You are here

AmmoLand

Subscribe to AmmoLand feed
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Updated: 25 min 41 sec ago

Possible Mass Shooting Stopped by Armed Citizen?

Sun, 11/23/2014 - 11:49

By Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- Some mass killings have occurred at clubs.  The most infamous has been the “Happyland social club” in New York City, where 87 people were murdered by arson in 1990.

An armed citizen may have stopped an attempted mass killing in El Paso, Texas on Sunday, the 16th of November.   A 23-year-old Hispanic man had been thrown out of the appropriately named “Club Khaos” at about 1 a.m.  He returned to the entrance of the club and started shooting.  He hit five people,\; one of them is in critical condition.  From the elpasotimes.com:

A 21-year-old man was hit in the torso/chest area and received serious injuries but is in stable condition, Sambrano said.

The shooter also hit a 24-year-old man, a 25-year-old woman, a 21-year-old woman and 19-year-old woman. All received what are described as “non-life-threatening injuries” and are considered stable, Sambrano said.

The suspect was shot in the leg by an unknown individual and investigators believe this person was acting in self-defense, Sambrano said.

The armed man who stopped the attack has not been identified at this time, and the police would like to talk to him.

The AP story identifies the attacker as Martin Guerrero.  AP does not mention that Guerrero was shot by an armed defender.
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

 

Categories: All News Feeds

Suspect Can’t Cover it All; Customer with CCW Shoots Him

Sun, 11/23/2014 - 08:04

By Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- Tyerre Allan was only 25 years old, and he just got out of jail for a robbery that was done years ago. Police say he was already a suspect in other crimes. From wishtv.com:

Police later identified the suspect as 25-year-old Tyerre Allen of Indianapolis. He was also identified by IMPD detectives as a suspect in other robberies in the Indianapolis area.

There were five or six customers in the Indiana Cash America Pawn shop, as well as 3-4 employees.  It appears that Tyerre, just out of jail, tried to ply his trade.  You would think he would realize the dangers of being unable to keep track of all those customers and employees.   Maybe he had some alcohol or other drug to boost his courage.  It is a common phenomena.   In any case, he could not cover everyone, and he probably could not see too well with the hood over his head.   A customer pulled out his own gun, and it did not end well for the recently released felon.  From wishtv.com:

Once inside, police found the suspected robber dead on the scene. According to police, the suspect walked in the store with a hood over his head and pulled out a gun. Moments later, a customer pulled out a gun and shot and killed the suspect.

 

In the U.S. military, snipers usually work in teams of two. One is the shooter, the other is a combination spotter and security. One person simply cannot cover 360 degree security very well.

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Categories: All News Feeds

Russia Changes Law to Allow Guns for Self Defense?

Sat, 11/22/2014 - 19:15

By Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- Link to video of Maria Butina at the Texas NRA meeting.

In 2010, it was reported that the Russian Parliament was considering loosening the Russian law on self defense, to allow Russians who legally own firearms to carry them for the purposes of self defense.   The Russian Justice Minister, Alexander Konovalov was firmly against the possibility.

In 2013, it was reported that the Russian organization, The Right to Bear Arms, had only 1,000 members.  It was founded by Maria Butina, the 24 year old redhead pictured in the video and above.

Now we learn that Russian law has been changed to allow the civil population to carry lethal weapons for self defense.  From sputnicknews.com, on 18 November, 2014:

MOSCOW, November 18 (Sputnik) — Russia has updated its legislation to allow civilians to carry firearms for self-defense, according to an amended decree on lethal weapons that appeared Tuesday on the official database of Russian laws and legal documents.

It is not clear who exactly will be able to qualify to own pistols, for example.  It is not impossible to obtain a license to own a shotgun in Russia, but a person has to be a shotgun owner for several years before they may purchase a rifle.

The change in the law is likely related to a petition submitted by over 100,000 Russians to allow firearms to be used to defend their residences.  The petition was submitted in February of 2014, for the third time.  There are said to be five million legal firearms owners in Russia, though there are many more that own firearms without legal sanction.

Russians demonstrate for the right to bear arms.

The movement to create a right to bear arms is fairly young in Russia, but it has scored a significant victory.   It has been reported that the new law only applies to long guns outside the home, in particular circumstances.    A Russian correspondent writes that the law does not authorize the ownership of handguns, and that the changes are welcome but minor.

We will be watching for additional information.

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Categories: All News Feeds

Opinion Swinging Toward Campus Carry? (poll)

Sat, 11/22/2014 - 08:03

By Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- After the recent shooting on campus in Florida, Florida Carry quickly made the case that the campus was a “gun free” or “defenseless victim” zone, and that removing the prohibition on legal guns would make campus safer.  From new4jax.com:

Friday said several lawsuits are pending against Florida universities that refuse to allow students the right to carry weapons in class. In states like Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Oregon and Kansas, Friday said, school shooting statistics are remarkably lower than the rest of the nation.

“Every state that allows law-abiding students to carry guns on campus, every one of those schools has not had a mass shooting since they enacted that rule,” Friday said.

The case for campus carry is seldom allowed full presentation in the old media, but a fair presentation of the argument was given in the news4jax.com article.  The article also includes a poll offering several options.   Online polls are not scientific, but they do measure “intensity” fairly well.   They measure the ratio of people for and against, who are willing to take the time to fill out an online poll.

In the Florida campus carry poll, the results are outside of the norm.  Most second amendment related polls show pro-rights support of from 3-10 to 1 in favor of more freedom.    This online poll shows an astonishing 12 to 1 support for more freedom on campus!

Link to online poll, left side of page

Poll question:

Would allowing guns on college campuses make students safer?

I think more people carrying guns on campus would minimize shootings  48%  (1305 votes)


Yes, but only people with concealed carry permits should have them at college. – 43% (1182 votes)

 Guns should be allowed on campus, but only locked in vehicles. (Current law). – 1% (40 votes)

 Only law enforcement personnel should be allowed to carry guns on campus. – 8% (213 votes)

Note that the status quo, that is, the current law, is the least popular, with only 1 percent of the votes.

Coming right after a campus shooting, this is a very interesting result.
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Categories: All News Feeds

Warning Shot Works for Open Carrier

Sat, 11/22/2014 - 06:33

By Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- Warning shots are always controversial.   I generally caution against them, but I keep finding instances where they are used to good effect.  Here is one that was related on the opencarry.org North Carolina forum by tiggy1190.  It occurred in Buncombe County, NC:

Forced to pull, and discharge outside of Asheville.

