You are here


Subscribe to AmmoLand feed
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Updated: 3 hours 5 min ago

Super Model Chrissy Teigen Responds to Canadian Attack by Criticizing America

5 hours 44 min ago

By AWR Hawkins

Super Model Chrissy Teigen

AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC - -(  With one attacker dead and up to two more still on the loose in Ottawa on October 22 2014, super model Chrissy Teigen tweeted a joke about gun control in America and defended the joke by tweeting that she was unapologetic.

The tweets began at 8:34 a.m., when Teigen wrote: “active shooting in Canada, or as we call it in America, Wednesday.”

After being criticized for “minimizing” the attack on Canada, Teigen sent an 8:37 a.m tweet explaining that she was knocking America, not Canada. The tweet said: “Sorry you don’t understand that is a knock at america and our issues with gun control. No one is minimizing the Ottawa shooting.”

One minute later–at 8:38 a.m.–after taking more heat for her comments, Teigen tweeted: “I’m not apologizing. If you take it wrong, that is your fault.”

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins

Super Model Chrissy Teigen Responds to Canadian Attack by Criticizing America

AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for, for 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 You can find him on facebook at

Categories: All News Feeds

Tight Ohio Races That Need Pro-Gun Help #gunvote

7 hours 3 min ago

It is your Duty as a Gun Owner to Vote

Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Ohio --( It is the closing weeks of this general election cycle and some of you might wonder which of the pro-gun candidates out there are in tight races that could really use your help. We’ve done some analysis and offer the following suggestions:

These campaigns could really use volunteers. Please let them know that you are a pro-gun activist who wants to help.

Additionally, if you feel moved to make a contribution you can take a credit of $50 per person (or $100 on a joint tax return) when donating to these races. Here’s the relevant section of the Ohio Revised Code:
Ohio Tax Credit for Contributions

This is the time to make the political will of pro-gun activists felt in Ohio!

If you have not cast your ballot yet, check out our list of 2014 OFCC General Election Endorsements.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry, founded in 1999, is a grassroots political activist organization. When founded, the primary goal of OFCC was getting concealed carry passed into law in Ohio. With that accomplished, our mission became to refine the concealed carry law and to expand and preserve the rights of all gun owners in Ohio. Visit:

Categories: All News Feeds

Another Michigan Public School Adopts Compliant Weapons Policy, Allows Guns

11 hours 40 sec ago

Traverse City Area Public School Adopts Compliant Weapons Policy, Allows Guns. Note To Hoplophobes: the image above is just for illustration purposes, sorry if we made you wet your panties.

Michigan Open Carry

Michigan – -( Last night, Traverse City Area Public Schools (TCAPS ) adopted a new weapons policy and it’s good news for Michigan CPL holders. The new policy appears to respect Michigan law and your rights, by allowing those “permitted by law” to carry at TCAPS facilities and events.

Earlier this year TCAPS learned that Open Carry on school property with a CPL is legal in Michigan after someone did just that at one of their school board meetings. Since then, TCAPS has talked with local law-enforcement, reviewed state law, and determined that their weapons policy was not in compliance.

At last month’s Traverse City Area Public School board meeting new policy language was submitted for review to the board, which was forwarded on to MOC’s leadership by MOC member Andy Marek. MOC’s legislative team looked over the new language and was very pleased to see that the school district appeared to be making a good faith effort to comply with state law. Though the language wasn’t perfect, it was good enough for the team to send Traverse City Area Public School a letter of support containing a few suggested tweaks, with copious citations of course.

Today we are pleased to report that not only did Traverse City Area Public School accept the new compliant language (starts on pg. 54) last night, they also adopted almost all of MOC’s suggestions.

It’s good to see another school following the law. As this trend grows, more and more of their worst fears are shown to be baseless and/or absurd. The truth is getting out there – we are not the problem.

Does this mean that the TCAPS board has suddenly turned pro-gun? Well, let’s not get carried away, it may be possible MOC’s pending lawsuit had something to do with it.

However, there are some school districts that are still holding out and continue to look for any possible way to not comply. These holdouts will have to be dealt with the hard way and we need your help. MOC is preparing to file suit against one of these holdouts and we need all of the support we can get.

Won’t you help us continue the trend by donating to our legal fund today?

About Michigan Open Carry
Michigan Open Carry, Inc is a Not-For-Profit organization that depends on our dues paying members to continue our operation.  We are an all-volunteer organization.  As such, no one is paid a salary and very few of the personal expenses of our officers are reimbursed.  Won’t you consider joining us or renewing as a dues paying member today?  If you need technical help with the process, please email

War by Algebra Defies the True Nature of War

12 hours 19 min ago

By Dr. Earl Tilford
Editor’s note: This article first appeared at

As legendary football coach Paul “Bear” Bryant once observed, “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog that matters.”

The Center For Vision & Values

Grove City, PA --( Many Americans think of war as a great national struggle, as was the case during WWII, where violence rose to address the belligerents’ objectives.

These were “total” wars between nation-states driven by incompatible political ideologies supported by the mobilization of industrial-age economies.

For the United States and its allies the objective was unconditional surrender. Most wars, however, have been between states of unequal strength, and outcomes do not always favor the side with the larger battalions—the American Revolution and French and American wars in Indochina being prime examples. As legendary football coach Paul “Bear” Bryant once observed, “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog that matters.” Regardless of the size of the dogs in the fight, all wars are characterized by primordial violence, enmity, and hatred.

Nearly two centuries ago, Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz posited violence, enmity, and hatred as constants pushing warfare to extremes of violence. The object of combat is to destroy enemy forces as a means to achieve a political objective. Clausewitz termed destruction of enemy forces “the first born son of war.”

All wars involve some level of violence where combat fosters and intensifies enmity. Hatred, however, goes beyond enmity and invariably escalates as fighting continues. The more intent one side is upon destroying the enemy’s forces, the greater the efforts involved and the greater the danger will be if the enemy is not subdued quickly. War is the most volatile of human endeavors, which, once embarked upon, is subject to increased passions.

The Obama administration’s air power-centric strategy currently underway in the Middle East may degrade the fighting capabilities of ISIS, but it cannot destroy ISIS armies or break their will. For nearly a century, air power combined with artillery provided the prelude to attack by ground forces to engage and destroy enemy forces with the objective of controlling territory. Military advisors and forward air guides can help achieve that objective, but they are no substitute for infantry backed by armor to find, fix, and annihilate opposing forces. Consider a nation that abdicates the use of ground forces and proceeds with a minimal air campaign that measures success by bomb-damage assessments: that is what Clausewitz termed “war by algebra.”

The tactical success of ISIS rests on exploiting the lack of leadership and cohesion in the poorly led and unmotivated Iraqi army and the lack of heavy weapons among the better led, more determined Kurds. Neither the Iraqis nor the Kurds can stop ISIS forces inspired by sectarian religious hatred. The size of the fight in the ISIS dog inspired by sectarian and religious hatred is too large.

Unless U.S. ground forces intervene, substantial help from a vague coalition of Arab partners is unlikely.

Most Arab armies, while equipped with sophisticated military hardware thanks to petro-dollars, exist to keep their respective tyrannical regimes in power. These glorified national police forces do not possess the power-projection capabilities required for a sustained campaign beyond their respective borders. The Turks and Egyptians come closest in capabilities but they are subject to internal political pressures militating against the kind of commitment needed to destroy ISIS.

