Extremist Caitlin Halligan Withdraws from Court Nomination

 

Republicans scored a big victory over Barack Obama and his extremist, anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment nomination to the federal appeals court: Caitlin Halligan.

Republicans said the ultra-liberal and radical Halligan was an activist judge who flaunted the law by working to undermine American laws in regard to illegal immigrants, as well as worked against the legal manufacturing of guns in America.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell pointed out extreme actions Halligan took when solicitor general for the state of New York. He said in one specific case she attempted to make it legal for the National Labor Relations Board to grant back pay to illegal aliens.

Halligan also said concerning gun manufacturers that they were a big part of the problem of illegal guns in the state of New York. Radical and out-of-touch ideas like this are what stalled her upward move, and she has no one to blame but herself for her outrageous positions.

Considered the second most important court in the land, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considered a step from being nominated to the Supreme Court, so there has been an increasing scrutiny over who is nominated.

This is a good sign from the Republicans, who have caved on numerous issues that they didn't need to, as they wrongly interpreted the political winds, which afterwards would have proven to be considered a positive move by the party. As an example, look at the media manipulation and Obama's screed on the effects sequestration would have on the country. Few people even remember it now, and it was never a big deal to the American people.

Republicans need to realize they're on the right side of a lot of issues, and the should have the guts to see many things through till the end.

The Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is one of them. They'll find if they hold steady, once the legislation is rejected, the majority of people in the United States won't care at all, and will consider their stand a principled and courageous one.

Hopefully the blocking of a vote for Halligan resulting in her withdrawing her name for consideration is a step in the right direction for the GOP.

Feinstein: A Gift That Keeps on Giving

Gun control extremist Diane Feinstein is one of the best gifts conservatives and Republicans could have hoped for, as her pressuring of Democrats not in a safe state as she is will result in them being thrown out by voters in the next election if they vote for her bill on so-called assault rifles.

The bill has never had a chance to be passed, and Harry Reid noted he can only guarantee, in the best-case-scenario, about 40 votes. Still Feinstein whiningly presses on, seemingly oblivious to the career-ending results awaiting her colleagues. It doesn't get better than this for those of us wanting more of these radicals thrown out of office.

If they do in fact vote for Feinsteins bill, it will be their last year as politicians.

What's hilarious about this is Feinstein is stomping her feet and throwing a tantrum over the possibility the bill won't even be brought to the floor for a vote by Reid, who understands the dilemma he faces, and will probably make a political enemy out of Feinstein, who is being made to look like a bigger fool every day that passes.

Americans don't want this bill, as evidenced by the fact so few politicians are willing to vote for it. They have heard from their constituents, and even though some believe wrongly in the bill, they will have to vote against the people they represent to assuage those beliefs.

Now the question comes down to whether or not they're bold enough to vote their beliefs or to vote in a way that goes along with the wishes of the people they represent. Poor politicians.

There is no way out for any of them. Either Harry Reid will made to look a liar for telling Feinstein he will bring the legislation to the floor for a vote; the liberal Democrats will vote for the bill if it is brought to the floor; or Feinstein will look extremely weak and without influence.

All of this is great for conservatives and Republicans. It doesn't get much better than this.

We can hope the Democrats are forced to vote on the bill, which will alter the political landscape in favor of more conservative politicians. It's a win now no matter what happens in the outcome.

This is another reason why Bill Clinton warned his fellow Democrats to not aggressively pursue gun control. They're learning through hard experience why.

Inclusion of Expanded Background Checks in Debates Called Victory

Only a bizarre media outlet like Bloomberg could call the inclusion of an expansion of federal background checks in proposed legislation to be debated a victory.

Think of it. Including something in bill to be debated is somehow considered a victory for opponents of Second Amendment rights. What a strange assertion; one that isn't even intellectually cohesive.

It shows the failure of Democrats and liberals in the attempt to trash the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. If a victory is allowing something to be debated, it is already a defeat.

This is why Harry Reid is calling it a victory for proponents of restricting the use of guns in America. He's attempting to save face for the misguided and delusional Democratic Party, which was warned by former President Bill Clinton they shouldn't attempt to take on Americans concerning guns. It's part of our lives, and no one is going to take away our freedom to own guns for protection, hunting, and recreational use.

The silly Bloomberg article is so blinded by their hatred of the Second Amendment that it Alan Fram to even assert this as being "an aggressive approach" by the Democrats. Does he disrespect his readers so much that he would make such an ignorant comment?

Reid continued to ram the idea down American throats that he has the upper hand, saying this: "I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks." Let me make it clear Harold: there will be no bill passed then. Who cares?

What all this says is Reid and the Democrats are running scared. They know they've bitten off more than they can chew, and are starting to see this will be a deal-changer in the next election.

The reason I say that is the endless changes to the legislation which gives the appearance the Democrats are moving forward, when in fact they're being pushed backwards, as evidenced by the removal of a ban on automatic rifles championed by the clueless Dianne Feinstein, who is still licking her wounds over her very public defeat.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa sees this, "I don't know how the leader expects members to vote on an ever-changing piece of legislation that has yet to gain bipartisan support."

Again, all the changes are attempts of Democrats to make it look like they're battling, when in effect they're really in an organized retreat that they are fighting to keep from being viewed as the route it in fact is.

The public doesn't buy the nonsense proffered by liberals that guns are what kill people. Everyone knows it's people that kill people, whether it's using a gun, fists, knives, or other potential weapon.

In the end, the best policy is to have trained people in public situations that are licensed to pack and protect those under their care. That is the only answer to a world that includes evil.
Criminals and crazies will always have access to guns and other potential weapons, so criminalizing or banning the use of firearms only takes away the freedoms and liberties of law-abiding citizens. We aren't going to let that happen.

Proposed Assault Weapons Ban Dropped in Defeat

In another blow to anti-Second Amendment politicians, Harry Reid let extremist Dianne Feinstein know that her bill to ban assault weapons was being dropped from existing legislation. In the best-case-scenario the bill only had 40 supporters.

All this was was a giant waste of time apparently initiated for political theater which the liberal, mainstream media ate up. It was never going to happen. Period!

Feinstein is even trying to recoup some dignity after being publicly trounced by the electorate, which overwhelmingly oppose the liberal from California.