I wont go into all the details, but long story short. Drunk, and drugged up moron threatens me with a knife, then a gun, and advances towards me. I never saw the weapon, but his hands were behind his back the whole time. I knew I was just in taking a shot, but there were at least 30-50 onlookers standing behind him. I have a .40 Storm, and had 180g FMJ’s in it that day due to working in the woods around bears. I had an overwhelming fear of over penetration, so I gave a warning shot to the ground just in front of him. He retreated like a scalded cat. So far the BCSD has been extremely positive, and supportive through all this. They said I made the right choice. I feel the same. Sadly, some of my chest pounding family seems to think I should have shot him irregardless.

(snip)

Just waiting on the SD to finish analyzing my weapon before they return it. All, but one officer that night supported me when the asked if I had a CCHP, and I stated “no, I OC”.

Not only was the warning shot effective, but the Sheriff Deputies reinforced the decision.   It took 18 days for tiggy1190 to have his firearm returned.  That may seem long, given Sheriff Clarke of Milwaukee County’s advice, but it is positively speedy compared to most places.   It is not unusual for the return of a firearm to take months or years, and to be fought over in the courts.

Chock one up for the good guy!

Met with the BCSD yesterday morning, and was given back my weapon, magazine, bullets, the spent shell casing, and a thank you. I was asked if I wanted to carry it out in the bag, or holster it. So I put the magazine in, racked one, and walked out holstered. Now I gotta go to court soon to testify.

Police attitudes are becoming even more favorable toward armed citizens.  Tiggy1190 did not have a permission slip from the state in order to carry his personal defense firearm.  Notice that the Sheriff Department had no problem with him loading his firearm and holstering it before he left.   It is, after all, normal for them.

If you are involved in a shooting, it is going to take up some of your  time, even if everything works out pretty well, as it did in this case.   Using a firearm in self defense is a serious business.
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Categories: All News Feeds

School Superintendent Does Not Like Guns Or The Constitution

Fri, 11/21/2014 - 20:42

By Dean Weingarten

Franklin Jr. High School

By Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- The right to keep and bear arms is clear.

The right to free speech is clear, as is the right to equal protection under the law.  But in Ohio, Franklin School Superintendent Michael D. Sander does not seem to approve of any of these rights.  A gun shop opened up 200 yards from the school, and Mike Sander wanted it shut down.

From daytondailynews.com:

But Franklin Schools Superintendent Mike Sander was not too pleased with the district’s new neighbor.

“Unfortunately, it’s there across the street,” Sander said of the gun store. “We don’t like it and expressed our displeasure to the city manager’s office.”

It is clear that the ban on guns in schools, and the entire idiotic “zero tolerance” policy that followed it, have nothing to do with school safety, and everything to do with the indoctrination of students that guns are bad and the second amendment of the Constitution is a bad idea.

Perhaps the parents in Dayton agree with these sentiments.  No doubt some do, but it is likely that those that do are a tiny minority.   People are getting tired of the public schools being used to tear down the structure that the country is built on.

Dr. Michael D. Sander’s contract was not renewed at the last school district that he was superintendent of.  This is his first year at Franklin.

In a controversial decision, the Clinton-Massie school board voted 3-2 in June not to renew the contract of its superintendent, Dr. Mike Sander, a move which set off a series of events during the following weeks.

The article mentions one resident  who objected to the gun store, and mentions that the gun store owner says that he has not received a single complaint from an a concerned resident.

From the article:

“I know it’s a business, but it shouldn’t be that close to a school,” said resident Orville Griffith. “These teens might go across the street, buy a gun, then go across the street and shoot up (the school).”

Wetzel said that’s unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, his store isn’t open during school hours (store hours are 4 to 8 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays). Second, to come into his shop, you must be at least 18 or with a parent or guardian, he said.

Wetzel said he hasn’t had one complaint from a concerned resident since opening.

Not one school shooting has occurred where the shooter went to a gun store, purchased a firearm, then immediately went to a school and started shooting.  However, there have been at least two cases where gun stores supplied firearms to people who immediately used them to stop violent crimes.

It is far more likely that gun stores in an area improve public safety rather than decrease it.

 Superintendent Sander’s contact information
(937) 746-1699, msander@franklincityschools.com

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Categories: All News Feeds

Texas Republican Party: Restore Right to Bear Arms

Fri, 11/21/2014 - 19:01

By Dean Weingarten

Texas Open Carry March Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- Some people may not know that the Texas revolution for independence against dictatorial rule, like the American revolution, started with an attempt to disarm the citizens.

It is not surprising that when Texas became a state, they had written the right to to keep and bear arms into their constitution.

Prior to the losing the Civil War, or if you prefer, the War Between the States, Texas had one of the strongest right to keep and bear arms protections in its 1845 constitution.

It was:

 “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself and the State.”

Texas sided with the Confederacy in the War between the States, or Civil War, if you prefer.  They lost, and the carpetbagger government created a new Texas Constitution in 1869.    That Constitution gutted the right to keep and bear arms.

 “Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.”

In 1872  and 1873, Texas voted out the carpetbagger government.  The Governor begged the federal government for troops to keep him in power, but none were sent.  He fled the governor’s mansion as an impromptu militia of armed citizens advanced on it.

The post reconstruction Texas approved of a new Constitution in 1876.  It had stronger protection of the right to keep and bear arms, but left in a crucial loophole for the legislature.  It provided that the legislature could regulate the wearing of arms with respect to fighting crime.

“Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

The legislature did not repeal the reconstruction ban on the carrying of arms, and the courts refused to invalidate the law under the 1876 Constitution.   The law was widely used to disarm former slaves and others out of favor with the local authorities.   Democrats would control Texas for over a century.

Republicans have controlled the state since 1999.  They have reformed Texas’ restrictive gun laws with many incremental improvements.   Now the Republican Party is calling for fully restoring the constitutional protections lost in 1869 and 1876.  Here is the resolution, from the Texas Republican Party Platform, page 40 (pdf):

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PRIORITIZING CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY LEGISLATION 

We call upon the 84th Texas Legislature to propose to the people of Texas a constitutional amendment to strike “; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime” from Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Further, we request the State Party Chair and the State Republican Executive Committee consider adoption of such an amendment and other legislation necessary to remove restrictions on Texans’ right to own and bear arms a legislative priority for the Republican Party of Texas for the 2015 legislative session and to utilize reasonable Party resources necessary to promote and support their passage.