Recently, U.S. Department of State spokesperson Jen Psaki, commenting on what might have transpired in Iraq had a residual American military force remained, stated it was unlikely a force of 10,000 U.S. troops could accomplish what 175,000 Iraqi soldiers could not. Her remarks reflect naiveté and ignorance of military matters. While fanatical and cruel, ISIS would be outclassed and out-gunned by U.S. troops supported by air power, especially in the relatively open deserts of Iraq and Syria.

Above all, the president as commander-in-chief must lead.

The nature of war is such that half-measures, while unlikely to succeed, are almost certain to encourage the enemy to bolder aggression. So far, the present air-power strategy has not deterred ISIS from expanding territory under its control, a prime example being the recent siege of Kobani, a town in northern Syria along the Turkish border.

Additionally, ISIS propaganda uses Internet videos of American bombings to depict a cruel technology being unleashed on innocent civilians as a recruiting tool across a vast uninformed Arab populace inclined to hate Americans. There is no nice way to make war. In this case, air attacks absent a coordinated ground campaign cannot succeed and may do more harm than good.

War is a serious endeavor eluding quantifiable figures of destroyed or damaged targets. Violence is the means for breaking the enemy’s will and nothing does that like devastating opposing armies. It takes land forces to do that effectively and then consolidate and hold territorial gains.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria kidnapped several Americans, murdering two so far. It commits war crime atrocities as a tactic to destroy its opponents’ will. ISIS has threatened terror upon the U.S. and its allies. Sporadic airstrikes seemingly unrelated to a strategic goal are useless and potentially counter-productive. The administration must either fight this war to win or admit the Middle East is no longer within the purview of U.S. national security interests. Fighting to win means committing ground forces.

Above all, the president as commander-in-chief must lead.

Dr. Earl Tilford is a military historian and fellow for the Middle East & terrorism with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He currently lives in Tuscaloosa, Alabama where he is writing a history of the University of Alabama in the 1960s. A retired Air Force intelligence officer, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as Director of Research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left Government service for a professorship at Grove City College, where he taught courses in military history, national security, and international and domestic terrorism and counter-terrorism.

Categories: All News Feeds

Texas State Rifle Association Names DuBois as New Executive Director

12 hours 51 min ago

Texas State Rifle Association Names Doug DuBois Jr as New Executive Director

Texas State Rifle Association

AUSTIN, Texas --( The Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) has named Doug DuBois Jr. as the association’s new executive director.

DuBois possesses leadership experience and a diverse background which will strengthen the TSRA and help protect and promote gun owners rights in the State of Texas.

Prior to TSRA, he served with the Texas Food & Fuel Association, holding such esteems positions as director of education; director of membership development and director of member services and governmental affairs. He is well-known in the Texas hunting and wildlife conservation communities as a TPWD Hunter Education Instructor and he currently serves on the executive committee of the Texas Wildlife Association (TWA), who recognized him in 2009 as the Adult Volunteer of the Year. He is also chairman of the TWA’s Texas Youth Hunting Program (TYHP) Advisory Committee. DuBois has been recognized for his conservation and education outreach by the Austin Chapter of SCI with the Christo Kaiser Conservation Award and has been recognized by the Austin Woods & Waters Club as Sportsman of the Year.

“We’re very excited about Doug’s appointment to this leadership position, and we think he’s the right person at the right time to further the TSRA mission,” says David Stroud, president of the Texas State Rifle Association. “ As a Life Member of both TSRA and NRA, Doug has demonstrated his passion for defending the Second Amendment and that he is also very community driven. He will be a strong asset for the Texas State Rifle Association, our members and gun owners throughout the state.”

“Hunting, shooting and working with the youth of Texas to ensure the future of our shooting sports has been a passion of mine for many years, and I am ” says DuBois. “Working together to further that cause, while protecting our Second Amendment rights with which we are blessed, will be my mission. I am looking forward to rolling up my sleeves and working on these issues which are so vitally important for Texans.”

Founded in 1919, the Texas State Rifle Association is the largest firearms and shooting sports organization in Texas with 40,000 members. TSRA is also the largest, award-winning state affiliate of the National Rifle Association and is sanctioned by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. As a part of its public education efforts, the association produces a full-color bimonthly publication, TSRA Sportsman, which updates members on current news, hunter education programs, shooting sports competitions, and important issues effecting their Second Amendment rights. The TSRA also hosts an annual meeting every February that features exciting fund-raising auctions, informative speakers, exhibitors, and other events.

For membership or other information about the Texas State Rifle Association, visit or call 512.615.4200.

Headquartered in Austin, Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the rights of law abiding Texans to own, enjoy and use firearms as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the State of Texas and the United States of America. For more information on membership or supporting the Texas State Rifle Association, call 512.615.4200 or visit

Categories: All News Feeds, Texas

Making the Pro Gun Grade

13 hours 51 min ago

By Jeff Knox

Anti Gun AK Sen Mark Begich, voted for confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court, along with a number of Obama’s other radical, judicial and executive branch appointees.

Buckeye, AZ --( We in the rights movement have had a relatively easy go of things for the past 20 years or so.

Since the “Assault Weapons” Ban of 1994, the pendulum has been swinging mostly our way. There have been a few stumbles and some close calls, as well as a whole lot of missed opportunities in that time, but in general, we’ve gained ground. I fear that could be changing, and I fear this year’s elections could be a critical turning point.

My personal concerns were echoed in an email I received from the NRA this week. In it, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox declared that we are “within striking distance” of removing Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer from control of the Senate, and replacing them with a “pro-Second Amendment majority.

He goes on to point out that the deciding factor will be a few percentage points in a handful of close Senate races, and, of course, Cox followed up those statements with a suggestion that the best way to further these goals is with a generous donation to NRA’s lobbying division.

The problem is that NRA, like some establishment Republican groups, hasn’t been acting in line with their fundraising pitches.

We all know that Republicans must flip six seats to gain the majority in the Senate, and that, along with a couple of seats Republicans are at some risk of losing, there are only a handful of seats currently held by Democrats that Republicans have a chance at converting. All of those races are expected to be close, and each of them is critical.

One of those critical and extremely close races is the Alaska senate seat currently held by Democrat, Mark Begich. In that contest, NRA has not made an endorsement, but they have posted grades for the candidates. They gave Republican challenger Dan Sullivan a grade of ‘AQ’, which is a qualified ‘A’ grade based on Sullivan’s answers to a questionnaire. NRA gave Begich a grade of ‘A-’.

Those seemingly identical grades take the gun vote right out of the race, and add to Begich’s advantage.

To his credit, Begich was one of the few Democrats to vote against the Manchin-Toomey registration bill last year. But on the debit side of the ledger, he also voted for confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court, along with a number of Obama’s other radical, judicial and executive branch appointees. The vote against Manchin-Toomey was important, but a cynic might suggest it was cast as a hedge leading into this year’s campaign. On the Supreme Court nominations, the NRA specifically warned senators that votes for Sotomayor and Kagan would impact reelection grades. Now it appears that the NRA did not take their own warning very seriously – which sends just the wrong message to the politicians.

Maybe there was some sort of backroom deal cut to secure Begich’s vote against Manchin-Toomey, or maybe NRA just doesn’t consider confirmation of radical, anti-Second Amendment jurists to lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court very important. Whatever the reasons for not knocking Begich’s grade down to at least a ‘B’ or a ‘C’, if not the ‘D’ awarded to him by Gun Owners of America, the upshot is that, with this high grade for Begich, NRA has effectively nullified the gun vote in this election, and may have, once again, ensured Harry Reid’s position as Senate Majority Leader.

