Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment’

AREX Rex pistol equipped with a TruGlo TruLite combat light right

2017 Set to be Second Highest Gun Sales Year in History

Believe it or not, he Trump era of the National Instant Criminal Background  Check System (NICS) checks has had seven months of tremendous sales. The National Instant background Check System (NICS) checks were 1,742,546 in July of 2017.  There were 14,346,648 checks since January 1, more checks than all of 2010. In 2016, the number was 16,026,660 at the end of July. Through July, 2015, they were 12,067,075.  The July figure is 79% of the 2016 NICS checks and 108.8% of the 2015 NICS checks! If you are a numbers nerd, read on…

NSSF logo

21 State AGs Argue 4th Circuit Ban on Modern Sporting Rifles Unconstitutional

The election of a new President may have lessened the threat to the Second Amendment at the federal level, but it increased the threat at the state and local levels. Gun control advocates no longer have a friend in the White House, and support in the House and Senate have waned as well. However, while many firearm enthusiasts have relaxed and taken their eye off the prize, the antis have been pressing their efforts to weaken the Second Amendment. One such example is Maryland’s semi-automatic modern sporting rifle ban. Fortunately, organizations such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) have maintained their diligence. Read the full release from the NSSF.

Texas State Rifle Association red, white and blue logo

September 1 is Here! This is How the Texas Gun Laws Have Changed

Texas has always bred some of the most patriotic citizens and some of the most rebellious—all in the same package. The new round of laws passed by the legislature shows the same patriotic rebellious spirit by putting the power in the hands of the people. New laws include reduced fees, enhanced rights to carry certain firearms and knives and enhancements to make acquiring the Licence to Carry (LTC) more convenient to obtain. Read this release from TSRA to learn about the September 1 changes to Texas gun law.

Selfdefensefund.com video screenshot

SDF Video: Army Combat Veteran Loses Guns 2A Rights for 1,567 Days

The Criminal Justice System seems to be taking on a new meaning in America where Citizens are presumed guilty until they are proven innocent. The CJ Grisham case continues to have folks scratching their heads. A retired Army First Sergeant went on a merit badge walk with his scout son out on a country road and winds up in jail after legally carrying a rifle in Texas. The case became controversial, because veteran Temple law enforcement officer Steve Ermis decided to make up a law on the side of the road and disarmed a Texan. It wall all caught on video.

bucket helmet

How Ridiculous is Australia’s List of Prohibited Weapons?

Lawmakers favoring gun control are continually talking about Australia’s gun control and how the United States needs to follow Australia’s lead. While laws attempting to abridge the Second Amendment are bad enough, Australia’s laws go far beyond simply banning guns. Australian laws bans fake or replica guns, crossbows, and several types of knives such as trench knives. You know, like the ones used in WWI, because those are common among street muggers and gang members these days…

NJ SAFE flag logo

NJ SAFE 2A Event to Be Held on Cusp of Gubernatorial Vote

With President Trump in the White House, the fight for the Second Amendment is going to happen at the local level. This makes it much harder for national Second Amendment groups such as the NRA-ILA or NAGR to fight. However, we have the power of the vote and grassroots efforts such as the New Jersey Second Amendment Firearms Education (NJ SAFE).

Gavel with American flag

Courts Affirms You Have a Right to Self-Defense Beyond the Home in D.C.

Lawmakers and judges in favor of gun control have continually tried to weaken the Second Amendment and deny citizens of their constitutional protections and rights under the Second Amendment by imposing a “good reason” requirement. The Second Amendment was not written with any such condition and was purely a fabrication by forces intent on gutting the Second Amendment. This week, the Court said as much.

People holding signs that read "no guns"

Maryland Residents Challenge the 4th Circuit’s Kolbe v. Hogan Ruling

In April 2013, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act (FSA). Among other things, the FSA bans law-abiding citizens, with the exception of retired law enforcement officers, from possessing the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens for defending their families and homes and other lawful purposes. In truth, the law went so far as to ban 45 types of so-called assault weapons and limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Second Amendment

Disabled Marine Forced to Give Constitutional Rights to Get Custody of Grandson

Do you think the gun control issue is dead? Do you believe the last presidential election secured your gun rights? What if a court openly admitted it was trampling your constitutional rights, but gave you an unthinkable ultimatum of giving up your Second Amendment rights or losing custody of your grandchild? Don’t think that could ever happen? Then, you have never heard of William and Jill Johnson.

This picture is a painting by John Lewis Krimmel showing a July 4 celebration in 1819.