The platform was released in June, 2014.  This is a strong statement of support for the right to keep and bear arms in Texas.  Notably, several nearby states have been on the same path.   Louisiana strengthened their constitutional protections in 2012.   Oklahoma narrowly missed putting a stronger protection of the right to keep and bear arms on the ballot this year; it died in legislative maneuvers after getting strong support.  Missouri passed a strengthened amendment in 2014, and Alabama did the same.   These amendments to strengthen the right to keep and bear arms passed by overwhelming majorities of the electorate.

Governor elect Greg Abbott has said that he will sign constitutional carry legislation if it reaches his desk.

Texas Republicans now have strong majorities in both houses and control all the statewide offices.   The state Senate has 20 Republicans to 11 Democrats.  The State House has 98 Republicans and 52 Democrats.   To put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, a joint resolution of both houses of the Texas legislature is required.   It needs 100 votes in the House, and 21 votes in the Senate.   If all Republicans vote for this measure, it would require them to convince one Democrat state Senator, and two Democrat state Representatives.

That does not sound like an impossible task.

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Categories: All News Feeds

FLORIDA: HUNTING WITH SUPPRESSORS LEGAL EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

Fri, 11/21/2014 - 10:47
American Suppressor Association

Today, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission voted unanimously to repeal the 57 year old prohibition on the use of firearm suppressors for taking deer, gray squirrels, rabbits, wild turkeys, quail, and crows. Following the passage of the new regulation, the Commission then voted unanimously to authorize an Executive Order to allow the measure to take effect immediately. Minutes later, Executive Order # EO 14-32 was signed, making hunting with suppressors for all animals in the state legal, effective immediately.

The new regulation amends 68A-12.002 General Methods of Taking Game; Prohibitions by striking “silencer equipped” from the language.

With the enactment of the new regulation, Florida becomes the 33rd state to allow hunters to use legally possessed suppressors in the field for all game animals. Earlier this year, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana all enacted similar pro-suppressor hunting reform. Of the 34 states in which suppressor hunting is legal, Montana is now the only state which restricts their use to certain types of animals. For a full map of suppressor legalities, visit the ASA’s website.

ASA would like to thank everyone who worked on the issue, including the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, and the National Rifle Association. We would also like to thank the Commissioners of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for their unanimous support, and to their Executive Director for signing Executive Order # 14-32. Most importantly, we would like to thank all of the sportsmen and women in Florida who took the time to support this initiative. Because of your efforts, hunting in Florida has become a safer and more enjoyable experience.

The American Suppressor Association looks forward to continuing to work towards our goal of legalizing suppressor ownership and hunting in all 50 states. We would like to thank Florida for taking us all one step closer.

ABOUT THE AMERICAN SUPPRESSOR ASSOCIATION 

The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is the unified voice of the suppressor industry. Our mission is to unite and advocate for the common interests of suppressor manufacturers, distribu­tors, dealers, and consumers. To accomplish our mission, our principal initiatives focus on state lobbying, federal lobbying, public education, and industry research.

ASA is a membership driven organization. We now offer a 1 year ASA Membership with an NFA Gun Trust for $100. For more information on how you can help protect and expand your right to own and use suppressors, please visit www.AmericanSuppressorAssociation.com.

Florida Hunter With a Wild Hog on Private Land
Categories: All News Feeds

Federal Judge Rules Against California’s Bid to Delay End of Gun Waiting Periods

Fri, 11/21/2014 - 09:29

At least for Some.

Court order denying requests by California Attorney General Kamala Harris shows state’s weak hand, reports The Calguns Foundation.

CalGuns Foundation

ROSEVILLE, CA - -(Ammoland.com)- California’s laws requiring gun purchasers to wait at least ten days before taking possession of their lawfully-acquired firearms are one step closer to being history, reports The Calguns Foundation, a gun rights group headquartered in the Sacramento suburb of Roseville.

In a new order released today, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii rejected two requests made by California Attorney General Kamala Harris in the dispute, captioned Silvester, et al. v. Harris, that was filed in Fresno nearly three years ago.

“Defendant [Harris] made various arguments to justify the waiting period, but the evidence did not actually support a 10-day waiting period,” today’s order noted. “The [state’s] arguments were more in line with rational basis scrutiny”– a weak form of judicial review that was expressly rejected in the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision – “than with intermediate scrutiny,” which forces governments to prove how a law impinging on a constitutional right serves an important purpose.

In the case of the waiting period laws, Attorney General Harris couldn’t.

“The Court notes that Defendant has not identified any error of law or any erroneous factual finding,” Judge Ishii explained in his denial of Harris’ requests. “The Court stands by its analysis and its findings that the waiting period laws violate the Second Amendment” as applied to the three classes of individuals that, plaintiffs successfully argued, shouldn’t be subject to the laws.

Harris had moved for a modification of the original August court order – which gave the state Department of Justice six months to take whatever steps were necessary to bring the agency’s policies in line with civil rights standards – to allow it a year to comply with the ruling, and also to delay the court’s enforcement of the order entirely until the appeals process had concluded. Both motions were denied.

“A bench trial has concluded, and a law that is actively being enforced has been found to be unconstitutional. The Court does not know how Defendant or the BOF prioritizes projects, but dealing with an unconstitutional law should be towards the top of the list.”

“We’re pleased that Judge Ishii saw right through the Attorney General’s acrimonious delay tactics and properly denied her the opportunity to infringe our fundamental Second Amendment rights even more than she already has,” said Brandon Combs, the executive director of The Calguns Foundation and a plaintiff in the case. “Today’s court order bodes well for justice and, especially, for law-abiding gun purchasers.”

Harris, who has already filed a notice with the district court that she intends to take the loss to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, will presumably argue against the court’s holding that “the 10-day waiting period violate[s] the Second Amendment as applied to three classes of individuals,” like those similarly situated to individual plaintiffs Jeff Silvester and Combs.

Notably, the waiting period requirement was first passed in the same 1923 legislative act as California’s “may-issue” concealed carry laws and a ban on the public display of handguns by gun dealers. Both of those regulations are currently being challenged in federal lawsuits backed by The Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, who are institutional plaintiffs in the Silvester case. The Ninth Circuit is currently considering Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto’s request for rehearing of a decision that found his carry license policies violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Meanwhile, four gun dealers seeking to strike down the ban on commercial speech filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Sacramento’s federal district court on Monday, arguing the handgun display ban violates the First Amendment.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

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.