Let’s remember that Reid might not even be in the Senate today were it not for NRA. Back in 2010, when Reid was up for reelection, NRA didn’t endorse him, but they publicly contributed $5000 to his campaign, and gave him a grade of ‘A’ to go along with it. They also refused to endorse his very pro-Second Amendment challenger, Sharon Angle. Many analysts believe NRA’s actions were a major factor in Reid’s reelection that year.

If Begich retains his seat, NRA could well be the weak link that derailed the bid for a Republican majority.

On the other side of the fight, anti-rights extremist Mike Bloomberg, who announced his intentions to work against Democrats who had voted against the Manchin-Toomey bill, played a smarter political game by giving in to pressure from his Democrat allies and backing away from that threat. Bloomberg and his anti-rights conglomerate have instead opted to put their money into a registration scheme disguised as a “background check” initiative in Washington State.

Vote No on Initiative 594

They have also reserved their official endorsements only for incumbents with a better than average chance of being reelected. That safe endorsement strategy will allow the Bloomberg crowd to crow about how effective they are by claiming that 90% to 100% of their endorsed candidates won their races. They’ll compare their win ratio to that of the NRA as proof that they have electoral clout while NRA’s reputation is exaggerated; a bogus claim that will be trumpeted as fact by the media.

Politics is a tricky game for a non-partisan, single-issue organization like the NRA. It’s important to have friends on both sides of the aisle and to reward those friends when they do the right thing. But it is even more important to be consistent in penalizing betrayals. Unfortunately, by failing to hold politicians like Begich accountable for Supreme Court and other confirmation votes that are grave threats to gun owners, it’s not Bloomberg that is actually undermining the NRA’s clout and credibility.

©2014 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit:

More Crazy Gun Laws From.. California

14 hours 1 min ago

By Rob Morse

More Crazy Gun Laws From.. California

Slow Facts

Southern California --(  In California, we recently passed a law that lets a doctor take away your guns.

Now a mental health professional can ask a judge for a firearms restraining order.  So can a cop or a family member.  They get to take away your means of self-defense; every gun, bullet and gun part.

This new legal power will be abused.  Ask any divorce lawyer if you don’t believe me.  The law will also be ineffective in stopping crazy people who want to kill.

How do we know the new law will not stop the mentally ill?  We know because crazy people have told us.  Some crazy people are evil and they lie.  Here is a recent example.

The young murderer who shot up the Arapahoe High School in Colorado planned his attack for months.  He wrote about it and called himself a “psychopath” in his secret diary.  This murderer was a narcissistic loon!  He vowed revenge for slights dating back to elementary school.   The murderer wrote that he wanted to commit “mass murder and be in a place of power where I and I alone are judge, jury and executioner.”

That, friends, is called a clue that  the murderer was crazy.

The mental health professionals missed those “clues”.  The Arapahoe murderer was a discipline problem at high school and threatened his debate coach.  After that incident, the murderer was required to take two mental health evaluations.  Both evaluations were within a few months of his attack.  The murderer first took a threat assessment from a school psychologist.  The second evaluation was by therapists at a private behavioral clinic.  The doctors determined he was a low-level threat.  Yes, they described him as a threat in their reports.  So how did this murderer pass the mental health screening designed to keep us safe from violent predators?  In his diary, the murder said,

“Let the record show I lied through my teeth (during) the test.”

Sociopaths lie.  Is that a surprise to anyone?  The proponents of the new firearms regulations said they will keep us safe.. this time.   The gun grabbers promised to only take guns from people who are crazy, criminal, or corrupt.  We’ve heard the same thing before.  Gun control advocates already passed 23 thousand gun laws in the USA.  They said the same thing before every new regulation; this law was the one that would keep us safe.

You and I would have to be insane to believe them. I guess we were.

New York proposed a firearms restraining order law similar to the one recently passed in California.  Now that is crazy.

About Rob Morse: By day, Rob Morse works as a mild mannered engineer for a Southern California defense contractor. By night he writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Gun Rights MagazineClash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog.   He is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

Plan for the Gun Rights Policy Conference

22 hours 2 min ago

By Rob Morse 

Gun Rights Policy Conference

Southern California --( I’m an average guy who went to an extraordinary event at the Gun Rights Policy Conference.  A simple idea brought us from across the country.  We want our neighbors to arrive home safely every night.  That is why we work for the right of self-defense and firearm ownership every day.  There are ways to get involved in that effort even if you’re an ordinary guy or gal.

Looking back over several years, an ordinary guy like me had a conversion experience climbing the ladder of commitment.  It is a well worn path that many have people have climbed before.  In hindsight, I see each conference was a stepping stone.

  • Supporters become donors. I met the people I’d only read about or heard on the radio.  I saw what the national advocacy groups do for our right of armed self-defense.  Now I appreciate all they do and give them money on a regular basis.
  • Donors become activists.  Any of us can take a friend shooting.  Can you work the membership table at the next gunshow?
  • Activists become advocates. I met writers and bloggers at the conference.  Now I try to write.  Anyone with passion can start a blog.
  • Activists become leaders.  I talked with the podcasters and public speakers at the conference.  Now I podcast and speak.  In some tiny way, an ordinary guy like me helps form public opinion.

All that happened because of the people I met at the Gun Rights Policy Conference.  The same thing could happen to you.  Every time you go to the Gun Rights Policy Conference you get a stack of books.  Even at your first conference, you also get something much more important.  The other participants are a major part of your education!  Each of them is trying to protect the right of self-defense in their home town.  Even at your first conference, you leave with a stack of business cards and cell phone numbers that are invaluable.  The people I met at the conference made me think I could do something worthwhile.  I thought it was important to try and follow their example.

You might find your passion and your mission.  You’ll never know until you go.  Whether you start tomorrow or next year, you won’t be alone.  Together, we are an army of Davids.  The 2015 conference is in Phoenix, Arizona.  I hope to see you there.


About Rob Morse: By day, Rob Morse works as a mild mannered engineer for a Southern California defense contractor. By night he writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Gun Rights MagazineClash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog.   He is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

Categories: All News Feeds, Arizona

Colorado Governor Hickenlooper’s Greatest Hits with Video

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 21:02

By Larry Keane

Governor Hickenlooper toasts Gun Control with President Obama

Larry Keane: National Shooting Sports Foundation Sr. VP & General Counsel.

NEWTOWN, Conn --( One would think that Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado was taking his executive duties seriously when he aggressively lobbied for (using the help and money of the gun control groups’ ringleader Mayor Bloomberg) and later signed into law monumental gun control legislation in March 2013.

The laws expanded background checks and limited the size of ammunition magazines.

Speaking at the bill signing ceremony, Governor Hickenlooper proudly said;

 “What we have signed today are several bills that materially make our state safer in the long run and allow us to begin to address some of these issues head on.”

He also said that he expected the county sheriffs to enforce the laws.

Fast forward just a few short months, and the pedestal that Governor Hickenlooper placed himself on quickly began to crumble. Two state legislators were recalled as a result of the laws, a third resigned to avoid another recall, and the majority of the state’s sheriffs – precisely the people expected to enforce the ambiguous laws — sued.

Given the backlash, Governor Hickenlooper pivoted away from support of the bills as the calendar turned and an election year began. In June of this year, he spoke to the County Sheriffs of Colorado at their annual conference.  In an attempt to make amends, he provided a litany of excuses and apologies.