The Fourth of July: Celebrating a Life Free From Tyranny

July 4th is a day we “oohh” and “ahh” over impressive firework displays and enjoy a charcoal-grilled all-American burger with family and friends. It is also the most important date in American history. July 4th, also known as Independence Day, is the day the colonists officially declared independence from Great Britain, securing our freedom and liberty to this day.

The front view of the Supreme Court building

A Loss for the Second Amendment: Supreme Court Won’t Hear Peruta Case

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is often in the news, but seldom on the side of the Second Amendment as gun owners see it. The Shooter’s Log has followed this closely as the court has ruled for and against Californians’ in their quest to defend themselves under the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not grant review in the Peruta v. California case.

Supreme Court Building

Peruta v. California – Applicants for California concealed carry licenses must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain concealed weapons license in California. However, in San Diego, the sheriff sought a “particularized” need for self-defense.  A three-judge panel found the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy unconstitutional, but was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court did not take the case, the 9th Circuit’s ruling prevails.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch were the lone dissenters. Justice Thomas wrote the refusal to hear the case “reflects a distressing trend: their treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.” He concluded, “For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense.”

It is a shame the full Court will not hear the case or be swayed by the wisdom of Justice Thomas. The lesson for all of us that the fight continues, and although we have a friend in the White House, citizens are still having their Second Amendment rights stripped at the local and state level.

Here is a list of articles chronicling The Shooter’s Log‘s coverage of Peruta v. California over the past few years.

Ninth Circuit to Reconsider Game-Changing Peruta Decision

Breaking News: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Right to Carry Concealed

Court Ruling Ends California Concealed Carry Restrictions

Chalk One Up for the Good Guys! Defending the Second Amendment

Ninth Circuit Strikes California’s ‘Good Cause’ Carry Restriction

How do you think this the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Peruta case will affect future gun legislation in other states? Will national reciprocity be the answer? Join the conversation with your opinions in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Circle bar no guns sign

Which State Is About to Make Gun Owners a Protected Class?

A new bipartisan bill, introduced by over 20 Republicans and one Democrat seeks to make gun owners a protected class of citizens. This would be similar to the federal anti-discrimination law, where a protected class is a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic.

Bloomberg—Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Lessons From Bloomberg—the Face of Gun Control—Who Admits He Deceives

They say that money makes the world go round. While that may be hard to prove, the fact of simply having a mass fortune and a political agenda can yield results or be a political threat. The politics of where you stand on the issue determines which side of the fence you’ll sit. For supporters of the Second Amendment, it is guaranteed that we will be on the opposite side of the fence as Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg—Mayors Against Illegal Guns

In a statement in the New York Times, Bloomberg warns, “You’ve got to wear them down until they finally say, ‘Enough.’”

However, there are lessons to be learned by Bloomberg’s words. In this article, Frank Minter, writing for the NRA, shows how Bloomberg admits to using deception to attain his political objectives. Points such as these are lessons we can all use When debating and educating others about our Second Amendment rights. Read the full analysis.


Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, the eighth-richest person in the United States, and the billionaire behind the rabidly anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety, was asked on CBS’ “60 Minutes” why he didn’t run for president of the United States. His answer was revealing.

By Frank Miniter

“If I thought we could win, or had a reasonable chance, I would have [run for president],” he said. “It would be totally unlikely, very unlikely that an independent could win. And in my case, I was mayor for a long time. People know where I stand. I couldn’t pretend to be something I’m not.”

So Bloomberg realized that his efforts to ban things like “Big Gulp” sodas, coal mining and, effectively, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights made it impossible for him to fool a majority of Americans into voting for him. He “couldn’t pretend to be something” else than what he is, so he opted not to run.

That’s honest—at least to himself. Everytown consistently uses “gun death” statistics that include suicides to make it seem as if there are many more homicides than there are.

Officially, Everytown is a private group that doesn’t disclose its donors. Bloomberg is, of course, the founder of Everytown. He funds the anti-gun group and, we must presume, the group does what he desires. So it is interesting that he realizes his anti-freedom, paternalistic views are too well known to the American people for him to win the presidency, but that he nevertheless thinks his group Everytown for Gun Safety is far enough removed from his views to be taken as nothing but a “gun safety” group by Americans.

After all, even if journalists, given their own political leanings, are unwilling to use the old journalist’s mantra “following the money” to report Everytown’s real mission, Everytown has itself lied so much and so blatantly that it also can no longer hide its real agenda. (Tellingly, this is likely the reason Bloomberg morphed “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” [MAIG] into Everytown, as MAIG had so dirtied its name it needed a new one.)