Categories: All News Feeds

Gun Owners of America Aims to Torpedo the Maryland ‘Assault Weapons’ Law

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 17:39
Gun Owners of America Aims to Torpedo the Maryland ‘Assault Weapons’ Law Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)-

“[The District Court] brazenly has ruled that Maryland may ‘infringe’ a right that the Constitution plainly states ‘shall not be infringed.’ Such a ruling cannot stand.” — from GOA’s brief in Kolbe v. O’Malley

A GOA-backed case is making its way through the court system right now — a case that, if successful, would bring down one of the toughest gun laws in one of the bluest states in the Union.

To this end, GOA and its foundation (GOF) are challenging Maryland’s so-called “assault weapons” ban in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Click here to read the brief in Kolbe v. O’Malley.

In 2013, Maryland banned the possession or transfer of what it calls “assault weapons” and prohibited the transfer of so-called “large capacity magazines.”

U.S. Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake

Chief Judge Catherine Blake, a Clinton-appointee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, sided in favor of the law. But in doing so, she engaged in a form of analysis of the Second Amendment that may be without precedent in the history of the Republic.

After assuming the Maryland law “infringes on the Second Amendment,” she then ruled that its infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms could be justified as a means to better ensure Maryland’s public safety ends.

GOA’s amicus brief responds to several factually inaccurate statements made about firearms by the district court in its opinion. For example, the district judge mistakenly claims that so-called “assault weapons” are not in common use and are designed solely for offensive purposes.

Moreover, the judge claims that assault weapons fire at a greater distance and with greater accuracy than other firearms — as if a .223 bullet fired from an AR-15 will somehow travel further and more accurately than a 7mm bullet fired from a bolt action hunting rifle.

The judge claims that the rounds fired from assault weapons have more capability than other rifle rounds to penetrate soft body armor. In reality, caliber has nothing to do with the type of rifle, and moreover almost all (if not all) rifle bullets penetrate soft body armor, so there is nothing unusual about the bullets fired by an “assault rifle.”

Finally, GOA’s amicus brief reminds the court that the proper standard of judicial review was laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in the D.C. v. Heller decision (2008). It is the constitutional text and history that governs the right to keep and bear arms, not judicial precedent and not ad hoc balancing of interests.

ACTION: There are two ways that you can help Gun Owners of America in continuing to bring cases like this before the federal bench:

  • Support GOA. You can go here to help support Gun Owners of America, to ensure that GOA can continue bringing quality briefs before the federal bench.
  • Support GOF through the CFC. Federal employees can designate Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) as the recipient of their gifts to the Combined Federal Campaign. Use Agency Number 10042 for Gun Owners Foundation when you make your Combined Federal Campaign pledge or donation.
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585
FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org

About:Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul Visit: www.gunowners.org to Join.

Categories: All News Feeds

Why Gun Owners are Tired of Compromising

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 15:01

A History of Gun Control Compromises

Why Gun Owners are Tired of Compromising Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

USA --(Ammoland.com)- A common theme that is pushed by anti-gun groups is the myth that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun owners, in general, refuse to compromise on so-called “common sense” gun control measures, but the evidence does not support the rhetoric.

In fact, the NRA has a history of compromising more so than anti-gun groups.

Compromise only works if both sides are willing to make concessions. History has shown that only one side, the NRA, has been willing to compromise. The NRA has reached a point where further compromise will infringe on the rights laid out in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, in particular, the right to keep and bear arms.

There is no more ground to give.

The compromising started in 1934 with the passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA). This law imposed an excise tax on certain types of firearms, including machine guns, rifles with barrels less than 16 inches, shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches, and suppressors and created a national database of so-called “NFA” weapons, which made it a long and costly process to own these firearms. NFA also required all firearms dealers to keep records of all their firearms sales. These legal hurdles have caused many firearms dealers to go out of business. This was the first, but not the last, compromise in the history of gun control.

In 1968, the anti-gun movement, in true Rahm Emanuel fashion, did not let a crisis go to waste. Anti-gun groups used the tragic deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy to push through the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. These laws further regulated who can and cannot buy firearms. The Omnibus Crime Control Bill prohibited interstate trade of handguns and increased the minimum age to 21 for someone purchasing a handgun. The Gun Control Act further regulated the interstate firearms commerce preventing the interstate transfer of firearms except between licensed firearms manufacturers and dealers. These acts were, in general, supported by the NRA. In the NRA publication, The American Rifleman, Franklin Orth, the Executive Vice President of the NRA at the time, quoted, “The measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with”. This was a compromise the NRA felt it had to make.

The compromising did not stop there. The Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) was passed in 1986. Contrary to the name of the act, FOPA made it harder to own guns and banned other guns as well as putting more regulations on the seller. The NRA also supported this law.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commonly called the Brady Law, was passed. The Brady Law further limited who can buy guns and created the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Any person who buys a gun from a gun dealer must go through NICS. The Brady Law further eroded, not only the rights of the people who buy guns, but also the states’ power by forcing states to use a national background check system.

In the 21 years since the Brady Law passed, more states are passing draconian gun laws, including New York State’s recent ban on assault weapons [SAFE ACT] and Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, which has recently been ruled unconstitutional.

There is no sign that anti-gun groups are interested in compromise. This is leading the NRA and gun owners to p​​ush back against the tide of groups, such as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Any Town, USA, by actively fighting against new gun measures.

Veritas Firearms

The ultimate goal of these anti-gun groups is the total destruction of the right to bear arms.

John Crump is a NRA certified pistol instructor and CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC.

Categories: All News Feeds

Anti-Gun Group Freaks Out as Texas Considers Becoming 45th Open Carry State

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 14:49

By AWR Hawkins

Anti-Gun Group Freaks Out as Texas Considers Becoming 45th Open Carry State AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)-  When Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America reacted to Texas Governor-elect Greg Abbott’s (R) pledge to sign open carry legislation by vowing to “fight” it, they missed the fact that he wasn’t promoting a novel idea but a noble one already allowable in 44 states with various stipulations.

On August 22, The Wall Street Journal published a Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence map listing the 44 states in which open carry is legal. Some of these states allow open carry without a permit, while others require a permit before open carry is allowable.

