Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Second Amendment Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment Foundation. Show all posts

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Florida Law Engages 18-20 Year Olds

David Hogg Gets Horrible News as Anti-Gun Campaign Blows Up in His Face

 Print
The gun grabbers are going to hate this.
In the month since the high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, American television screens have been images of angry teenagers demanding that grown-ups do something about gun violence in the United States.
But there’s a huge part of the young adult population who aren’t making it onto the mass media’s television screens, but have evidently decided to do something about gun violence on their own:
Arm themselves so they can be responsible for their own defense.
According to the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, the organization has experienced a massive surge in people aged 18 to 20 joining or supporting the organization — a spike of almost 1,200 percent.

Conservative Tribune Daily Email

Facebook
 
In a news release, foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb attributed the spike to the fact that one of the most tangible results of the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been a new gun law in Florida that bans purchases of rifles by those under 21.
“We normally don’t get that many members or donors in that age group, since the gun rights movement typically trends toward older Americans,” Gottlieb said in the release.
“But the 18- to 20-year-olds have never been specifically targeted before, and they are obviously alarmed. This influx of young Americans into the gun rights movement is important, not just to respond to the current gun control threat, but as the movement has gotten older, it is encouraging to see so many young adults getting involved in support of Second Amendment rights.”
That’s a side of the argument that isn’t being pushed by the mainstream media. Obsessed with the angry young people of Parkland — like the ubiquitous Douglas senior David Hogg – most reporters have ignored the constitutional question involved in gun control laws like Florida’s.

Should there be an age restriction on gun ownership?

   
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The Constitution states — and the Supreme Court has affirmed — that bearing arms is an individual right of 
If the gun-grabbers are so careless about limiting the constitutional rights of those under 21, let’s see how Democrats (and their teary-eyed pawns in Parkland) feel about getting rid of the 26th Amendment and keeping 18-year-old kids from voting.
That’s never going to happen, of course, but if it did, there might never be another Democrat elected to the White House.
RELATED: Caught: Obama Camp Hired Fusion GPS to Go After Romney
The Second Amendment Foundation isn’t the only gun rights group reporting renewed interest since the country’s latest bout of anti-gun insanity began, though.
According to Time magazine, gun rights groups and shooting organizations have reported a rise in membership since the Feb. 14 shootings in Parkland.
The National Rifle Association keeps its membership information private, but Time reported that two sources familiar with the group’s data said membership and donations have risen even as the NRA has been demonized by the mainstream media and Democrat Party.
David Hogg and the other Parkland darlings have all done their share of attacking the NRA too (this bit on CNNon Monday was a good example), pretending to speak for all the nation’s young people in wanting to dismantle a constitutionally guaranteed right.
But the numbers of 18- to 20-year-olds contacting the Second Amendment Foundation tell a different story:
The anti-gun campaign is blowing up in their faces.
“While the media has paraded high school students to push a gun control agenda, the age group that is now being targeted by that effort is energizing, and showing that there is another side to this controversy,” Gottlieb said.
And it’s a side the gun grabbers are going to hate.
What do you think young people need to know about their rights?

Friday, January 6, 2017

Obama Definitely Made One Record--He Is Number One In Gun Sales


2016 gun sales smash previous record


1
104

Photo: Private guns. Kelly McCarthy with permission.
Photo: Private guns. Kelly McCarthy with permission.

According to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the FBI ran 27.5 million gun-related background checks in 2016. By comparison, the previous record set in 2015 was 23.1 million.
In other words, 4.4 million more Americans bought guns in 2016. Why? Well, the Obama administration is a pretty good guess:
The FBI processed twice as many firearms checks in 2016, the last full year of President Obama’s administration, than it did in 2008, the year Obama was elected. During President Obama’s eight-year tenure, the FBI has processed 157,233,157 firearms checks—61,249,149 more than the previous ten years.
[…]
“There is no doubt that President Obama’s anti-gun rights agenda really backfired,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. “All he accomplished was to set new records for firearm sales. He fueled the opposite of what the gun prohibition lobby wanted him to achieve. And I don’t think they learned anything from it.”
While “a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale,” NICS firearm background checks are considered an accurate metric of gun sales. The number of background checks could also indicate that more Americans are getting carry permits, as many states use FBI checks during the licensing process.
Here’s to Obama, the greatest gun salesman in history.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Want Gun Reform? Do Something That Makes Sense!