When asked why he did not listen to the sheriffs, Hickenlooper responded:

“I would say in the gun stuff, we certainly could have done a better job. … I didn’t find out the sheriffs were trying to talk to me until the week after, 10 days after, that time frame,” he said. “I’m happy to sit down any time you want. … I think we screwed that up and did a disservice to you and a disservice to ourselves.”

Furthermore, at the event Governor Hickenlooper demonstrated  how out of touch he is with his own state:

“This is how bright I am — I didn’t think it was going to be that controversia. There were a thousand things going on and other issues we were dealing with, I guess I didn’t get it.”

“Again, if we knew it was going to divide the state so intensely, we probably would have thought about it twice.”

During the event, Hickenlooper denounced  the legitimacy of the legislation, expressing uncertainty that the law could be enforced, and noted that he only signed the bill because of a promise one of his staffers had made. He continued:

“I’ll tell you the funny story, and it is a weird… I think we screwed that up… So we were performing legislation without basic facts, which I think is a bad idea in every case…I apologize. I don’t think we did a good job on any of that stuff.”

He even lied to the sheriffs, explaining that New York Mayor Bloomberg did not play any role in the passage of the Colorado legislation. However, phone logs later revealed that Hickenlooper and Bloomberg had had several conversations during legislative debate. It is hard to believe that Hickenlooper would disown Bloomberg, considering he wrote him a “fawning” handwritten letter congratulating him on his many achievements as mayor of New York City.

In his final malapropism, Hickenlooper let loose with an F-bomb to underscore his remorse, saying “What more apology do you want?….what the f—? I apologize!”  Unfortunately for Governor Hickenlooper, this crass apology is too little, too late and his 180-degree policy reversal does not cast him in a favorable light with Colorado voters.

What is the point of being a leader if you cannot make a decision and defend it?  Perhaps if he had actually listened to the people of Colorado instead of listening to what appears to be his personal idol, Mayor Bloomberg, Hickenlooper might not be stuck with his tail between his legs and a pro-gun opponent, former Congressman Bob Beauprez, close to ousting him from the governor’s mansion.

About NSSF   The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 6,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to

New UK Gun Policy Should Be A Warning To American Gun Owners

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 14:09

BELLEVUE, WA – -( A new policy announced by the British Home Office recently to allow unannounced searches of the homes of registered British gun owners should raise alarms among Americans who are threatened with increasingly restrictive gun laws pushed by wealthy anti-gunners including billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“This is an alarming development in Great Britain,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “and it ought to serve as a warning to American gun owners and Constitutional activists concerned not only with their Second Amendment rights but also their Fourth Amendment rights. In Washington state, where CCRKBA is headquartered, there have already been attempts to include such language in so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban legislation.

“There are also privacy concerns about Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure requiring background checks on nearly all firearms transfers,” he added, “ including temporary loans and gifts to friends and in-laws. All too frequently, we’ve heard the gun prohibition lobby urge adoption of gun laws and regulations like those in the United Kingdom, and now we can see what they’re ultimately after.”

New UK Gun Policy Should Be A Warning To American Gun Owners

According to Fox News, prior to the new regulations, British gun owners were subject to visits by the authorities. However, these required prior notification. The new policy does not.

“British authorities argue that the new policy is necessary based on so-called ‘intelligence’ indicating a specific threat,” Gottlieb observed, “but there is considerable danger in this revision because such guidelines could be easily abused.

“We are living in an era when government, under the rather broad arguments of national and local security, is becoming ever more intrusive,” he continued. “Our delineated civil rights, at least in America, include the right to keep and bear arms, and the example now coming from Great Britain is that this right is being systematically eroded to the point that it is becoming a heavily-regulated privilege.

“Let this be a warning to tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners,” Gottlieb concluded. “What’s happening now in the United Kingdom will be touted as the next ‘common sense’ step for gun control in the United States. Just because someone exercises their right to keep and bear arms should not be an excuse to nullify their right to privacy.”

Sincerely yours,
Alan M. Gottlieb
Citizens For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (CCRKBA)

If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to:
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 NE Tenth Place
Bellevue, Washington 98005

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. Contributions are not tax deductible. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at or by email to

Copyright © 2014 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.


Curbing The Obama Power Grab This Election

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 13:30

The courts and Senate provide no checks and balances. Could a Republican Senate help?
By Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Washington, DC - -( You’ve got to admire the sheer audacity: Democratic Senator Mark Begich telling Alaska voters that he stood up to President Obama and fought for oil drilling and jobs in his state. Maybe he had a few chats.

But he certainly knew his concerns and opinions meant nothing, changed nothing, accomplished nothing. And then he voted 97% of the time with Mr. Obama and Senate Majority Dictator Harry Reid

Reid has kept over 300 bills bottled up, squelched almost all proffered Republican amendments on anything that did move, and used the “nuclear option” to end the longstanding 60-vote rule and wipe out any chance that Republicans could block Obama nominees or prevent the President from packing the vital DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The three new liberal judges on that court can now be counted on to defer to Mr. Obama’s policies and “agency discretion” on future arrogations of power.

Ditto for Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. She bellyached from time to time about offshore drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline. But she also voted with Obama, Reid and their agenda 97% of the time, on everything from ObamaCare to Dodd-Frank to packing the DC Court.

The tally for other Democratic Senators running for reelection is revealing: Hagan (NC) 96% for the Obama agenda, policies and fiats … Merkley (OR) 96% … Pryor (AR) 90% … Shaheen (NH) 99% … Udall (CO) 99% … Warner (VA) 97%

Now they’re telling their constituents, next year will be different. Send me back to Washington, and next year I will stand up to Obama and support letting people keep their doctors and insurance, allowing more domestic drilling and pipelines, promoting economic recovery and fiscal responsibility, curbing the fraud and abuses at the Environmental Protection Agency, tackling Ebola and going after Islamic terrorists.

The IRS, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Ebola and Middle East screw-ups and cover-ups seem to have set the tone. These Senators seem willing to say almost anything to get them past the elections. However, their votes have had real consequences for millions of Americans, especially the poor, minority, elderly and working classes they profess to care so much about. They should not escape accountability so easily.

A recent political ad by black Democrat-turned-Republican Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory lays it on the line. “While you dig through the couch looking for gas money,” Guillory says, Mary Landrieu “flies around in private jets funded by taxpayer dollars.” To her, “you are just a vote,” every six years.

Nor do liberal stereotypes fit. The four Democratic House and Senate candidates in Northern Virginia are all well-off, middle-age white guys. Republican candidates include one middle-age white dude, plus two working moms and a black man – who’s also Jewish and an 8-year Marine Corps veteran.

Few of us have any personal animosity toward any of these Democrat Senators. They’re all amiable people. But as President Obama himself says, “my policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.” Those policies have been dragging this country down, and as long as Harry Reid maintains his iron grip on the Senate, there can be no checks and balances or budgetary constraints on the Obama policies.

Messrs. Reid and Obama have made it clear that they have no interest in working with Republicans. Indeed, the President prefers Saul Alinsky tactics of community agitation and interest group divide-and-conquer. He disdains democratic processes and bipartisan compromises, and much prefers to simply legislate, regulate and dictate from the White House and Executive Branch – ignoring or rewriting the clear language of laws and our Constitution whenever and however necessary.

