go. There is no official word if they are relocating or simply going for good. I hope they will relocate to somewhere in the Bay Area so we can ensure that San Franciscans can exercise their Second Amendment right.
It will be interesting to see if any viable lawsuits come up in the future which argue that San Francisco has a de facto gun ban since it will (soon) have zero gun shops, or something along those lines. I’m not a lawyer, but I sense potential for legal action by some organization down the line.
New Jersey Confiscates WWII M1 Carbine
From NJ.com:
 A Cumberland County man cannot keep his grandfather’s World War II rifle because it is an illegal assault firearm, according to a Sept. 15 New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division decision.
Trump’s Position on the Second Amendment
From DonaldJTrump.com:
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.
It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:
Enforce The Laws On The Books
We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.
Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter†program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.
Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.
Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.
Fix Our Broken Mental Health System
Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.
All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.
And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions†would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.
We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.
Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners
GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weaponsâ€, “military-style weapons†and “high capacity magazines†to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.
BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.
MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.
Professor Suing Missouri University For Second Amendment Rights
From The Washington Times:
A University of Missouri professor is filing a lawsuit against the school for prohibiting guns on campus, in what is aimed to be one of the first tests of the state’s newly amended constitution that provides for “strict scrutiny†of gun restrictions.
Royce de R. Barondes, who is an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri, is challenging the campus’ policy that “the possession of firearms on university property is prohibited except in regularly approved programs or by university agents or employees in the line of duty.â€