Even the media watching it die attempt to offer support to Feinstein, saying it could come up for a vote later. Who cares? It's dead. It's going to be voted down and trounced again if it is brought up.

The disingenuous Reid read the handwriting on the wall and knew the moderate Democrats being pressured to vote for the legislation would get hammered in the next election, which could result in a huge shift in power for the Republicans.

This happened with Obamacare, and will no doubt happen again if these draconian attempts at taking away the right of Americans to bear arms is passed.

The pathetic Feinstein is living in the ultimate state of denial by again blaming the NRA for all of this. It sounds like Hillary Clinton when talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Liberal nuts like these can't see that it's the American people that oppose all of this, not special interest groups that exist as a representative of that opposition. If there were no NRA there would still be just as much opposition to gun control as there is now.

While this is one victory we have to be careful, as this, in my estimation, has always been a set up to get other legislation passed which now appears to be less intrusive to Second Amendment advocates.

What is being proposed now is to combine the other bills together in order to put pressure on conservatives and moderate Democrats to vote for it. Unless they're totally blinded to the immense support they have, they would have to be politically suicidal to sign on to any of these ridiculous bills.

Just a little while ago sequestration was being presented as a disaster for Republicans. No one even cares about it in the aftermath, and things are going along just fine now.

Not only will that be the same with guns, but it will be even more beneficial for Republicans and conservatives going forward.

LaPierre: A ‘violent rapist deserves to face … a good woman with a gun’

 

Wayne LaPierre was on top of his game when blasting the efforts of some in Congress to implement universal background checks and a federal gun registry.

NRA head Wayne LaPierre offered another fiery critique of Congress’s actions on gun control Friday, suggesting universal background checks and a federal gun registry are only meant to tax guns and confiscate them.

LaPierre got one of his biggest applause lines at the Conservative Political Action Conference, though, when he turned to the matter of self-defense, suggesting that a gun is the best defense against a “violent rapist.”

“The one thing a violent rapist deserves to face is a good woman with a gun,” he said.

Background checks a pretext for gun registration, says LaPierre.

continue reading ...

Feinstein's Attempt to Ban 157 Guns a Waste of Time

When thinking about Sen. Dianne Feinstein's sponsoring of the ban on 157 specific guns, which has zero chance of being passed, I realized there's something more to the sponsorship of the bill than meets the eye.

There is the usual use of the introduction of such a bill to garner media attention. That's a given. It makes her Utopian, liberal base feel good about her.

But that's irrelevant in the scheme of things. It's what comes afterwards that concerns me. Once this bill is completely rejected, it sets up people for a less ominous-appearing bill, which could appear reasonable to a larger number of people who reject this one outright.

Even her reference to the "...800-pound gorilla out there" battling the bill, referring to the National Rifle Association, totally, completely misses the reason why no bill like this, or others like it, should ever pass: it's the people that reject opposition to the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. The NRA is only a focal point of that support, not the impetus behind the support.

So people rising up all across the nation to oppose gun control are not under the sway of the NRA, but are spontaneously showing their opposition to those attempting to further control their lives and strip away even more of their freedoms.

Feinstein and others like her know the NRA isn't her real enemy, it's the freedom-loving people of America that are her enemy. She can't admit that of course, so she continues to demonize the NRA so she doesn't have to directly attack the people of America with her bizarre and weird ideology.

Democrats appear to be getting more and more nervous over the out-of-touch politicians like Feinstein, who can't relate in any way, shape, or form with everyday Americans. She believes the polls that are skewed to return the wanted firearms narrative sought by those implementing them, but fails to even see the overwhelming opposition from the American people who adhere to and support the Second Amendment.

What is terrific about wackos like Feinstein is her desire and lust for media coverage and exposure is resulting in Americans buying more guns and ammo than any time in history, including those that have never acquired guns before. That means she is helping to create an even larger base of opposition, while influencing even more Americans to buy guns.

Feinstein is about as clueless as a politician can get, as evidenced by her nutty actions and assertions.

The fact is even calling firearms that include “no-thumb hammers” an assault weapon is statistically an outright lie. Less than 1 in 10 guns used in crimes are of that type. But repeating the mantra over and over again makes quacks like Feinstein think people will start to consider these types of guns as assault weapons.

While it's possible with someone as ignorant and mentally challenged as Feinstein is to seriously believe this type of legislation has any chance to pass at all, my feeling is it's a set up for later legislation that is less restrictive in look and tone, and which could curry favor among former opponents.

In the meantime, those that actually believe a bill like this could pass are running up and stocking up on guns and ammunition. In that sense we have a lot to thank Feinstein for.

As for the Democrats, they should have come out and opposed Feinstein and other radicals like her, because Americans are still furious and stinging over the forced implementation of Obamacare, which the majority rejected. Politicians paid for the crime against them, and it's likely they'll pay even more for the attempt to trash the Second Amendment and criminalize law-abiding citizens. It couldn't happen to a better group of thugs.

NRA’s Keene: Obama, Democrats, Should Have Listened to Clinton

Citing former president Bill Clinton, NRA President David Keene said he thinks President Barack Obama and other Democrats are shocked by the resistance to gun control, saying Clinton was right when he warned them they should stay clear of the battle.

Clinton was in office last time an effort to restrict guns was engaged in, and the result was a drubbing of the Democrats in the next election.

“(Gun control proposals were) one of the main reason for Republicans seizing the House in 1994. Americans care about the Second Amendment and president is seeing that,” Keene said.

Keene rightly notes that the problem with proposed background checks is the fact it would have to be accompanied by a gun registry in order to be effective. Gun supporters know if that is what is put into effect, it would be the first step towards the government confiscation of weapons.

As for the proposal of lame duck Obama to have Congress vote on the expansion of gun controls, Keene said he would like to see that happen as well so voters would know who to kick out of office next election cycle.

“We want a vote as well because a lot of people who are hostile to the Second Amendment haven’t had to go through a vote,” Keene said. “A lot of politicians have been able to say ‘I’m with you,’ but these votes would put people in a position of supporting the Second Amendment or not.”

Facts Demolish Gun Control Supporters' Assertions

There are so many lies being asserted by gun control supporters that it's hard to keep up with the little weasels and their endless, slippery comments that contradict the reality, and in many cases are based upon data that has never been proven and was conducted almost 20 years ago.