According to the Law Center map, open carry is allowable in “Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware, Alaska, Utah, Oklahoma, Iowa, Minnesota, Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii.”

It is crucial to familiarize yourself with the gun laws in these states before attempting to carry a gun in any manner, especially since laws may be loosened or tightened at any time and penalties for making a mistake in each state are vastly different. For example, while an individual without a felony who is 21 years or older can carry a handgun concealed or openly in Arizona without a permit, the Hawaii Rifle Association reports that “concealed carry and open carry are felonies [in Hawaii] without a permit to do so from the chief of police from your county.”  

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America’s Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA’s Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at awr@awrhawkins.com. You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.

Categories: All News Feeds

Is There Anywhere Safe to Be a Jew?

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 14:10

By Alan Caruba

2014 Jerusalem Synague Attack: On Tuesday, November 18 2014, two Palestinians, armed with a rifle and butcher knives, killed three American-Israeli rabbis, a British-Israeli rabbi, and a police officer. Column by Alan Caruba

New Jersey --(Ammoland.com)- One might think that being a rabbi praying in a synague in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood of Jerusalem, Israel was about as safe as one could get, but you would be wrong.

Jews, no matter where they are, understand they can be attacked and killed for being Jews. It is the price of their Covenant with God (Exodus, Chapter 12). This has been part of the history of Judaism for three millennia. In the last century it manifested itself as a Nazi genocide that killed six million European Jews and in this one it is the continuation of an Islamic war on Israel.

On Tuesday, November 18 2014, two Palestinians, armed with a rifle and butcher knives, killed three American-Israeli rabbis, a British-Israeli rabbi, and a police officer. They injured seven others. The synague isn’t even close to the line that divides the Jewish and Arab sections of the city. In recent months Jerusalem has been the scene of a number of attacks attributed to Muslim anger regarding the desire of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, a holy site on which a mosque, al-Aksa, was built following the Arab conquest of the city in 637 A.D.

News of Tuesday’s killings was celebrated in the streets of Gaza and no doubt elsewhere. While condemning the killings, President Obama also managed to blame Israel for building housing for its citizens. Why he thinks he has the right to tell the Israelis where and how much housing can be built is testimony to both his arrogance and his enmity toward the Jewish State.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abba condemned the killings in one breath and incited more hatred with the next, claiming that Jews had “contaminated” the Temple Mount where Abraham’s faith was tested by God.

From its independence in 1948 to the present, Israel has been attacked in wars and with organized terror campaigns called intifadas. The Palestinians rewarded the Israeli decision to turn the whole of Gaza over to them in 2005 by rocketing it ceaselessly from there until the Israelis conducted a military operation in June to bring a stop to it. In the process, they discovered dozens of tunnels intended to be used by terrorists to attack Israelis.

The Palestinians have been given many opportunities to have peace with Israel but they have never chosen to embrace it. American efforts by several Presidents have all failed. There are two Palestinian groups that claim governance or representation, the Palestinian Authority located on the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza.

The answer why is perhaps best found in the Hamas founding document. Proclaimed in 1988, it calls for the creation of an “Islamic state in Palestine in place of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.” How is that to be achieved? Victory is defined as “killing the last Jew on earth…”

The murderous nature of Islam was highlighted in the latest Global Terrorism Index published by the Institute for Economics and Peace. CNS news reported that “The number of people killed by terrorists worldwide in 2013 rose by 60 percent compared to the previous year—from 11,133 to 17,958—with four Sunni Muslim extremist groups responsible for two-thirds of all fatalities…”

The Middle East was the region where most of the killings occurred and it should be noted that Christians for whom the region has been home for millenia have been also been targeted in the same fashion as Israel’s Jews.

In a broader context, the level of anti-Semitism has been increasing in recent years and, despite the horror of the Holocaust during World War II, it is particularly evident in Europe. The increased Muslim population in European nations may have something to do with that, but it is also clear that the hostility toward Jews is evident in its non-Muslim population. It is not an exaggeration to say that one can find anti-Semitism virtually anywhere in the world, even in nations where there is no perceptible Jewish population.

The two Palestinians who perpetrated the attack were killed in a police shootout. In a November 19 editorial, The Wall Street Journal opined that;

 “What Israel needs now is confidence that the U.S. will not reward these acts of jihad by browbeating Mr. Netanyahu back into negotiations with Mr. Abbas.”

“The best way to prevent another intifada is to reassure Israel that the U.S. supports its self-defense, while warning Palestinians that they will never have a homeland as long as they cultivate a society that celebrates murdering the innocent in the name of religion.”

The Palestinians are not members of a sovereign state and never have been. The closest one gets to one is Jordan which is home to many Palestinians. Other Middle East nations have not assimilated the Palestinians, often keeping them in camps for generations and denying them any vestige of citizenship. They are the oldest refugee group of the modern era, but those who chose Israeli citizenship enjoy the rights of all Israelis. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, the Arab population in 2013 was 1,658,000!

Jews are members of the oldest monotheistic religion on Earth. Judaism birthed a breakaway religion called Christianity which incorporates the Old Testament with the New, and about 1,400 years ago Mohammad declared he was the newest and last prophet. He proclaimed Islam, an amalgam of the first two religions and the paganism of his Arab culture.

In 1948 Jews resurrected Israel and restored it as the Jewish state. Killing rabbis and other Israelis will not change that, something that Muslims antagonistic to Israel refuse to understand, but they also don’t understand why having two distinct and warring sects claiming to be the only true Islam, Sunni and Shiite, nor killing each other doesn’t make a lot of sense either.

Are Jews safe in Israel? No more than on any other inch of planet Earth.

c Alan Caruba

About:
Alan Caruba’s commentaries are posted daily at “Warning Signs” his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews.

Categories: All News Feeds

WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey Continues his Leadership on the Second Amendment

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 13:30
West Vrigina Attorney General Patrick Morrisey NRA – ILA

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)-  Attorney General Patrick Morrisey continued to lead legal efforts to support your Second Amendment rights by filing an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief with a bipartisan coalition of 21 state Attorneys General across the country.

This brief urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to declare unconstitutional a Maryland law forbidding the possession, sale or transfer of certain firearms.