The Train of Abuses and Usurpations gets longer by the week. Environmental Protection Agency actions alone could place virtually all our land, air, water, energy and economy under the control of regulatory ideologues, working closely with radical Big Green activists, billionaires and “charitable” foundations.

Climate. As the planet refuses to cooperate with computer models and White House fear mongering, the EPA simply ignores all contradictory studies and evidence – and continues to operate under assumptions that: carbon dioxide levels dictate climate change; natural forces are irrelevant’ America can easily replace the fossil fuels that provide 82% of its energy; skyrocketing energy prices will have no effect on the economy, jobs or human health and welfare; and slashing America’s CO2 emissions will make a difference, even though China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Poland and other nations refuse to do likewise.

Of course, the real goal was never to stop climate change. It was always to control and “fundamentally transform” our nation’s energy, economic, social and legal structure and institutions, regardless of costs.

Water. Proposed rules are so broadly written that they would cover nearly all “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), based on assertions that they would eventually end up in “navigable” waters: rivers, rivulets, lakes, groundwater, stock ponds, occasional puddles and dry creek beds. In the process, they would also control land use activities on farms, forests and other private property. Friendly, collusive lawsuits by radical environmentalists would further expand this EPA jurisdiction.

Ozone. Almost every US county meets current 2008 ozone standards. Proposed regulations would render the vast majority of them “nonattainment” areas, subject to severe restrictions on economic growth. Even EPA says the rules would cost $100 billion a year. The National Association of Manufacturers puts the cost at $270 billion annually. The impact on people’s jobs, incomes, health and welfare would be huge.

Even bigger ambitions. Clearly not satisfied with these unprecedented usurpations of power, EPA has also launched major “sustainable development,” “environmental justice” and “clean power” initiatives. These deliberately vague and infinitely malleable terms would further expand the agency’s mission far beyond anything previously imaginable or contemplated by EPA’s authorizing legislation.

Other agencies are busily writing new regulations governing Christmas lights, automobile and refrigerator coolants, endangered species guidelines that would block ranching, drilling and pipeline projects, while giving bird and bat-killing wind and solar projects carte blanche – and other activities.

Collusion. A recent Senate Minority Staff Report explains in frightening detail how far-left billionaires, foundations and environmentalist groups actively collude with EPA managers and regulators. EPA in turn happily recruits high-level eco-activists, who then help lobby, guide and control agency policies – and channel millions of taxpayer dollars to pressure groups that promote those policies. The agency also engages in frequent friendly lawsuits with activists, to make policies even more extreme.

A Republican Senate will not guarantee the kind of change needed to end these excesses and get the nation’s economy and employment back on track, especially if certain GOP members remain timid or recalcitrant. (Perhaps DePuy or Stryker could donate some spinal implants?) Presidential vetoes could also pose problems, although strong leadership could often craft bipartisan veto-proof majorities.

House and Senate hearings could grill agency heads under oath – and investigate potential fraud in developing regulations, unethical collusion between agencies and activists, improper agency funding of activist groups, sweetheart lawsuits and other activities. These investigations could form the basis for budget reductions and restrictions, legislation to end mission creep or block specific regulations, and laws requiring congressional approval of “major” regulatory actions costing billions of dollars.

Such actions would also help restore our tripartite system of government. Right now, the Executive Branch is riding roughshod over businesses and citizens alike, and the courts merely rubberstamp agency decisions. Meanwhile, the Legislative Branch is little more than an appendix that writes overly broad laws giving unaccountable bureaucrats unfettered discretion to impose an increasingly intrusive, expensive leftist, centralized government agenda. No wonder our nation is foundering on the rocks.

The upcoming elections could help get the USS United States back on course. Let’s hope they do.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

Categories: All News Feeds

Predatory Journalism

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 11:48

By Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

California --( The New York Times is again on the warpath against what it calls “predatory lending.”

Just what is predatory lending? It is lending that charges a higher interest rate than people like those at the New York Times approve of. According to such thinking — or lack of thinking — the answer is to have the government set an interest rate ceiling at a level that will be acceptable to third parties like the New York Times.

People who believe in government-set price controls — whether on interest rates charged for loans, rents charged for housing or wages paid under minimum wage laws — seem to think that this is the end of the story. Yet there is a vast literature on the economic repercussions of price controls.

Whole books have been written just on the repercussions of rent control laws in countries around the world.

These repercussions include the housing shortages that almost invariably follow, the deterioration of existing housing and the shift of economic resources — both construction materials and construction labor — from building ordinary housing for the general public to building luxury housing that only the affluent and the rich can afford, because that kind of housing is usually exempted from rent control.

There is at least an equally vast literature on the repercussions of minimum wage laws. Unemployment rates over 20 percent for younger, less skilled and less experienced workers have been common, even in normal times — with much higher unemployment rates than that during recessions.

Against this background of negative repercussions from various forms of price control, in countries around the world, why would anybody imagine that price controls on interest rates would not have repercussions that need to be considered?

Yet there is remarkably little concern on the political left as to the actual consequences of the laws and policies they advocate. Once they have taken a stance on the side of the angels against the forces of evil, that is the end of the story, as far as they are concerned.

Low-income people often get short-terms loans when they run out of money to meet some exigency of the moment.

The interest rates charged on such unsecured loans to people with low credit scores are usually higher than on loans to people whose higher incomes and better credit histories make them less of a risk.

Crusaders against such loans often make the interest rate charged seem even higher by quoting these interest rates in annual terms, even when the loan is actually repayable in a matter of weeks. It is like saying that a $100 a night hotel room costs $36,500 a year, when virtually nobody rents a hotel room for a year.

Because those who make unsecured short-term loans are usually poor and often ill-educated, the political left can cast the high interest rates as unconscionably taking advantage of vulnerable people. But similar economic principles apply to more upscale short-term lending to well-educated people who have valuable possessions to use as collateral.

A small-time businessman who suddenly finds that he does not have enough cash on hand, or readily available from a bank, to pay his employees this week, knows that if he doesn’t pay them this week he may not have any employees next week — and can face lawsuits the week after that.

There is an upscale lending market available to such people, where he can use his expensive personal possessions as collateral to get the money he needs immediately.

He can borrow more money than the poor can borrow, and at not as high an interest rate. But his interest rate can still be 200 percent if figured on an annual basis — even though he may be able to pay off the loan next month when his customers pay him what they owe him, so he is paying only a small fraction of that hypothetical 200 percent, just as the poor are paying only a small fraction of the hypothetical 300 percent or 400 percent that they are charged.

Editorial demagoguery against “predatory” lending might well be called predatory journalism — taking advantage of other people’s ignorance of economics to score ideological points, and promote still more expansion of government powers that limit the options of poor people especially, who have few options already.

About Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, as well as a prolific author including Black Rednecks And White Liberals. His website is To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read his articles visit his website above.

Categories: All News Feeds

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt: ‘I Carry a Pistol, and I’m a Fairly Good Shot’

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 11:24

By AWR Hawkins

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt

AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC - -( Among the numerous exhibits at the FDR Library is one that shows First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt knew the benefits of female gun ownership. Her permit to carry a pistol, issued August 5, 1957, is on display.

A tweet sent by the US National Archives links to copies of the permit released to Slate Magazine last year.

Slate published images of the permit, the back of which shows that Mrs. Roosevelt was given “permission” to buy a gun “pursuant to the provisions of Section 1897, Penal Law of the State of New York,” and was licensed to “possess” the firearm. The front of the permit clarifies the word “possess” by showing Mrs. Roosevelt was licensed “to carry.”