Here are some facts from the AP that clarify some of the assertions.

THE FACTS:

The claims that gun sales made without background checks comprise “more than,” “as many as,” “nearly” or “about” 40 percent of all gun sales are rooted in a poll looking broadly at gun ownership in America. Sponsored by the Justice Department through a grant to the Police Foundation, the poll’s principal relevance today is as a snapshot of the way things were when it was taken – 1994.

The research reported on the nature of gun acquisitions made in 1993 and 1994, asking people who had obtained guns then where the guns had come from and whether they thought the source was a federally licensed dealer. Transactions through licensed dealers were considered covered by the background check system, which was just then coming into effect.

Although the survey interviewed more than 2,500 Americans, just 251 had acquired guns during that time frame, a small sampling from which to make a general conclusion.

In all, 64 percent of those respondents reported acquiring a gun from a source they thought to be a licensed dealer, suggesting that 36 percent of gun acquisitions were in the secondary and unregulated market.

But the study’s researchers found considerable ambiguity and some apparent contradictions in the responses. With a clear picture eluding them, they estimated 30 percent to 40 percent of the acquisitions were off the books and would not have been subjected to a background check.

Only 4 percent of gun sales were thought to have come through gun shows or flea markets – a corner of the market that is a top concern today for those who want to expand background checks to close the “gun-show loophole,” as Obama’s proposals would do.

More than 17 percent of guns acquired in 1993 and 1994 came from a family member, according to the poll – a source of weapons that would remain largely unregulated in pending Senate legislation calling for expanded checks.

Discounting family acquisitions, the percentage of gun transactions eluding background checks – whatever that figure is – would be considerably less.

The statement by the coalition of mayors followed a Senate Judiciary Committee vote along partisan lines Tuesday to expand background checks. The bill’s prospects are uncertain.

In contending that 40 percent of gun transfers are conducted by private sellers, often “at gun shows and on the Internet,” the mayors stretched a thin claim even thinner.

They cited the same old study as everyone else – one that was done well before the spread of online commerce. The study considered purchases by mail order – 3 percent of reported gun acquisitions – but makes no mention of online transactions.

continue reading ...

'Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013' and Other Draconian Gun Legislation

In an email from National Association for Gun Rights, there was laid out some of the sneaky legislation trying to be passed under the radar, using guile and guise in an attempt to get it passed in the usual names of safety, illegal activity, and alleged mental illness.

Here's some excerpts from the message:

The most dangerous phase in the fight to defeat the gun grabbers’ all-out assault on our Second Amendment freedoms is upon us.

I’m talking about the gun grabbers’ “Plan B” alternative – a triple threat designed to sound more “reasonable” to the public than a total gun ban.

But don’t be fooled, there’s nothing reasonable about this new scheme. It’s every bit as destructive to our gun rights as everything else the gun grabbers put forth.

The "Plan B" alternative has three components: Fictitious “gun trafficking” legislation, so-called “mental health screenings” and “expanded background checks.”

And all are equally dangerous and designed with one goal in mind: national gun registration.

“Gun Trafficking”

So-called “Gun trafficking” is the gun grabbers’ latest scheme, and it’s flying fast under the radar.

The ultimate goal is to hand Obama's ATF goons the power to terrorize gun owners via sting operations, and get gun owners to start screaming for a national gun registry.

There’s Senator Patrick Leahy’s so-called Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (S. 443) and Kristin Gillibrand’s Gun Trafficking Prevention Act (S. 179) in the Senate, and then there’s the Scott Rigell/Carolyn Maloney Gun Trafficking Prevention Act (H.R. 452) in the House.

Unfortunately, S. 443 cleared the Judiciary Committee and could be on the Senate floor any day now.

More properly referred to as the Forced Gun Owner Registration Act, S. 443 imposes harsh sentences on gun owners – up to 15 years in prison – for buying a firearm to sell our give a "prohibited person."

Already, 150,000 of our nation’s veterans are considered “prohibited” just because they acknowledged stress on returning from war.

So just buying a shotgun for a son returning home from Afghanistan - so you could spend some time in the woods together hunting like the old days - could be enough to land you in jail for 15 years.

And since Barack Obama just issued an Executive Order calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to “review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun,” the definition of “prohibited” could change any day.

While there is some language claiming to protect folks who sell to "prohibited persons," it will almost be assuredly be abused by ATF agents anxious to nail gun owners to the wall.
The only way for law-abiding Second Amendment supporters to ultimately prove their innocence would be if every firearms transfer is signed off on by the Federal Government -- paving the way for a national gun registry.

And you and I both know so-called “gun registration” is the first step toward TOTAL GUN CONFISCATION!

“Mental Health Screenings”

The gun grabbers love to twist words to advance gun control. And “mental health screening” is just a ruse for creating a National No Gun Database.

Of course, the gun grabbers are willing to use virtually any excuse they can conjure up to put as many Americans as possible on their “mental health” list.

Have you ever served in the military or experienced a traumatic family situation like a death in the family?

If you’re prescribed anything at all - or even if you complain of stress to the wrong person - that could be enough for you to lose your Second Amendment rights.

38 states have some sort of mental health database, and they're already being used to strip law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

In fact, studies show that over 100,000 military veterans have been stripped of their gun rights already just from acknowledging stress on returning from war.

And one former Surgeon General estimated that 46.4% of Americans will have mental health issues at some point in their lives!

That should give you some idea of just how many law-abiding Americans can be stripped of their gun rights with "mental health" charges alone.

Do we really want to strip nearly half of all Americans of their gun rights?

Of course not.

But you can bet President Obama does.

That’s why President Obama is planning to use provisions of his “Obamacare” bill to create the “mental health” database the gun grabbers’ want.

Not only that, but a number of Barack Obama’s 23 Executive Orders on “gun violence” have to do with developing ways to get the mental health records of every American into a national database - accessible by the ATF, FBI and other government agencies.

To the gun-grabbers, disarming half of America for life with a simple “mental health” database within a year or two’s time sounds like a dream come true!

The bad news is, this dangerous scheme has bipartisan support.

Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake are “eyeing” legislation that would FORCE states to turn over mental health records to the federal government to be put into Barack Obama’s National No Gun Database.