“We are proud to have led this bipartisan group of states in this amicus brief.  States must band together in times when they see citizens’ rights being diminished or infringed upon.  If the courts decide this law passes muster, it would undermine a core part of the Second Amendment,” Morrisey said.

To view his news release, click here.

Please thank Attorney General Morrisey for leading the charge on this effort.

Stay tuned to your e-mail and www.NRAILA.org for updates

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Categories: All News Feeds

The Arsenal Of Destruction: The History Of Policing In America: An Introduction

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 10:53

By Roger J. Katz & Stephen D’Andrilli
SUBPART 3: THE HISTORY OF POLICING IN AMERICA: AN INTRODUCTION

The militarization and federalization of police forces is not a recent occurrence. It isn’t a singular event. And, it isn’t an anomaly. Arbalest Quarrel

New York --(Ammoland.com)-  The militarization and federalization of police forces is not a recent occurrence. It isn’t a singular event. And, it isn’t an anomaly.

It’s a calculated strategy through which the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Defense (DOD) and Justice (DOJ) on behalf of powerful, secretive, sinister, ruthless forces both within the United States and outside it seek to undermine the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and bring an end to our Republic. Once the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights topples, the other Nine Amendments will fall of their own accord. In the absence of our sacred Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution will have lost a crucial leg upon which the very structure of our free Republic stands.

Never, since its inception in the 18th Century, has the Bill of Rights suffered a more ferocious assault upon its sacred principals than in the 21st Century – hardly an Age of Enlightenment.

WHAT PROOF EXISTS THAT POWERFUL, SECRETIVE, RUTHLESS FORCES ANTITHETICAL TO OUR FREE REPUBLIC EXIST; THAT THEY HAVE CONSPIRED TO DESTROY OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND, ONCE HAVING ACCOMPLISHED THAT TASK, SEEK TO DISMANTLE OUR SOVEREIGN NATION STATE?

You may have heard of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, among others. The mainstream media (MSM) won’t talk about these groups. The MSM won’t investigate the aims and goals of these groups.  The mainstream media won’t discuss how these groups work secretly to coordinate foreign and domestic policies; how these groups manipulate public perception; how these groups manufacture lies; how these groups infiltrate the institutions of this Country. The MSM won’t discuss these matters at all, won’t even mention them. The mainstream media won’t do this because the MSM is an instrument of these groups.

Still, the public can obtain an inkling of the machinations of these groups: the strategies they employ to control society: the arsenal of destruction.

One strategy is the militarization and federalization of the police forces in this Country.

WHAT PROOF EXISTS THAT POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY REALLY ARE MILITARIZED AND FEDERALIZED OR, AT LEAST, ARE RAPIDLY BECOMING MILITARIZED AND FEDERALIZED?

In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9, 2014, the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, held a public hearing on September 9, 2014. Representatives of DHS, DOD, and Department of Justice (DOJ) offered testimony. Police use of military equipment was the subject of the hearing. The topic of the hearing may seem banal. The import of it isn’t. Apart from “SWAT” teams – the creation and purpose of which raises some interesting issues of its own – why, generally, would rank and file police officers, operating in thousands of police forces across the Country, need military equipment: sniper rifles, night vision goggles, armored vehicles, fully automatic weaponry, military uniforms and military armor?

Today, the subject of militarization and federalization of police in American society is viewed alongside discussions of police brutality, race relations, “broken windows” theory,  Fourth Amendment privacy rights, and Fourth Amendment privacy concerns – matters that reflect and encompass policing strategies, theories, philosophies, and topics of recent vintage, extending from the mid-twentieth century, through the first decade of the 21st – up to this very moment.

But, to understand how we got to this point we must grasp the historical role and function of police in American society. For, you shall see, the militarization and federalization of civilian police forces is not simply a matter of discerning changes in police equipment. It is more – much more.

HOW DID WE GET FROM THERE TO HERE?

It may seem a trifling matter, even quaint, to ask this salient question. After all, every community in America has a police department of some kind and, seemingly, always had a police department. The public accepts concepts such as ‘State police power,’ ‘police departments,’ ‘policing,’ and ‘police officers’ as “givens,” without need for definitive explication or even a cursory explanation.

But, if you stop to think about it – really stop to think about it – you begin to realize the need to ask a slew of questions that the MSM does not ask and does not investigate and, so, does not try to answer.

Why do we have police officers and police departments at all? What is their purpose in society? How did they come to be? How did the concept of ‘the State’s police power’ come into being?  Does the notion of ‘police power’ reside only in the individual States? Or, does the ‘police power’ also reside with the Federal Government? If that power only resides in the individual States, how did that power come to be transferred to the Federal Government? Was it through subterfuge? Did the individual States willingly sell their “soul” to the Federal Government in exchange for military hardware? To whom do the police agencies of the individual States really answer? What was the role of policing in colonial America? Did the public itself serve, at one time, as “the police?” If so, at what point did policing transform into an independent segment or organ of society and why? What was the original function of policing in American society? What was policing supposed to accomplish? Once policing became a unique profession, whom did the police serve? How did policing evolve? What is the function and role of the police today? Is the primary role of the police today one of protecting the public from transgressors? Or, is the primary role of police one of protecting certain wealthy, powerful segments of the society against the public, where the public is itself deemed, inherently, to be the transgressor or, at least, deemed to be a potential transgressor?

OUR HYPOTHESIS

Policing, ultimately, is about control: control of the masses.  And control of the masses is the sine qua non of the “Police State.”

But, is this hypothesis true? To test this hypothesis we must take a close look at the history of policing.

We begin with a look at policing in Colonial America.

DID POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND POLICE OFFICERS EXIST IN COLONIAL AMERICA?

The answer is, “no.” There were no police departments in the colonies or early States. In fact, there were no professional law enforcement officers. The peace officer, most commonly a constable, was usually a low status ‘freeman’ pressed into a tour of duty for a year. He was not paid a salary; rather, he was a part-time officer who received small fees for performing various services, probably while attempting to maintain his usual occupation.” {citation omitted}

In the earliest days of the Republic the duty of policing resided in the public. The public took responsibility for law and order. “The evolution of American policing was a slow and selective process. . . . The process was slow and selective because the public feared centralized power and control. . . . The unification of the English colonies as an independent nation in the West brought a greater need for communal security, and heightened the necessity for a governing authority and laws with which to maintain order, than prior to America’s autonomy. Ratification of the United States Constitution offered a well-defined Federal influence, administered through three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial, and provided the central authority necessary to administer justice. In the United States, the laws and ‘elaborate machinery’ needed to enforce them had not yet been tested; thus law enforcement was administered in the only manner with which citizens were familiar: the parish-constable system.” {citation omitted}

The rise of the professional police officer and the rise of centralized police departments – the modern police system – replacing the informal parish-constable system – was a development, oddly enough, owing much to the philosophy of policing in English society. “American policing is generally ascribed to an Englishman, Sir Robert Peel.”