Here are some common-sense gun laws

The growth in both types and numbers of gun owners and the coincident drop in violent crime have not induced gun prohibitionists to reconsider their position. A rational person might look on these big-picture truths as evidence that her thinking could be wrong. But if gun prohibitionists were rational people, civil rights activists wouldn’t be working day in and day out to defend that precious right secured by the 2nd Amendment.
On the contrary, as more womenAfrican-Americans and others become proud gun owners, gun-hating activists have become more strident, even abusive, in their campaign against gun owners.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even sees enough political traction among that crowd to go on national television and call the National Rifle Association (and presumably the tens of millions of Americans who support the NRA’s politics) an “enemy.”
Gun control groups have long followed a strategy of endlessly repeating their talking points, which are instantly and eagerly echoed by traditionally gun control-friendly major media outlets. Just this year, they dusted off a couple of old gun control schemes dating back as far as the 1970s (regulating guns as consumer products through a federal agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission) and hawking “gun violence” as a public health problem. They present these nostrums as new ideas, counting on a gullible public to buy these discredited ruses.
One such proposal came just this month from Ceasefire Oregon, a state gun prohibition group. The author thanks Portland Congressman Earl Blumenauer and long-time Johns Hopkins anti-gun advocacy researcher Daniel Webster for their work, from which the Ceasefire Oregon plan draws. Blumenauer’s report “Enough is Enough” was already a stale recitation of a gun grabber’s wish list when he promoted it nearly a year ago.
Gun rights defenders have mostly been on the defensive in this flurry of repetitive propaganda. Yes, we have won most battles, especially on the national front. And the science constantly reinforces our contention that gun ownership provides an overall societal benefit. But still, we could advance our cause more effectively in the political arena. Therefore, I propose we go on the offensive with our own agenda. Call it “Reducing Gun Rights Infringements — Time to Stop the Madness.” Here are the main points, but consider this just a first step:
  • Mandate a national ban on the child’s fantasy known as “gun-free zones.” Any rational adult can comprehend the reality that the great majority of mass shootings have occurred in these legally established safe hunting grounds for homicidal maniacs. And any rational adult can logically conclude that only good people who follow rules will actually refrain from bringing guns into a “gun-free zone.” Let’s stop the insanity and start doing what is logical. Let’s start saving lives.
  • Make nationwide constitutional carry of self-defense firearms the law of the land. Let no one be harassed, persecuted or jailed for daring to take the natural right of self-defense seriously.
  • Defund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and abolish it. This scandal-ridden agency now serves only to persecute good gun owners and gun dealers.
  • Repeal the National Firearms Act (NFA) restrictions on firearm suppressors and all state laws banning them. Public health demands their use in shooting applications such as hunting and target shooting, where they can prevent the disability of irreversible hearing loss in millions of Americans. Anyone who cares about public health must support the legalization of suppressors.
  • Repeal any and all import restrictions designed to prevent new overseas firearm technology and products from reaching American shores.
These measures would restore some sanity to our firearm policy and remove some of the traps for good American gun owners deliberately built into our laws by gun rights-hating politicians. They would restore some of our freedoms at a time when politicians seem to compete for how many of our freedoms they can take from us. And, to use a favorite tag line of the gun grabbers, if it saves one life, it’s worth it.
–Timothy Wheeler, M.D.
Director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Second Amendment Foundation

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Gun Limitations Are Being Systematically Struck Down. How Long Can We Depend On The Courts To Enforce The Second Amendment.Hopefully For A Long Time!