“Expanded Background Checks”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the only way to enforce “background checks” is to hand the feds a record of EVERY firearm transferred through a Federal Firearms Licensee.

Of course, the gun grabbers claim federal officials destroy every record in the system after a set time, but do you really trust Barack Obama or Eric Holder to do so?

For example, in Pennsylvania, state officials were caught violating the law by keeping permanent records of “background checks” including the name of the gun owner and the specific gun purchased.

To call “background checks” anything but gun registration is a lie - and everyone knows gun registration leads to gun confiscation!

Besides, “expanding background checks” has nothing to do with the recent tragedy in Newtown.

A Justice Department survey found that 93% of handgun predators obtained their guns “off-the-record,” commonly by stealing them as the Connecticut shooter did.

None of these schemes are about stopping actual criminals.

They’re about taking away your rights.

This “Plan B” alternative is the gun grabbers’ new Triple Threat to take away your God-given right to keep and bear arms.

That’s why it’s critical you sign your “No Gun Deals” petition right away.

As I’ve told you, the National Association for Gun Rights will not sit by while the gun-grabbers assault our Second Amendment rights.

Instead, NAGR will EXPOSE them every step of the way. And right now, the National Association for Gun Rights is doing exactly that.

The good news is, anti-gun politicians in BOTH parties are feeling the heat.

They don’t know what to think about so many pro-gun Americans who have suddenly wised up to their games.

But the gun grabbers are trying to catch us sleeping.

Bizarre Lead Ammunition Ban Pushed in California

The extreme environmentalists in California are pushing a ban on lead ammunition as a back door to ban other guns and ammo, although it's disguised as concern for scavengers getting lead poisoning. I'm not kidding. They're making it look like they're worried about buzzards and other critters dying of lead poisoning.

This is obvious because of the way it's being spun; obviously by those that haven't hunted a day in their lives. What is it? They say the lead left in animals killed by hunters would harm the scavengers. Get it? What hunter shoots an animal and leaves it lying around? The purpose of shooting game is to take it home and eat or stuff, not leave it lying in the woods. Anyone that knows about hunting knows this is true.

Strange extremist groups like Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon California, and the Humane Society of the United States are saying the lead allegedly left by hunters in dead animals or birds is a source of pollution. Can they get any more psycho than that?

Here's what one nut from the Defenders of Wildlife said: "There really is no question that lead ammo is a threat. To pass a bill in California would set the stage for this happening throughout the country, the way low-emissions vehicle standards changed the market nationwide."

You heard it straight from the mouth: there is no question lead ammo left in animals in California are a threat. It boggles the mind to see this type of stupid.

There are of course studies to confirm these assertions, from none other than University of California, Davis and the University of California, Santa Cruz, which has made unproven claims that these supposed poisonings are the highest during the hunting seasons. Of course the problem is still what has been already mentioned: hunters don't leave animals lying around in the woods after shooting them. Period!

So while there could be an occasional situation where, for example, a deer could be shot and die later because it couldn't be found by the hunter, how many of those actually happen, and how could they be considered a pollution threat?

It's ridiculous, and only people blinded by a fanatical agenda could even put forth an idea like this and think it is a serious one.

Disarming America by Attacking and Brainwashing Children

Kids being trained right!

It appears the endless sick and warped responses by those in the American educational system towards harmless gestures and obvious toy guns over the last decade or so is a direct attack on children so in a relatively few years they'll be brainwashed into believing guns are evil. And they're not being rightly taught that  it's what's on the inside of people that is the cause of homicide deaths using guns in the America, not guns themselves.

For those who may not follow these things, this attack has been going on for a decade or more, not simply as a knee-jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook killings. That means this is being specifically orchestrated, and is plan thought out and specifically implemented ... targeting young children.

It isn't the discipline that is solely outrageous - although it is - it's the use of that discipline as a training exercise and warning to other children that is the evil being done here.

This is no doubt an exercise in social engineering, and the pay back for the American government could be a short several years away.

I say that because the current rejection of gun control efforts by the American republic remains robust, and is causing pause to out-of-control politicians who want to dispense with the Second Amendment.

But you can also see the seeds of the outrageous attacks on children using the public school system as it means of training them to oppose firearms in the future bearing fruit, and it could get worse going forward.

One thing I believe that could stop all of that is an unrelated issue, and that is the faltering global and American economy. This is why I believe all of these mainstream media reports on this alleged recovery are being thrown about so much. It's not only to make Obama and this extreme administration look good, but to result in American citizens believing they can stop being concerned about it so they'll focus on other irrelevant problems such as gun control.

The last couple of unemployment reports have been downwardly revised, and we'll see the same with the latest one, which continues to be reported on as legitimate, even though the unexpectedly high numbers still haven't reached a sustainable level of a real recovery. And that assumes the data put forth are real.

In the instructive video below, we see a call to pulling children out of the public schools in response to this brainwashing process; with guns being the specific parameters of the video, although it could be applied to numerous areas of life.

The bottom line conclusion is it's a collectivist attempt to use group pressure to break the will of the children so they'll be primed for what the government wants to do in the future.

Just ask yourselves one question: Why are these fake gun busts being enacted when law enforcement knows they aren't based on any threat? The answer is obvious. Tell us in the comments what you believe them to be.

"New Ketucky Rifle" Demand Soaring for Kentucky Craftsman

The Kentucky Rifle is famous in America for playing a major part in winning independence by America in the Revolutionary War. Now the "old" Kentucky rifle - a muzzleloader - has been set aside as the AR-15 is now considered by many to be the "new" Kentucky rifle.

To that end master craftsman Keith Pitt in Lexington Kentucky has built a solid business manufacturing these amazingly high quality guns which he can't keep up with the orders on, and has had to shut down the ordering mechanism on his website because of the huge demand after Sandy Hook and in wake of political focus on the AR-15.

Larue County News reports:

Before the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Keith Pitt's AR-15 business in Lexington, Kentucky was growing at a good pace, but after the murders he couldn't keep up with orders, as people bombarded his online store in anticipation of the possibility AR-15s would be banned or restricted.

Orders became so robust that Keith has had to temporarily close his online store, which is found at Accurate Armory.  