“Appointed as the British Home Secretary, Peel introduced the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. The Act was designed to reform the antiquated parish-constable system of policing that had failed to effectively repress the rising incidence of violent and property crime in England.” Peel is considered the father of modern policing. Peel’s philosophy of policing is codified in a set of 26 principles.

They are:

  1. Absence of crime best improves police efficiency
  2. Principle objective is crime prevention
  3. Organization must be stable, efficient, military-like
  4. Police headquarters centralized
  5. Establishment of rank with assigned duties
  6. Separation of police management from judiciary
  7. Modification of system to meet local needs
  8. Creation of a divisional reserve
  9. Police records are necessary (to allot divisional strength)
  10. Recruits hired on a probationary basis
  11. Police applicants to be judged on their merits
  12. Police should be even-tempered; a quiet determined manner
  13. Each officer will be assigned a number
  14. Proper training is the root of police efficiency
  15. Strict discipline of officers will ensure high behavioral standards
  16. Deployment by shift and beat
  17. A “beat card” will be issued to each officer
  18. Promotions will be filled from lower-rank officers
  19. Good appearance commands respect
  20. Distribution of crime news is essential
  21. Power of police depends on public approval
  22. To maintain public respect police must secure public cooperation and obey laws
  23. Public cooperation diminishes proportionately with police use of physical force
  24. To preserve public favor, police must demonstrate impartial service for the law
  25. To maintain a relation with the public that denotes the police are the public and the public are the police
  26. Daily reporting of police activity

As you can see, Peel’s list includes several administrative mechanisms, normative values, and, perhaps, most revealing, a military structure.

What we have today – the militarization and federalization of police – is, then, not a creature that just happened suddenly and mysteriously. Its seeds were planted over 180 years ago. The fear that Americans have today over the increasing power of police forces in American society echo those of Americans and the English, too, almost two centuries ago.

In the next installment we will continue our investigation into the roots of modern policing and the rise of the Police State in America.

See our recent post. We discuss the implications of the Ferguson matter in depth. Click on the link:www.arbalestquarrel.com. As always, we value your comments.

Categories: All News Feeds

Ma’alot Massacre, Israel, 15 May 1974

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 10:21

By John Farnam

Galil Maimon carrying his sister Tzippi after the massacre at Ma’alot, became the symbolic picture of the terrorist outrage. Defense Training International, Inc

Ft Collins, CO --(Ammoland.com)- It’s been over forty years, but I well remember the massacre at Ma’alot, where over a hundred people, mostly high-school students, were held hostage for two days by Islamic terrorists.

Only three terrorists were involved. The event demonstrates how much death and destruction can be accomplished by a relatively small group of dedicated, and suicidal, terrorists.

After a two-day standoff, Israeli Commandos stormed the school building where hostages were being held, but twenty-five kids were murdered [with grenades and machine guns], and seventy were wounded. A handful escaped unharmed. All three terrorists were shot to death by the Israelis.

Immediately prior to the school take-over, the terrorist trio invaded a local home, apparently chosen at random, and precipitously murdered a father, mother, and several children, including an four-year-old.

They also stood in the middle of a local road and fired upon an approaching vehicle, murdering two before the driver could withdraw.

So many, similar attacks have occurred since, we tend to forget, but those who lived through Ma’alot haven’t!

The purpose of this historical narrative is to remind all of us that Islamic terrorists haven’t changed methods during recent history. In fact, they haven’t changed in 1500 years!

Namely:

  • Put together a small group of murderous ideologues, who have no concern for human life. Even a “group” of only one can be effective, as we have seen.
  • Knock on a door. When it is opened, shoot whoever answers, then go inside and shoot everyone else.
  • Murder at random, having no regard for victims.
  • Take hostages, preferably children, with the intent of murdering them all in any event. Prolong the agony by making preposterous demands. Hold out as long as possible. Accept your own violent death as part of the outcome.

Countermeasures:

Don’t allow yourself to believe you’re too small, to insignificant, and too isolated to be selected for violent attack by terrorists. Government officials, to no one’s surprise, have spared no expense protecting themselves.

They rest of us must provide our own protection.

It matters not your ethnicity, religion, economic status, age, nor political flavor. Lowering your personal profile is always good practice, but ultimately we are all considered “fair game” by terrorists, and “expendable” by our government.

Thank Heaven for the 2nd Amendment! Take advantage of it. Be always prepared to defend yourself with precision gunfire. It is, by far, the most effective deterrent of all, vastly superior to all other martial arts and personal strategies. The unarmed have no chance!

Don’t become a hostage! Hostages rarely fare well. Do not surrender to terrorists. Shooting it out with them is ultimately much safer, and infinitely more satisfying!

Don’t foolishly believe someone else cares about you more than you care about yourself. Naive believers is the “guardian-angel theory” live short and unhappy lives. Know and understand that you are on your own!

It is going to get worse, for all of us. Time to get moving!

“Have a bias toward action. Let’s see something happen. You can break that big plan into small steps, and take the first step right now!” ~ Indira Gandhi

/John

Victims of the 1974 Massacre at Ma’alot

About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent and unlawful lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance, if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or inactions.

It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com

Categories: All News Feeds

Pawn Store Customer Fells Armed Robber, Indianapolis, Ind.

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 09:46

WISH, Indianapolis, Ind. 11/18/14

Guns Save Lives

USA --(Ammoland.com)- Somewhere, everyday in the USA, 2100+ people use a gun for self defense, to stop a crime or save the lives of themselves or their family.

“We believe that the American public deserve to understand that on the average, guns save 2,191 lives and are used to thwart crimes every day,” says Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation

Most times you won’t see these tales on the news as it does not fit the main stream media’s story line of “Guns and Gun Owners are Bad“.

This is just one of those stories;

A man entered Cash America Pawn in Indianapolis, Ind. pulled a hood over his head, drew a gun, and attempted to rob the store. A customer responded by drawing a gun and shooting the criminal, killing him.