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in two landmark cases that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to possess firearms, the Second Amendment Foundation has been confronting in court state and local rules which appear to be unconstitutional.
The activist group already has opposed “vague” gun bans in California, a $340 fee for owning a handgun in New York, New Jersey’s arbitrary gun laws, District of Columbia bans, Maryland’s permit demands and more.
Its latest victory has come in Arkansas, where a federal judge ruled the state’s concealed carry licensing law that bans legal resident aliens from obtaining permits is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks, for the Western District of Arkansas, ordered the state to pay SAF $10,000 in attorney’s fees and court costs of $726.41. SAF and Martin Pot (pronounced Pote), a citizen of the Netherlands, were represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
The lawsuit, filed last November, challenged the Arkansas statute, because it “completely prohibits resident legal aliens from the concealed carry of guns, in public, for the purpose of self-defense.”
Col. Stan Witt, director of the Arkansas State Police, was named as the defendant in his official capacity.
“This is yet another victory in our effort to expand Second Amendment protections in the United States,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb on Monday. “Mr. Pot is a law-abiding resident of Eureka Springs, and has been so since 1986. He is self-employed and is a productive member of the community, with an American-born wife and family. He came here almost 30 years ago, met and married his wife, and has many solid connections in his community.”
Arkansas law did allow Pot to have a firearm in his home and on his property. But he was banned from carrying concealed.
“This case is not unique,” Gottlieb noted. “SAF has successfully challenged other state laws, in New Mexico, Washington, Nebraska and Massachusetts. Legal resident aliens should not be penalized at the expense of their self-defense rights. This was a good outcome to a case that should help lots of people.”
The organization, the nation’s oldest and largest focusing on the Second Amendment, has more than 650,000 members and has been working, largely under the radar, for firearms rights.
It recently won a New Mexico case, where, as in Arkansas, legal resident aliens were banned from obtaining concealed carry permits.
It also fought in Alameda County, California, which changed its rules as three businessmen were trying to open a gun shop. The foundation successfully sued the county for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of the businessmen by wrongfully denying them permits to open a gun shop.
Other cases the SAF has handled:
  • SAF sued the state of California in a case in which a man twice was jailed and then cleared, because a state statute’s definition of “assault weapons” is so “vague and ambiguous.”
  • In New York, the organization has asked for a summary judgment that would strike New York City’s $340 triennial fee for just owning a handgun. The legal brief explains that under U.S. Supreme Court rulings “the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense is a part of the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment’s protections.”
  • The organization has sued New Jersey and officials and judges over procedures that allowed them to refuse firearms permits for a kidnap victim, a man who carries large amounts of cash for his business and a civilian FBI employee who fears attacks from radical Muslims. The permissions were denied on the grounds people had not shown a “justifiable need.” “Law-abiding New Jersey citizens have been arbitrarily deprived of their ability to defend themselves and their families for years under the state’s horribly crafted laws,” said an SAF spokesman. “The law grants uncontrolled discretion to police chiefs and other public officials to deny license applications even in cases where the applicant has shown a clear and present danger exists.”
  • SAF filed a case on behalf of an honorably discharged veteran of the Vietnam War and names as defendants Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Jefferson Wayne Schrader. The question is whether the state of Maryland can deprive an individual of the right to possess a weapon over a misdemeanor. Schrader had been convicted of misdemeanor assault relating to a fight involving a man who previously had assaulted him in Annapolis. But he was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift or to purchase a handgun for personal protection.
  • SAF filed a claim against Maryland for a man who alleged the state was violating the Second Amendment by refusing to renew his handgun permit. Raymond Woollard originally was issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family event in 2002. Woollard’s permit was renewed in 2005 after the defendant in the case was released from prison. But state officials later refused to renew the permit, even though the intruder now lives some three miles from Woollard.
  • SAF sued Westchester County, N.Y., because officials there were requiring that residents have a “good cause” to ask for a handgun permit. The federal lawsuit alleges the requirement conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment establishes a personal right to “keep and bear arms.” Individual plaintiffs in the case are Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied.
SAF also has exposed the anti-gun campaign of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg – the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” organization.
It was revealed in the fall of 2012 to include a long list of mayors who, because of their convictions, were no longer eligible to own weapons themselves.
“If anybody needs a background check, it would be a MAIG member,” Gottleib said at the time.
One mayor’s actions became the subject of a formal investigation and charges:
WND reported that Mayors Against Illegal Guns was set up in 2006 by Bloomberg.
“Michael Bloomberg created this group to further his personal agenda of public disarmament,” Gottlieb explained at the time “But within the ranks of his organization, our research has found several politicians who have been convicted of various serious crimes, thus making it impossible for them to finish their terms.
“We discovered,” he said, “one mayor convicted of perjury and embezzlement, another who was convicted of attempted child molestation, and yet another who was convicted of assault and racketeering. There was one who was convicted on bribery, fraud and money laundering, and another who was convicted of domestic violence.
“In short,” Gottlieb said, “many of these elitist politicians can no longer own firearms. The crimes they were convicted of suggest they are public enemies rather than public servants. No wonder they want to take guns from law-abiding citizens!”
The group boasts hundreds of mayors. But SAF is publicizing mayors who have run into their own troubles.
SAF launched its campaign in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet, revealing the criminal and ethical wrongdoings of many of the mayors themselves.
Gottlieb said the research conducted by the foundation found “a far higher rate of criminal activity within the ranks of the MAIG than among the ranks of more than eight million citizens who are licensed to carry concealed firearms in 49 states.”
“While Michael Bloomberg has been campaigning to turn gun owners into criminals,” Gottlieb said, “the criminals in his own ranks were engaged in such activities as tax evasion , extortion, accepting bribes, child pornography, trademark counterfeiting and perjury. One was even convicted of assaulting a police officer.
“And these people have the audacity to smear law-abiding gun owners as potential criminals, simply because they exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” he concluded. “He should pay more attention to what his friends are up to than worry about the gun owners he’s been trying to demonize.”