On the front page of the popular site there is a message that says this: "Due to the overwhelming demand for AR-15 rifles in the current political climate, we are so back ordered that we have taken our online store offline, temporarily."

continue reading ...

Gun Control Blowing Up in Democrats' Faces

As the mainstream media hype is starting to be ignored concerning the false idea that the majority of Americana support gun control, it's increasingly clear that not only is that not true, but many voters registered as Democrats in the liberal Colorado oppose many of the proposed measures in that state being touted as having the approval of the people.

This is extraordinarily significant because Colorado is essentially an extension of California. For those that don't know, there has been for years a migration of Californians to the state, which is why it has taken on such a strong, liberal flavor.

But that hasn't overcome the strong feelings about gun ownership, the right to bear arms, and the Second Amendment for many Democrats residing there.

This is confirmed by a recent poll by Public Opinion Strategies, which found that the majority of people polled don't believe “sweeping gun control measures will make them any safer.” This is the exact opposite to the narrative the media have attempted to create.

According to the poll, "While only 8% of Democrats oppose all of the gun control measures we tested, 70% of Democratic voters oppose one or some combination of the proposals (either the comprehensive package, the background checks, the liability claim, or the high-capacity magazine ban).” This makes Democrats far more vulnerable than they appear to be based upon media assertions and reports.

It's no surprise that Colorado Republican voters oppose the proposed regulations, but what is very important is independents overwhelmingly oppose the key gun control measures pushed by the Colorado Democrat lawmakers.

"For the most part, the highly politically prized Independent voting bloc also opposes the key gun control measures we tested in this survey. Fully 69% oppose passing the comprehensive legislation (33% oppose outright, 36% think it goes too far), 84% oppose holding manufacturers and sellers liable, and 55% oppose the high-capacity magazine ban when presented with both sides. The one area of exception is the proposal to require gun buyers to pay the cost for a background check (51% of Republicans and 69% of Independent favor it). But, on the whole, Independents are more inclined to agree with Republicans (and gun owners), than with Democrats (and anti-NRA allies).”

The most important finding of the poll confirms something I've been seeing for some time, and that is the gun control "issue" is being forced on the American people by mainstream media outlets that see this as an extraordinary opportunity to get something they've wanted for decades. But according to the poll, even in Colorado gun control isn't close to being that important to the residents of the state, coming in only sixth among the things that are vital to their own interests.

“Colorado voters want to see the Governor and State Legislature focus on the economy and jobs, first and foremost. When asked to identify the top legislative priorities for the current year, economic issues top the list (52%), followed by improving public education (40%), and balancing the state budget (27%). Passing gun control legislation ranks sixth out of the nine issues tested – with only 14% saying the issue is something they want the Governor and legislature to focus on this year,” said the pollster.

I believe this is why the outrageous job creation numbers recently came out, as they were jacked up to make it look like the U.S. economy is growing at a fast pace in order for the focus of the American people to be on gun control rather than what really is important to them.

The job creation numbers will be downwardly revised, although what is trying to be done is for the legislation at the federal level to be passed before it is discovered the U.S. economy remains extremely weak.

Whatever the tactics used, Democrats are in potentially big trouble, and the results in the next election could be far more devastating to them than it was to the Democrats forced to back Obamacare, and who all stepped down or were soundly defeated afterwards.

Democrat Senators Feeling Pro-Gun Heat

Whether you like former president Bill Clinton or not, he is as politically astute as a person can get, and when he saw the Democrats move towards gun control, he warned the party they shouldn't take that route. They didn't listen. It would cost them the Senate in 2014 if Democrat senators in gun rights states are pressured and cave.

The problem for the Democrats is they have gone all in on this, as the liberal media quickly and ferociously joined the cause, with the usual lack of understanding and interest in the millions of Americans whom don't line up with their ideology, and the media don't understand or care about.

That has raised the stakes for Democrats in states with a majority which resist the gun control efforts of the national Democrats, who are rightly perceived as being out of touch with them.

Vulnerable Democratic senators include Max Baucus of Montana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.

The big question lingering in the minds of many people is the career sacrifices forced on Democrats in the Obamacare fiasco, where those refusing to represent the states they were supposed to either refused to run because they were going to get slaughtered by their opponents, or they ran and got voted out.

Will the national, Obama Democrats force this upon there fellow Democrats again, even though it would no doubt cost them the Senate? That seems to be the real question people are waiting to have answered.

These Democrats especially, and others as well, know they don't have the luxury of being coy over time, as these decisions are being forced upon them now, not after the next elections.

For national, liberal Democrats, they will view them as traitors because they don't care at all about them or the people they serve. They are driven by ideology, and the people in mid-America, the south, and parts of the west know this.

Mainstream media are attempting to create the illusion of a consensus and overwhelming support for gun legislation, but that's a complete fabrication, other than in the obvious liberal bastions in parts of the country.
Because the extremist went all in, they now can't back down. This is a fight they will continue no matter what it costs their colleagues. In the end their overreach could be a good thing for freedom, as it would sweep Democrats out of power and a more conservative U.S. House and Senate would be the result.

Bill Clinton sees all this, but thankfully he wasn't heeded, as this is going to end badly for the Democrats, who are now locked into a battle they can no longer disengage from. Some of them are so delusional as to believe the media reports that Americans are behind their push to crush the Second Amendment and take away the right to bear arms.

They can say what they want, the majority of Americans know this is there end game, with so-called assault weapons and universal background checks the Trojan Horse to get them in.

Whatever happens, this will be a win/win for Second Amendment supporters, as either the Democrats will cave and they'll be voted out of office, or they'll decide to represent their constituents and vote against the draconian gun restrictions trying to be imposed on the American people.

Even if they vote for gun control, it's likely not to affect gun supporters, as it doesn't appear there are enough votes to get anything significant passed at the federal level. What it would do is open the door for Republican and/or Tea Party candidates to come into office. 

As far as it relates to the right to bear arms, that is a far better scenario than exists now.

Gun Homicides and Psychiatric Drugs

There is growing evidence that there the use of psychotherapeutic medication is a primary cause behind many of the mass murders using guns around the world, including in America.

Most of what you hear is the types of guns and ammunition used in these atrocious killings, with usually only a nod towards the fact that the majority of recent murders have been by people under the influence of, or withdrawing from - psychiatric drugs.