Everytown consistently uses “gun death” statistics that include suicides to make it seem as if there are many more homicides than there are. They have included terrorist acts in their mass shooting statistics and inflated the numbers of mass shootings. There are too many lies and deceptions to report in one article, but here is a quick analysis of their two biggest campaigns at present—both riddled with lies.

Universal Background Checks

The misinformation and outright deceit from Everytown on so-called “universal” background check laws (universal is in quotes because criminals by definition won’t abide by such laws, so such a law can’t be truly universal) is hard to sum up—there is just too much of it. Here are a few highlights.

Everytown says on its website that “under current federal law, background checks are only required on gun sales at licensed dealers. This loophole in the system make [sic] it easy for millions of guns to change hands each year with no background check, and no questions asked.” But the study Everytown sources for this claim is a small survey of gun owners that has to do with stolen guns. This study estimated that “about 380,000 guns [are] stolen” each year, not millions. Everytown doesn’t explain how “universal” background check laws would stop criminals who steal guns from selling the stolen goods to other criminals. The organization also don’t explain how such laws would stop criminals from illegally selling guns to prohibited persons.

The NRA wants real solutions to these problems, such as prosecuting those who sell guns to criminals and encouraging gun owners to safely store firearms they are not currently using. But Everytown isn’t interested in practical solutions that respect American freedom. They want bans, harsh controls and to criminalize as many gun owners as they can.

As a caveat, Everytown claims that “[s]ince enacted [background checks at gun dealers] have blocked nearly 3 million sales to felons, domestic abusers, fugitives, and other people prohibited by law from having guns.” There have been nearly 3 million initial denials since the FBI began the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in 1998, but many of these happen because someone has a similar name to someone who is prohibited or for another reason having nothing to do with felons, domestic abusers, fugitives and other criminal activity.

They want bans, harsh controls and to criminalize as many gun owners as they can.

National Reciprocity

Everytown says law enforcement “overwhelmingly opposes” the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” but they don’t source any data for this “overwhelming” claim. They do site a 2013 press release from the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that consistently opposes pro-gun legislation, including the “Hearing Protection Act of 2017,” for this claim, but that hardly constitutes an “overwhelming” majority.

Everytown also says, “Reciprocity would force states to let violent offenders and people with no firearm safety training carry hidden, loaded handguns—even if those people could not otherwise legally purchase a gun in the state.”

This is fear-mongering nonsense. Anyone who reads the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” can clearly see that the bill recognizes the diversity of state concealed-carry laws by making each person subject to the concealed-carry laws of the state where they are present. This includes respecting the local laws that prohibit firearms.

Everytown also says that “a person denied a permit in his home state—e.g. after a criminal conviction—could simply get an out-of-state permit, and carry back at home.”

Actually, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act allows a person to carry concealed only if they are not federally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, are carrying a valid government-issued photo ID and are lawfully licensed or otherwise entitled to carry a concealed handgun. It is already illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(g)) for prohibited persons to possess a firearm.The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would simply protect the freedom of law-abiding gun owners who live in the other 28 states.

Reciprocity is already a reality in the 22 states that recognize all other concealed-carry licenses or allow law-abiding nonresidents to carry a firearm without a license. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would simply protect the freedom of law-abiding gun owners who live in the other 28 states.

All that said, just imagine if Bloomberg were an honest person. He could honestly splash around his $47 billion in ways that might really help. He could look at American freedom for what it is, instead of seeing it as the problem he pretends it is. He could then bolster our freedom while funding new approaches to bust criminals. It would be so much easier this way—working with Americans 100 million-plus gun owners instead of against them.

As Mark Twain said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”

What lessons or points did you take from Miniter’s analysis?  How can others use these points or others you know of, in future discussions/debates? Share your answers in the comment section.

Frank Miniter is the author of The New York Times bestseller The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide—Recovering the Lost Art of Manhood. He is also the author of This Will Make a Man of You and The Future of the Gun. He is a contributor to Forbes and writes for many publications. His website is FrankMiniter.com.

Second Amendment Foundation logo and address

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Magazine Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by several other groups and individuals, has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California, challenging that state’s law prohibiting the possession, use, or acquisition of so-called “large-capacity magazines,” calling the ban “hopelessly vague and ambiguous.” This case could have repercussions on a similar magazine ban in Colorado.