The permit was issued by Judge John R. Schwartz.

The book, “Casting Her Own Shadow: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Shaping of Postwar Liberalism,” quotes the Washington Herald’s Earl Miller as saying:

When ER became first lady, she refused Secret Service protection, insisting that she be able to travel as freely as possible. The agents complied with her wishes only after they discovered she knew how to shoot, and convincing her to carry a pistol when she drove alone. Intrigued by yet another example of ER’s independence, the press treated ER’s “packing” as front page news—especially after she nonchalantly remarked: “I carry a pistol, and I’m a fairly good shot.”

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelts Carry Permit

AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for, for 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 You can find him on facebook at

Categories: All News Feeds, National

Corps’ Regulation Violates Core Right of Self-Defense

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 11:05

Corps’ Regulation Violates Core Right of Self-Defense


Charlotte, NC --( A federal regulation that banned the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for self-defense purposes on property administered by, or subject to, the control of the Army Corps of Engineers violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional, according to a ruling this week by Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

This decision, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting a permanent injunction, follows an earlier ruling in January issuing a preliminary injunction.

With very limited exceptions, which do not include self-defense, the regulation prohibits possession of “loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other weapons” in the recreation areas surrounding 700 dams built by the Corps in the United States.  Two residents who used Corps-managed areas in Idaho for camping and other recreational purposes sued, claiming that the regulation violated their Second Amendment rights by prohibiting them from possessing a functional firearm in a tent (a temporary home), and from carrying a firearm on the sites.

The Corps had raised several arguments in support of its regulation, such as:  its recreation sites are public venues where large numbers of people congregate (over 300 million visitors annually), making it “imperative” that firearms be tightly regulated. In addition, these sites are “sensitive places,” being government property containing “critical infrastructure” that require firearm bans in light of homeland security threats.  The Corps also claimed that it was entitled to be judged against a less restrictive standard of review because in imposing the ban it was acting as an owner managing its own property rather than as a governmental entity.

None of these claims was sufficient to overcome the fact that this regulation entirely “destroys” the core Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to carry operable firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense.  The court, referring to Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014), noted that the right of self-defense extends outside the home, and the Second Amendment requires some form of carrying for self-defense outside the home.  At most, this regulation would allow a person to carry an unloaded firearm without carrying its ammunition, which essentially made the firearm useless for self-defense.  Because the regulation effectively extinguished Second Amendment self-defense rights, the court declared the law unconstitutional “under any light,” regardless of the level of constitutional review or scrutiny used.  While government buildings and facilities could warrant protection as “sensitive” places, the court pointed out what was actually at issue was “outdoor parks.”

The message again is that the government cannot seek to accomplish its objectives — including a need to safeguard property or protect the general public — by completely ignoring the Second Amendment right of self-defense.

Citing Peruta, the court noted: “We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions.  Nonetheless, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

Although Chief Judge Winmill granted a permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement of the regulation, the scope of the injunction is limited to Idaho because the plaintiffs’ allegations are limited to Corps’ property in Idaho.  The case is Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 3:13-CV-00336-BLW (D. Idaho Oct. 13, 2014).


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:

D.C. Council Presses Forward with Backward Concealed Carry Law

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 10:56

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier


Charlotte, NC --( This week, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced that the District would soon begin accepting applications for licenses to carry a concealed pistol.

It’s questionable if many applicants will actually receive a license because of the nearly unfettered discretion given to the chief under the temporary law that is currently in effect.  That law has numerous problems, yet the D.C. City Council appears to be intent on making the temporary law permanent.

At a hearing on the permanent concealed carry bill, which is virtually identical to the current temporary law, members of the council and Chief Lanier hinted that they may actually be planning to make the law worse.  The Washington Times reports that Lanier proposed two changes while at the hearing.

First, Lanier proposes that taxi drivers be prohibited from carrying a firearm, presumably only while they are actually working.  The public safety benefit of such a prohibition is not clear, but it is clear that such a requirement would pose a serious danger to cab drivers who have a very real need to carry a firearm.  The law requires an applicant to show a special need to carry a firearm that requires the applicant to demonstrate “good reason to fear injury to his or her person, which shall at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life . . . .”  Notwithstanding that this requirement all but requires an applicant to be a victim of a violent crime before applying for a license, which for some will be too late, Chief Lanier is seeking to deny a person who is in such imminent danger of the most a ready means to defend themselves based on their occupation as a cab driver.

Lanier would also like to further compound the problems in the law with places where even a licensee cannot carry a firearm.  Because the temporary law and the proposed bill have several prohibited places that would be difficult for a licensee to identify, the law and bill both require that a person is informed of the existence of one of these prohibited places before they are arrested.  Lanier would like to eliminate this notice requirement for “public gatherings and special events.”  The chief did not explain how a licensee is supposed to tell the difference between an official “public gathering” and any other gathering of people, but she does want the authority to arrest any licensee who mistakenly enters one of these gatherings or events while carrying a firearm.

No changes were actually adopted at the hearing, but the council and Chief Lanier seem intent on implementing a law that fails to comply with the court decision that held the District’s prior ban on carrying handguns unconstitutional.  Councilmember Tommy Wells obliquely admitted that the current proposal is likely unconstitutional when he told the audience at the hearing that the council would likely be forced to revisit the law in the future.

Rather than passing such a blatantly unconstitutional proposal, perhaps Councilmember Wells and the rest of the council should instead focus on upholding their oaths of office by introducing and passing legislation more in line with the 42 states that actually respect their citizens’ right to bear arms.
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:

Democrats: ‘Gun Groups, Not Obama, To Blame For Spread Of Ebola’

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 10:41

By Bluegrass Bruce

Democrats: ‘Gun Groups, Not Obama, To Blame For Spread Of Ebola’

AmmoLand Gun News

Kentucky - -( Liberal commentators and Democrats are blaming gun rights supporters for the spread of Ebola…? Seriously.

Their so-called logic goes like this:

Republicans blocked Vivek Murthy’s nomination for Surgeon General due to his extreme anti-gun views. If there were a surgeon general in place, he would be helping to stop the spread of Ebola. Therefore, gun owners and conservatives are to blame for Ebola.

This line of “thinking” has been repeated ad nauseam throughout the liberal media over the past few weeks. First, MSNBC reporter Krystal Ball wrote: “Thanks to NRA power and Senate cowardice, we are left with no surgeon general during a time when we have Ebola arriving on our shores.”

Then, socialist filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted “did u know we don’t have a perm Surgeon General during this crisis? Obama nom Dr Vivek Murthy 1 yr ago but the NRA & Republics have blocked him”.

Now Democrat lawmakers are taking up the argument. Last week, twenty-four House Democrats issued a statement calling for Murthy’s immediate confirmation. Plenty of other commentators and propagandists have also issued statements linking gun rights advocates with Ebola.

But this whole argument has more than a few “inconsistencies.”

Republicans opposed Murthy’s nominations for many reasons beyond his opposition to gun rights. At 36, Murthy has very limited medical experience. He is best known for founding a public relations group called “Doctors for Obama” (now “Doctors for America” ), which exists mostly to advocate for Obamacare.

Also, Democrats as well as Republicans killed Murthy’s nomination – eight to ten Democrats said they planned to vote against him.