New American writer Rebecca Terrell cites Lawrence Hunter of the Social Security Institute concerning that issue:

“In virtually every mass school shooting during the past 15 years, the shooter has been on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs,” observed Lawrence Hunter of the Social Security Institute. “Yet, federal and state governments continue to ignore the connection between psychiatric drugs and murderous violence, preferring instead to exploit these tragedies in an oppressive and unconstitutional power grab to snatch guns away from innocent, law-abiding people who are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution the right to own and bear arms to deter government tyranny and to use firearms in self defense against any miscreant who would do them harm.”

Here's a list of examples of shooting where psychiatric drugs were part of the equation.

• Toby Sincino, a 15-year-old who shot two teachers and himself in 1995 at his South Carolina school, was taking the antidepressant Zoloft.

• Kip Kinkel, an Oregon teen who murdered his parents and proceeded on a shooting rampage at his high school in 1998, killed two and wounded 25 while in Prozac withdrawal.

• Shawn Cooper fired two shotgun rounds in 1999 at his Idaho high school while on an antidepressant.

• T.J. Solomon, Jr. was 15 years old when he shot six classmates in Atlanta in 1999. He was taking Ritalin and was also being treated for depression.

• Eric Harris was one of the assailants at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999. His autopsy revealed a therapeutic level of the antidepressant Luvox in his system.

• Jason Hoffman wounded five people with a shotgun at his California high school in 2001 while on two antidepressant medications, Celexa and Effexor.

• Jeffrey Weise, a student at Red Lake High School in Minnesota, killed 10 and wounded seven in 2005 while on Prozac.

• Matti Saari, a college student in Finland, shot and killed 10 people before committing suicide at his university in 2008. The Finnish Ministry of Justice later reported he was taking an antidepressant and an anti-anxiety medication.

• Steve Kazmierczak killed six including himself at Northern Illinois University in 2008 while in withdrawal from the antidepressant Prozac.

• Tim Kretschmer murdered 15 students and teachers at his secondary school in Germany in 2009, and then committed suicide. Police reported Kretschmer was taking prescriptions to treat depression.

Antidepressants are the specific psychiatric drugs that are a common thread in school shootings.

Continue reading ...

Twisted Thinking of Anti-Gun Oregon Columnist

Writing for Oregon Live, Ronald Berkheimer, who thinks he knows what the meaning of the Second Amendment really is, participates in the typical tortuous thinking which makes all of his ilk look ignorant and lazy in their homework.

As many other have done, he attempts to place the meaning of the Second Amendment in a history he believes in. Supposedly those conditions negate the right to bear arms in some instances.
Here are the words of this sad, challenged soul:

There is an obvious difference between shotguns or hunting rifles and assault weapons. Even Wayne LaPierre has not claimed assault weapons have any other purpose but to kill human beings as quickly as possible. They should be available only to the nation's armed forces.

First of all, let's look at his projection of his thoughts on those of Wayne LaPierre. Since he says Wayne LaPierre has not made any claims that so-called assault weapons, and so that has to mean he also believes they are only made for the purpose of killing human beings, is as silly a conclusion I've ever heard in an attempt to defend any idea. It's ludicrous, disingenuous, and completely dishonest.

To impose those ideas on LaPierre is nothing more than an outright lie by Berkheimer. Some how he has evidently figured out how to know what someone thinks by their not saying anything about it. Great gift he thinks he has.

That's not the worse thing in his column though. It's the continual repeating of the term "assault weapon" which is the biggest lie. There are no such things as assault weapons. Period.

Now I'm making that statement coming from data related to rifle used in homicides in general in the United States. For example, in 2009, less then 350 rifles were used to murder people. That's in a country of over 300 million. It's statistically irrelevant (although not to the victims of course).

The point is what are called assault weapons aren't even a significant factor in the 10,000 or so homicide deaths coming from guns annually. The term is used in an attempt for that to be the base for starting to restrict gun ownership in America.

Anyone with a brain knows that automatic and semi-automatic guns are primarily used recreationally, and secondarily as protection. The major purpose could be protection, but I'm referring to usage, not intent here.

Also notice the term weapon. Now an rifle of this type isn't just a rifle, or even an assault rifle, it's now an assault weapon. The reason gun opponents are using that phrase is it eliminates the idea of recreational use, which is what is done with the guns by most people.

Again, people can buy them for protection, but unless a dangerous situation occurs, the only use they have is for practice and fun.

This data-challenged columnist, filled with his anti-gun rhetoric, looks completely silly in his article.

Minnesota Gun Control Resistance Strong

The problem with the national narrative on the Second Amendment, right to bear arms, and gun control, is usually reporters and writers socialize and get quotes and comments from those that don't regularly interact with state and local politics; they see things from a skewed Washington outlook.

So when significant opposition to gun regulation is being expressed in Minnesota, pundits are surprised, when if in fact if you've spent much time in the state like I have, you would know it's a no-brainer that there won't be an easy road for politicians proposing gun control measures.

Per capita Minnesota may have as much gun ownership as any state, and it won't be easy, if possible at all, to do much more than do some background checks and mental health evaluations. It would be surprising if anything else was brought to the table and passed, as politicians in the state would surely be lucky to survive the next election.

National politicians are clueless concerning the fact that this isn't a Democrat or Republican issue, but rather an issue surrounding the freedom for all Americans to benefit from the Second Amendment if they choose to.

So when lawmakers on the national level attempt to paint it in that way, it's not believable to state and local constituents, as well as not supportable.

When considering Minnesota politically, it was believed to be a slam dunk by liberals, as almost everything in the state is controlled by Democrats.

Obama thought he had a nice, safe state to pander to in a recent visit, but Minnesota in regard to firearms is far from safe.

One Minnesota Republican expressed what many around America think support.

We aren’t doing enough because the legislators won’t let us do enough. If we want to arm teachers, we want to have armed security guards, we want to put a shooter in the scene that can actually do something, legislatures are saying no and pretending these worthless gun bills are going to do any good, which they don’t.

Minnesota Democrat Governor Mark Dayton has tested the winds and has no intention of signing any gun control regulation into law, as he faces re-election in 2014. He said the only way he would sign a gun package is if it is supported by Minnesota lawmakers from rural areas. In other words, Minnesota won't be implementing any gun control laws any time soon.