Following an investigation, police revealed that the deceased robber was a suspect in other robberies. (WISH, Indianapolis, Ind. 11/18/14)

About the Guns Save Lives Series:
Every few days AmmoLand Shooting Sports News will be featuring a new report of stories involving self defense with a hand gun. Be sure and share, like and Tweet these posts and help spread the truth that “Guns Save Lives”. See more at www.AmmoLand.com ( http://tiny.cc/s6ef2w )

Categories: All News Feeds

West Vrigina AG Leads 21 States In Amicus Brief Supporting Citizens’ RKBA

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 09:42
West Vrigina

CHARLESTON —-(Ammoland.com)- Attorney General Patrick Morrisey today announced that he led a bipartisan coalition of 21 state attorneys general in an amicus, or friend of the court, brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to declare unconstitutional a Maryland law that forbids the possession, sale, transfer or receipt of certain firearms.

The brief argues Maryland’s law violates citizens’ core Second Amendment right to keep firearms in their home for self-protection. Plaintiffs in the case, Kolbe, et al., argued that the Maryland ban completely prohibited the possession of commonly used firearms and some of the most popular guns used by citizens for self-defense. A U.S. District Court ruled the law did not violate the constitution.

“Our Office is committed to defending law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights, and we believe this law clearly violates the Constitution,” Attorney General Morrisey said. “This law’s broad categorical ban is no different than trying to impose a content-based ban on speech. It simply cannot be done.”

In their brief, Morrisey and the other state attorneys general argue the Maryland law runs counter to previous Court decisions that deemed other bans prohibiting citizens’ private ownership of other common firearms as unconstitutional.

West Virginia was joined in the brief by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

“We are proud to have led this bipartisan group of states in this amicus brief,” Morrisey said. “States must band together in times when they see citizens’ rights being diminished or infringed upon. If the courts decide this law passes muster, it would undermine a core part of the Second Amendment.”

To read a copy of the brief, click here.

Contact Information
Beth Ryan, (304) 558-2021, beth.g.ryan@wvago.gov

Categories: All News Feeds

Gabby Gifford’s Gun Control Group: Never Mind the Losses, ‘We’ll Be Back In 2016′

Thu, 11/20/2014 - 09:12

By AWR Hawkins

Gabby Giffords with Mark Kelly working the puppet strings. AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- After spending $10.6 million in the Nov. 4 2014 elections and “barely [winning] half its contests,” Gabby Giffords’ gun control group—Americans For Responsible Solutions (ARS)—says it will be back in 2016.

But Politico describes this as “a steep task,” and that may be putting it mildly.

Think about it—ARS endorsed 18 total candidates in House, Senatorial, and gubernatorial races. Of these, they claim nine wins yet among the high-profile races in which they supported pro-gun control Senators, ARS came up nearly empty-handed. They supported Senators Mark Udall (D-CO) and Kay Hagan (D-NC)—both of whom lost—and they supported pro-gun control Senatorial candidate Bruce Braley (D-IA), who lost to pro-Second Amendment Senator-elect Joni Ernst (R-IA).

They also supported pro-gun control Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who is headed toward a December 6 2014 runoff with pro-Second Amendment Senatorial candidate Bill Cassidy (R-LA). Politico is already pointing out Landrieu is “likely to lose” that race.

And in the House, Gabby Giffords’ old seat—Arizona District 2, has yet to be called even though Giffords & Co. “invested $2.3 million” in an effort to secure victory for pro-gun control Representative Ron Barber (D-AZ-2).

The only high-profile victory ARS can boast is that of Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).

Yet ARS senior advisor Pia Carusone says they want to show Democrats that it’s okay to talk to about gun control. That it is possible to do so and win. [LOL]

Meanwhile, Adage.com reports that Democrats are keeping their mouths and their wallets shut regarding Senator Landrieu’s runoff election. They are not countering the commercials against her spending habits, and they are not standing with her on her support for gun control.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins 

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America’s Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA’s Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at awr@awrhawkins.com. You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.

Categories: All News Feeds

PA Governments File Lawsuit to Avoid Accountability on Gun Laws

Wed, 11/19/2014 - 19:55

By Dean Weingarten

Pennsylvania Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- In Pennsylvania, second amendment advocates have been fighting for years to reform Pennsylvania preemption law.

State law forbids local governments from passing a maze of local ordinances that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.   All 50 states have some form of state firearm preemption; if they did not have it, residents would never know if they were breaking the law or not by being on one side of the street or another.

The problem in Pennsylvania is that the Legislature did not provide any penalties for local scofflaw governments when they break the law.   This year, 2014, second amendment supporters were able to pass the reform bill into law.  They were fought all the way with attempts to bottle the bill in committee, and various other procedural tricks.

The disarmists were not able to stop the bill, HB80, which proved very popular, passing by margins of more than two to one.

Now CeaseFirePA, a disarmist lobby primarily consisting of local government entities is funding a lawsuit against Governor Corbett, Lt. Governor Jim Cawley as presiding officer of the senate, and the Speaker of the House, Sam Smith.  From dailylocal.com:

Monday they filed a lawsuit against the House Speaker Sam Smith, Gov. Tom Corbett and Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley in his capacity of presiding officer of the state Senate, challenging the constitutionality of Act 192.

Plaintiffs include the cities of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster as well as state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-17, of Montgomery County, and state senators Lawrence Farnese and Vincent Hughes, both Democrats from Philadelphia.

Backing their effort is CeaseFirePA, a coalition of mayors, police chiefs, religious leaders, community organizations, and other Pennsylvanians dedicated to eliminating gun violence.

The bill passed the House by 143 to 54.  It passed the Senate 34-16.  It seems unlikely that the courts will rule that the procedures used to allow a vote after months of deliberations would be unconstitutional.

I should not be surprised at the lengths to which local officials will go to avoid being held accountable under the law, but it helps if you have a lobby group promise that they will pay your legal fees if you are sued.  From PAFOA, citing an CeasefirePA letter:

2. However, in the event that a lawsuit occurs, the Brady Center (currently representing Pittsburgh) has promised to represent pro bono (free of charge) any Pennsylvania municipality that passes lost or stolen handgun reporting. The Brady  Center has given me the authority to convey this offer to Erie.

Definition of  disarmist

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Categories: All News Feeds

Pages