Finally, there is almost nothing Murthy could actually do about Ebola. The Surgeon General is mostly a figurehead with only a few real responsibilities. The interim Surgeon General who is currently in place has been virtually invisible during the crisis.

The real reason that liberals are blaming gun owners for Ebola is that they are trying to distract from President Obama’s many failures in his handling of the epidemic. Instead of doing something actually productive – like closing off flights from affected countries in Africa – Democrats are using the threat of Ebola to play politics.

About Bluegrass Bruce
Bluegrass Bruce is a hunter, political blogger, and UK basketball fan from Kentucky. His opinions on gun rights and politics are posted on “Bluegrass Bruce” and shared on websites and blogs across the United States. Visit:

Categories: All News Feeds, National

D.C. Second Amendment Case Moves Forward

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 10:40

First Legal Open Carry in D.C. in 70 Years

By Dean Weingarten


Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -( In July of 2014, the ban on carrying guns outside the home in the District of Columbia was struck down as violating the second amendment of the Constitution.   The judge granted a stay to the District government.

In September, the District government passed emergency legislation that it claimed would meet Judge Scullin’s requirements for a constitutional law.   The law contained numerous absurd restrictions.   On 2 October, Alan Gura filed a motion asking that the court block the implementation of the emergency law.  From

In a blistering court filing, attorney Alan Gura argues that the Council’s bill — which limits concealed carry permits to residents who can prove they face a personal threat and restricts where they can travel with their handguns — does not meet the requirements of the late-July ruling in which Judge Frederick Scullin said the city’s ban on carrying guns was unconstitutional. 

“The Court’s order specifically instructed, in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, that the right to carry handguns is rooted in a constitutional self-defense interest. Yet [D.C. officials] have replaced their ‘no permits are available’ handgun carry regime with ‘no permits are available merely for self-defense, and not unless we think, in our complete discretion, that it’s a good idea,'” he wrote.

Judge Scullin heard the District governments arguments that he reconsider his ruling on October 17.    He denied that request.  From

A District lawyer argued, in part, that the second amendment just guarantees the right to own a gun, not to carry that gun in public. Ultimately, according to the Legal Times, the judge called the District’s arguments “somewhat disingenuous” and questioned whether the lawyers had thoroughly read through his decision.

A response to Alan Gura’s motion is expected next week.   The stay originally granted by Judge Scullin ends on 22 October.   If Judge Scullin rules that the emergency legislation is unconstitutional, the District of Columbia may once again enjoy the rights protected by the second amendment.

Alan Gura

Courts tend to move deliberately, so it is possible that Judge Scullin will grant more time for the D.C. government to present their case.  He has already granted them 90 days.

His original ruling was very clear, however, and the emergency legislation does not meet his requirements, as I read them.   The next few days could be interesting.

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.

Houston, We Have A (1st Amendment) Problem!

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 09:48

By Chuck Norris

Mayor Annise Parker joyfully greeting President Obama on a recent visit to Houston.

Chuck Norris

Dallas, TX - -( It all started in September, when Houston Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman issued an “overly broad” subpoena for the sermons of select ministers who opposed the city’s equal rights ordinance.

Because of intense national opposition from even Texas’ attorney general, this past Wednesday, Parker and Feldman appeared to recant or at least reduce their flagrant overreach and disregard of the ministers’ legal protections under the First Amendment.

By the weekend, however, the truth came out that they were only using political smoke and mirrors to try to simmer the patriotic fury; they were not changing course to constitutional compliance.

At first, Parker and Feldman tried to fly under the radar by issuing the subpoenas to the five pastors because they have association with Christian conservative activists who are rightly suing the city over its claim that they did not have a sufficient number of signatures to put a referendum on the ballot to repeal the equal rights ordinance.

(They actually collected 50,000 signatures, though they needed only 17,259.)

So the city officials packaged their sermon subpoenas under a discovery phase in that case, despite warnings from other legal experts about constitutional obstacles. In short, Parker and Feldman mandated the turnover of “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to (the equal rights ordinance), the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by” the pastors or in their possession.

Feldman explained that sermons with personal political views are not protected by the First Amendment and fair game for their assault.

Feldman asserted, “If someone is speaking from the pulpit and it’s political speech, then it’s not going to be protected.”

Parker echoed on Twitter: “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.”

When the pastors took action to sue the city, Feldman had the audacity to label their motives and any opposition as “ridiculous.”

He asserted, “It’s unfortunate that it has been construed as some effort to infringe upon religious liberty.”

Feldman expounded on that in frustration: “All this hysteria about how we’re trying to infringe all because of the use of the word ‘sermons’ is really, really ridiculous.”

But when national opposition grew louder than their false pretense for “discovery,” Parker and Feldman cowered and blamed the subpoena’s wording on “pro bono attorneys who were handling the case and (whose words were) not directly from the mayor’s office.”

Yet Parker continued to accuse: “There’s no question the wording was overly broad, but I also think there was some deliberate misinterpretation on the other side.”

“Deliberate misinterpretation”? And what about their deliberate misinterpretation of the pastors’ First Amendment rights to religious liberty and free speech?

If Feldman and Parker need a primer on the First Amendment, then let them know that the Founding Fathers drafted it even to protect political speech by preachers!

I’m a Texan, and it chaps my hide when some kibosh of the U.S. Constitution originates in the Lone Star State. We, above all, should be leading the way in liberty. I respect all people and persuasions, but Parker and Feldman’s move is nothing but a political maneuver to suppress dissenting voices and religious opinion.

I dislike vulgar, profane and hate language as much as anyone.

But America has a protection for its expression. It’s called the First Amendment, and I am tired of people trampling it by wrongly interpreting it as a right for only feel-good expression.

If that constitutional decree doesn’t protect the worst of language, then what is freedom of speech all about? It wasn’t a coincidence that our insightful founders saw that liberty and power — corrupted in the wrong hands — could be used to suppress the very liberties and power they were trying to secure and protect.

David Davenport — attorney, professor and fellow at the Hoover Institution — summarized his scholarly opinion about the Houston mayor-pastor debacle in his Forbes column this past week:

“To say that these subpoenas are overly broad would be quite an understatement. … But most outrageous of all is the obvious violation of the First Amendment. Churches and pastors are specifically protected in their speech and religious practice under the First Amendment. The only legitimate legal challenge would have to come from the IRS (which has its own conservative witch-hunt reputation to live down) or state taxing authorities. The latitude given to any Constitutionally-guaranteed rights such as those under the First Amendment is broad indeed, and it would take a lengthy and elaborate case to conclude the pastors overstepped their bounds. A court-issued subpoena over a repeal election is hardly the right legal setting for this.”

He concluded with a stern pronouncement: “Unfortunately the Mayor of Houston thinks it’s her role to work it out for everyone in her city, and to use unconstitutional intimidation if necessary to achieve those ends. In the name of the First Amendment, someone needs to stop her.”

According to Fox News, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott tried to do just that when he wrote a personal letter of rebuke to Feldman. In it, he essentially assailed city officials for “bullying people of faith.” Abbott called the subpoenas “aggressive and invasive” and said they show “no regard for the very serious First Amendment considerations at stake.”

He added, “Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment,” calling for the subpoenas immediate rescinding.

But instead of heeding the state attorney general’s rebuke, on Friday, the city upped the ante against freedom of speech and religious liberty. True, an amended motion was filed to no longer demand the turnover of sermons related to gays, gender identity or Parker, Houston’s first openly lesbian mayor. However, the amended subpoenas still require pastors to relinquish “all speeches or presentations related to” the equal rights ordinance, among 17 other categories.