If that's the case in a blue state like Minnesota, it's unlikely to fly anywhere else except in totally liberal, elitist states where it's politically safe to do so. That's why Colorado gets so much national press, as it's considered a bellwether for the rest of the nation if gun control laws are passed with no political ramifications.

But even if it is, it's not representative of the majority of states, and politicians know that contrary to out-of-touch national leaders and media, it's at the state and local levels where much of the political payback would come.

 

Gun Control Extremist Caitlin J. Halligan Blocked by Senators

The controversial Caitlin J. Halligan, Obama's pick to serve on the powerful District of Columbia court, has been blocked by Senators today.

Even before the gun rights debate Halligan has been under fire over Second Amendment issues, being targeted by the GOP in 2011 via a filibuster. Now that the battle over the right to bear arms is in full swing, her anti-gun agenda is even more under scrutiny. By a vote of 51-41, the debate on Halligan's nomination was ended by the Senate.

Sixty votes are needed for it to go forward. Republicans note that Halligan is an activist judge who uses her personal views in making many of her judgements.

Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, said about Halligan that she is “one of the most activist judicial nominees that we’ve seen in years. The Senate owes the president no deference [on such a pick].”

Halligan has supported the atrocious legal argument that would criminalize gun manufacturers for crimes committed using their firearms. It's seen largely as an attempt to slow down gun sales.

Gun Owners of America said this about Halligan: “As New York’s solicitor general, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York’s baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation,” adding that Halligan “one of the most anti-gun judicial nominees in recent memory.”

The only Republican crossing party lines on the vote was Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.

Gun Supporters Battling Back in Maryland

credit: ap

Second Amendment supporters came in droves to Annapolis, Maryland, making sure gun bills they support aren't changed to infringe upon their right to bear arms.

What is different this time is former gun support gatherings have focused on what they reject in the bills, while this time they're looking at what they approve of.

Gun control resisters in the crowd said they won't stop the fight to maintain their constitutional rights.

Of the bills firearm supports agree with are those addressing mental health issues and getting tougher on criminals using guns in crimes.

Incredibly, in Maryland, even off-duty police officers aren't allowed to have a gun on their person in the schools. Even though there is no doubt armed people are the answer to minimizing the victims of
potential killers.

No Consensus for Connecticut Lawmakers on Gun Laws

The inability for Connecticut lawmakers to reach an agreement on gun-control laws shows how deeply Americans resent politicians interfering with their right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

As usual, Democrats attempted to restrict guns, wanting to ban so-called assault weapons which account for very few homicide deaths in the United States.

The usual idea of limiting magazines to a small number of rounds was part of the legislation, as was the attempt to expand the number of "assault" weapons that would be banned.

Republicans rejected both laws, although they support strengthening background checks of some sort.

When the crazy nut killed 20 children at the elementary school, and the public still supports the right to bear arms in that state, it means lawmakers need to think in a totally different way to address the problem.

Rand Paul has offered the best idea, which many others agree with, and that is to have trained and armed school employees on hand in order to protect the children and others. That is the only way to limit the damage and make killers think twice about entering the advertised gun-free zones that the public schools are.

Other public areas like churches already have armed personnel on hand, which has cut back on the attempts to kill members of the congregations.

As for those willing to kill people using firearms, they aren't going to be deterred by penalties of stiffer jail sentences. A person reaching that decision has already lost rationality and control.

No law can protect people, and so defense needs to be the way this is handled.

Preacher Wears Gun on “Second Amendment Sunday”

photo credit: Steve Fuller

Saying he wanted to make a stand for freedom and the Second Amendment, John Linnehan stood  before the congregation last Sunday wearing a holster with a semi-automatic 9-milimeter Ruger in it.

Linnehan said, “I don’t normally pack a gun. I don’t usually do it, but today I wanted to take a stand so there’s no misunderstanding as to where we stand.”

As for the message, Linnehan said it was generally about the idea of freedom.

Part of that message was displayed on his shirt, which you can see to the right. with "Freedom" boldly emblazoned on the front of it. On the back of his shirt were the phrase 2nd Amendment, with 2 having the word Amendment curved above it.

While this was an exercise to send a message, there is no doubt a growing number of congregations have internal security to protect them as they have been targets of crazies in the past.

Never Give Up Your Guns

As a Department of Justice memo communicates, there are very few crimes associated with high capacity magazines and assault weapons, and ridding the country of them would do extremely little to affect the number of gun deaths in America.

Nevertheless, they are using the lie in order to terrify American citizens about something that doesn't exist, in order to give the illusion of a problem so the real outcome of banning as many guns as they can is implemented.

Here's what some of the Department of Justice memo said:

Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions...Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides...

There you have it. Period. It's a non-factor, and in fact there really is no such thing as an assault weapon in America because there aren't any statistically relevant crimes they are used in.

As a matter of fact, homicides attributed to rifles in 2009 came under 350. That's only a little over one person killed in America per million using a rifle.

The bottom line is the gun owners in America need to understand we should never give up our guns for any reason.

We have a right to bear arms, and no government entity in the United States has the authority to countermand the Second Amendment, no matter how the evil authorities and mainstream media attempt to spin it.

Authorities know they can't end the right to bear arms in a single swoop. What they'll do is take a little at a time away from gun owners if we allow them to. We can't allow that to happen, and need to be vigilant and resist.

No one is going to be allowed to take guns away from Americans unless they can be manipulated into believing it's the right thing to do, and is done voluntarily.

Law enforcement knows there is no way even a fraction of guns can be confiscated, and so will work upon the weak conscious of many people in hopes of wearing down resistance so they'll meekly give them up in the years ahead.
 
This is why it's important for the enemies of the right to bear arms and protect ourselves and our families are working so hard to get anything passed at the federal or state level. Once something is in place, they'll use that as a foundation to expand gun restrictions and regulations.

Why should we never give up our guns? Because this has nothing to do with gun control, but everything to do with people control. That is the end-game in America, and we can never let that happen, no matter what the cost.

.

Gun Control = Jim Crow Says Star Parker in Powerful Video

A growing number of black people in America are rising to the challenge of defending the Second Amendment, as many see it as a right that was attempted to be taken away in the past, and one that they will fight to keep in the present.

To that end the bold, black conservative woman who founded C.U.R.E. - the Center for Urban Renewal and Education — Star Parker, recent released an ad showing how the right to bear arms by American blacks was attacked years ago.

Parker said in a comment to CNS.com,

“The Second Amendment of the Constitution is a right for all Americans, including blacks, to protect themselves and their families from both private and public violence.”

Here's a Mississippi law that was made concerning black Americans:

4. PENAL LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI Sec. 1. Be it enacted,…That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine, not exceeding ten dollars, and pay the costs of such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be committed to trial in default of bail. The name of her video is "Never Again," and features images of blacks who were hanged in America and of the KKK. Parker and other blacks believe gun control laws threaten the safety of many black Americans.

The name of her video is "Never Again," and features images of blacks who were hanged in America and of the KKK.

Parker and other blacks believe gun control laws threaten the safety of many black Americans.

The "Never Again" Campaign from Star Parker

Smith & Wesson (SWHC), Sturm Ruger (RGR) Gun Sales Soar

The more the government attempts to clamp down on the right to bear arms, the more guns sales soar, as evidenced by the surge in gun sales as gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson (NASDAQ: SWHC) and Sturm Ruger (NASDAQ: RGR).

Some retailers are also doing much better because of gun sales, including outdoors suppliers such as Big 5 Sporting Goods (NASDAQ: BGFV), which reported results exceeding analysts' projections, largely because of the boost in gun sales.

Sturm Roger recorded a huge increase in quarterly sales in its earnings report last week; jumping by 52 percent during that period. Smith & Wesson will report on Tuesday.

Expectations are high for Smith & Wesson, with earnings projected to soar 229 percent to 23 cents a share in its latest quarter. Revenue estimates for the quarter are for the company to generate $133.68 million, an increase of 36.2 percent over last year in the same quarter.

When measured by the number of background checks for the acquisition of guns, the number of people buying guns is confirmed as skyrocketing. In December they rose by 49 percent, in January 81 percent, and in February 32 percent.

Pro-Life Means Armed Citizens

There is no doubt the data show an armed population is the best protection against those criminals using guns to kill and destroy. It's a pro-life issue all of us can embrace.

Only those wanting to outlaw guns - the same who don't mind butchering millions of living babies in the womb, the most vulnerable of human beings - art those that look at a very small number of gun deaths in comparison and freak out while the murderous abortion holocaust continues.

Having said that, it's the gun-free public zones that attract the crazies the most, and arming specific people to deal with those potential dangerous situations is the only way to ensure limited damage when a person cracks and decides to go on a killing spree.

People in schools need to be armed, as well as others in responsible positions in places where people may meet or gather in.

Pro-life means protection, and that means people need to be armed in order to protect themselves and their loved ones, as well as those under their care.

It's a simple but effective solution, one that will work if implemented.

Albany Stormed by Over 7,000 Gun Supporters

Photo credit:

NY Republican Committee

The sneaky passage of the (un) SAFE Act on January 19 in New York has resulted in outrage from thousands of New York residents, who came in thousands to Albany to express their anger at the thuggery of New York politicians.

According to a number of lawmakers in the state, they has about 20 minutes to review the bill before a vote was asked for. There was very little debate a literally zero input from the public. Liberals always go this route because the general population would never go along with their attacks on freedom and liberty.

It's the same tactic that brought us the disastrous Obamacare. Nonetheless, it is subject to legal challenges because the dictator of New York, Andrew Cuomo, pushed it in a manner where the New York constitution was ignored, which requires a 3-day debate period. The bill was forced through in several hours, raising questions as to whether it is even legitimate and legal.

A New York State Supreme Court Justice Judge - Gerald Connolly - has already ordered Cuomo and leaders of the state legislature to show why the passage of the gun control law was done so quickly.

Per a lawsuit, Connolly said Cuomo and lawmakers have until March 11 to give a satisfactory answer. Connolly is considering issuing a temporary injunction before the new law is put into effect.

It's unlikely this will be the only lawsuit filed challenging the outrageous law. New York voters are already saying those voting against the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms will pay in the next election. All of us eagerly wait for that to happen.

.

Shotguns Targeted in Colorado Bill

A bill in Colorado that has already been approved by the House confirms gun control fanatics won't stop until they disarm America. It's a harbinger of a possible future if gun control resistance isn't ramped up a notch.

The shotguns that would be banned per bill 1224 would be those that fall under an arbitrary definition of a high-capacity magazine, which the bill defines as one that is "capable of accepting or — that can be readily converted — to accept more than 15 rounds or eight shotgun shells."

Colorado bird hunters especially us a shotgun for this purpose, and would be banned if the law is passed, or an amendment dealing specifically with the issue isn't added. The governor of Colorado has already said he'll sign the bill into law if it comes to his desk.

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray said, “I don’t know if anybody is going to make guns specifically for the five million people living in Colorado. We just might not be able to legally purchase a pump shotgun or a semi-automatic shotgun.”

While this must be fought by the people and lawmakers of Colorado, it confirms and reveals that liberals and Democrats will not stop until they get almost all guns banned. This bill proves it, and we'll see them continue to chip away at the Second Amendment, one gun at a time, unless we totally understand that his is their radical agenda.

Second Amendment Foundation Warns City over Gun Disarmament

It appears some governing officials are revealing their hand on how they're going to bypass the Second Amendment, in of all places - Alabama - where you would think officials like that wouldn't be voted into office.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) warned officials if they use a natural disaster or other emergencies as an excuse to disarm the citizens, they will face a lawsuit if the plans aren't dropped.

Saying it is only to "protect people," Guntersville Mayor Leigh Dollar has brought to the proposal to the city council for consideration on March 4.

SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, responded saying this:

We recall what happened after Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans police forcefully disarmed peaceful, law-abiding citizens for no good reason until we stepped in with a federal lawsuit and stopped it. Local public officials occasionally need to be reminded that they were elected to serve the public, not rule over constituents or nullify their constitutional rights. What happened in New Orleans can never be allowed to happen again on American soil.

 

 

Gottlieb added the Second Amendment Foundation won't simply sit and watch this happen. He concluded that "The city of Guntersville has no legal authority to adopt or enforce such an ordinance."