Has political ineptness reached an all-time low when government officials don’t realize a sermon is a speech?!

Attorney Erik Stanley from the Alliance Defending Freedom, who is defending the pastors, was exactly correct: “The city of Houston still doesn’t get it. The subpoenas still ask for information that encompasses speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members.”

Such action reminds me of the words of Forrest Gump and his mother: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

If you want to sound off on the Houston matter, here is the mayor’s contact information: Mayor Annise D. Parker, City of Houston, P.O. Box 1562 Houston, TX 77251. Phone: 713-837-0311. Email:

Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook’s “Official Chuck Norris Page.” He blogs at

Action hero and Second Amendment activist, Chuck Norris is one of the most enduringly popular actors in the world. He has starred in more than 20 major motion pictures. His television series “Walker, Texas Ranger,” which completed its run in April 2001 after eight full seasons, is the most successful Saturday night series on CBS since “Gunsmoke.”In 2006, he added the title of columnist to his illustrious list of credits with the launch of his popular Internet column. Now Chuck is a regular contributor to AmmoLand, click the following link to See more of Chuck Norris on AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

Categories: All News Feeds

UK Gun Owners Now Subject to Surprise Warrantless Firearm Storage ‘Inspections’

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 09:34

UK Gun Owners Now Subject to Surprise Warrantless Firearm Storage ‘Inspections’


Charlotte, NC --( A new firearm policy from the United Kingdom Home Office, put in force on October 15 2014, has accelerated the once-proud nation’s devolution into a police state.

The Home Office’s October 2014 “Guide on Firearms Licensing Law” adds a new rule allowing for police to conduct warrantless surprise inspections of a gun owner’s firearm storage practices.  As bad as that is, what’s far worse is that the President of the United States cites England’s gun control policies as a model for America to follow.

Prior to the new rule, UK gun owners were ready subject to arranged home visits by government agents to inspect their firearm storage arrangements.  However, the new rule states:

Unannounced Home Visits
19.11.  Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns.  It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.

19.12.  It is recognised that there are no new powers of entry for police or police staff when
conducting home visits.  To mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder the police must provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit.

If you figure the phrases “based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat” or “clear and reasoned explanation” will prevent unjustified police action, think again.  A recent press release from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), a nongovernmental police organization, sheds light on how law enforcement agents intend to interpret the rule.

UK Gun Owners Now Subject to Surprise Warrantless Firearm Storage ‘Inspections’

Titled, “Police ask firearms owners:  How secure are your guns?” the release reads like something put out by George Orwell’s Ministry of Love, as it intends to enlist collaborators willing to inform on their gun-owning fellow subjects.

Crime Prevention Minister Norman Baker is quoted in it as stating, “The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and I am determined to keep it that way… I would encourage the pubic to report any concerns they have about firearms licence holders to the new, dedicated Crimestoppers helpline.”  Chief Constable Andy Marsh of Hampshire Constabulary shared a similar sentiment, but also sought to exploit the public’s fear of terrorist attack, noting, “If you are concerned that guns are being kept insecurely or notice signs that shooters may be vulnerable to criminal or terrorist groups or have shown sympathy towards extremist acts, please report it.”

With law enforcement officials using language like this, one can easily imagine how a neighborly feud or one person’s political, racial, or religious prejudice could degenerate into unwarranted persecution of a lawful firearm owner.

The new guidelines, along with ACPO’s press release, are a chilling reminder of what can happen to a citizenry who fails to insist on their basic rights.  In the U.S., our Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms, along with our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, are designed prevent such onerous invasions of privacy.  Ironically, we have the British monarchy to thank for that.  But such protections mean little in a society — like the one Great Britain is rapidly becoming — where even lawful gun ownership is inherently suspect.

Americans should view the UK’s ever-expanding gun control efforts with grave concern.  Barack Obama has repeatedly touted the UK’s gun laws as an example for the U.S.  Exploiting the 2013 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, he proclaimed, “In the United Kingdom, in Australia, when just a single mass shooting occurred in those countries… They endured great heartbreak, but they also mobilized and they changed.”

Obviously, this latest rule was not in force when Barack Obama made those comments commending UK gun control.  Whether these developments will change his mind on the superiority of Britain’s approach to gun policy remains to be seen (we have our doubts).  In the meantime, consider that wherever “reasonable gun safety regulations” may begin, we already know where they are headed.  For UK residents, warrantless home “inspections” by government agents, based on flimsy tips to a dedicated line for accusations against licensed and presumptively lawful guns owners, is merely the latest step in an ongoing march to civilian disarmament.

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:

Crayon Gun Subjects 5-year-old to Suicide/Homicide Screening & Non-Violence Contract

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 09:21

Crayon Gun Subjects 5-year-old to Suicide/Homicide Screening & Non-Violence Contract


Charlotte, NC --( E.R. Dickson Elementary School in Mobile, Ala., has introduced two new vocabulary words into their kindergarten curriculum:  homicide and suicide.

Local media outlets report that a 5-year-old was forced to fill out a bizarre safety agreement and risk assessment questionnaire containing those words after making an innocent gesture with a crayon.

The kindergartner’s mother told Mobile NBC affiliate WPMI that her daughter initially came to the attention of school officials after she drew an object resembling a firearm and “pointed a crayon at another student and said, ‘pew pew.'”  After the crayon incident, the child was made to fill out a “suicide/homicide assessment scoresheet” that included questions about how often she felt depressed, “past thoughts of hurting self” and “frequency of suicidal ideas.”  The 5-year-old was then made to sign a “contract” vowing not to kill others or commit suicide, all without a parent present.  School officials also recommended that the kindergartner see a psychiatrist.

Understandably upset, the mother told WPMI, “My child interrupted us and said, ‘What is suicide mommy? Daddy what is suicide?’… As a parent that’s not right.  I’m the one should be able to talk to my child and not have someone else mention words like this in front of her at all.”

According to, the questionnaire and contract are part of a “one size fits all” policy for dealing with threats of violence.  The story goes on to note that following the incident receiving national media exposure, Mobile County Superintendent Martha Peek has promised to “rework” current policy.  Good idea.  While any response other than perhaps verbal correction and removal of the crayons was unnecessary in the present case, the district’s policy reflects the same sort of naïve, uninformed, and magical thinking that underlies most forms of gun control.  Putting aside the farcical notion that signing a “contract” could actually deter homicidal or suicidal behavior in the first place, five-year-olds are legally ineligible to form binding contracts.

Unfortunately, the type of zero-tolerance abuse at E.R. Dickson is all-too familiar, with other students across the country facing punishment for squirt guns, pointing fingers in the shape of a gun, and even a creatively eaten breakfast pastry.  Incidents like these have led NRA to support legislation in states like Florida and Oklahoma to help stop zero-tolerance abuse.  Legislation enacted in Florida makes clear that “[s]imulating a firearm or weapon while playing or wearing clothing or accessories that depict a firearm or weapon or express an opinion regarding a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not grounds for disciplinary action or referral to the criminal justice or juvenile justice system.”

The Mobile County Public Schools’ outrageous behavior in this instance should prompt Alabama lawmakers to consider this important zero-tolerance reform.  In the meantime, the Mobile County Public School officials responsible for needlessly subjecting a 5-year-old to decidedly mature subject matter might want to consider their own advice regarding psychiatric help.

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: