Sadly President Trump’s border wall is not long enough it should include Commifornia, Wahington and Oregon.
That way people escaping those states are not able to bring their leftist views and attitudes to red states.
Legislation submitted in the Democrat-controlled Oregon legislature would fundamentally change the state’s firearm laws, recasting them as the most restrictive in the country.
State Sen. Rob Wagner has submitted SB 501 for the upcoming session. Wagner’s bill would require licensing for gun owners prior to purchase, outlaw firearm magazines capable of holding more than five rounds and limit individual ammunition sales to no more than 20 rounds every 30 days.
Wagner conceded to local media that it was “probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth,” but is proceeding with the measure on behalf of a group of student gun control advocates. A Portland-area Democrat, Wagner was endorsed by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown group who also contributed directly to his campaign last fall.
Besides its restrictions on ammunition and requirements for licensing, SB 501 would also mandate that background checks be delayed for 14-days so that state police can research would-be buyers, fine gun owners who failed to report lost or stolen firearms and require guns be locked up when not in use. There would be no grandfathering of magazines affected by the ban.
The bill is strongly opposed by both state and national gun rights groups as well as Republicans in the legislature.
“Oregonians need to show up at the Capitol and express their concern over their personal safety and the harm caused by this kind of legislation,” said Rep. Bill Post, R-Keizer, who went on to point out that everyone from hunters unable to meet their allowed bag limit due to lack of ammo to gun owners who would have their now-legal firearms outlawed had skin in the game.
“That means your old six shot revolver would be required to be turned in or destroyed,” said Post.
While Washington, D.C., nine U.S. states, and a number of municipalities have arbitrary restrictions on magazine capacity, none would set the bar as low as Oregon’s proposed law. When New York adopted a seven round restriction as part of their SAFE Act in 2013, a federal judge overturned it the next year, saying that it violated the Second Amendment, leaving many counties in the Empire State to stop enforcing it.
Democrats enjoy a super-majority in both the Oregon House and Senate and have muscled several anti-gun billsthrough Salem to the waiting desk of fellow Dem, Gov. Kate Brown. Brown, who has in the past directed state police to track and analyze gun transactions, while urging Congress to ban “assault weapons” and enact no fly/no buy legislation, picked up a $250,000 donation from Bloomberg in 2016.
My bet is the next thing libs try to ban is the pea shooter and the slingshot.
The Pittsburgh City Council is pushing a ban on AR-15s and other commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles, as well BB guns and starter pistols.
The ban would prohibit the possession of some weapons, while limiting the possession of other weapons to one’s own land and/or residence.
Regarding “assault weapons,” the City Council says, “It shall be unlawful to manufacture, sell, purchase, transport, carry, store, or otherwise hold in one’s possession within the City of Pittsburgh an assault weapon.”
They define “assault weapons” as weapons that run the gamut between full-auto to semiautomatic. In other words, a machine gun with select-fire switch is an “assault weapon” and an AR-15–which fires one round per trigger pull–is an “assault weapon” too.
Semiautomatic shotguns are listed as “assault weapons” if they have two of the following features:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds
An ability to accept a detachable magazine
The ban also references “facsimile firearms,” which the City Council describes as “any toy, antique, starter pistol, or other object that bears a reasonable resemblance to an operable firearm, or any object that impels a projectile by means of a spinning action, compression, or CO2 cartridge.”
The City Council bans the carry or possession of facsimile firearms outside of one’s own property: “No person shall carry in any vehicle or concealed or unconcealed on or about their person except when on their land or in their abode or fixed place of business any facsimile firearm with the intent to alarm, intimidate, terrify, or threaten any person.”
A public hearing on the final draft of the ban is scheduled for January 24, 2019.
Whoa! Stop the presses a DemocRat politician lied to her voters.
Gillibrand promised the voters in New York that if she was reelected in 2018 she would serve her full term.
2020 Dem hopeful says ‘we have to make it possible for people to provide for their families’
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) no longer opposes giving drivers’ licenses to undocumented immigrants.
“I think we have to make it possible for people to provide for their families,” Gillibrand told the New York Daily News on Wednesday outside a diner in Brunswick, New York. “We need comprehensive immigration reform. Without doing that, you’re not going to get the problem solved for the rest of the country.”
Gillibrand formerly opposed then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s controversial 2007 proposal to give drivers’ licenses to undocumented immigrants.
“I do not support giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants,” Gillibrand said in a 2007 statement, the Syracuse Post Star reported. At the time, Gillibrand said she supported legislation that required anyone seeking a drivers’ license to show proof of citizenship first.
Since she entered the spotlight as a potential presidential candidate, Gillibarnd has flip-flopped on a number of issues. She used to support gun control, and opposed amnesty as well as sanctuary cities. She has reversed her position on all of these issues.
At at Wednesday press conference in Troy, New York, Gillibrand said her heart has guided her policy reversal decisions, giving the specific example of her reversal on gun control.
“I would just tell them to look at my heart,” Gillibrand said. “When I, now 10 years ago, became senator for New York, when I met parents who met their child to gun violence … the pain and the suffering that families are facing every day, I was convicted and said, ‘I have to fight for them, too.'”
Gillibrand has also broken a promise she made during her 2018 Senate reelection campaign that, if elected, she would serve a full six-year term.
Paul Harvey told of this disaster in one of his The Rest Of The Stroy books and I believe it was on his Rest Of The Story radio program.
In 1919, a viscous 40-foot wave slammed into the city’s North End, killing 21 people.
On January 15, 1919, 10-year-old Pasquale Iantosca went out to gather scraps for firewood. Although it was a warm day, his father, Giuseppe, was taking no chances: He had bundled his son into two crimson sweaters, and was keeping an eye on him from the second-story window of their small apartment building in Boston’s North End. But peril is not predictable, and as Giuseppe watched, Pasquale suddenly vanished. “A dark wall had consumed him as though he never existed,” the historian Stephen Puleo writes in Dark Tide: The Great Boston Molasses Flood of 1919. It would be hours before rescuers found the boy’s body, his arms and pelvis broken and both of his red sweaters gummed with brown.
The Great Molasses Flood was a tragedy. Twenty-one people died horribly, 150 were injured, and homes and buildings were destroyed. But it has become tragic in the Greek sense, too: The thing that makes it most memorable also undercuts it. The only mark it has left on the landscape is a brief plaque embedded in a wall near Boston Harbor, describing a “40-foot wave of molasses” that, like some sort of delicious Godzilla, “crushed buildings” and “buckled … railroad tracks.” The sight and smell of “brown syrup and blood,” so memorably described in the Boston Post, has been replaced in the city’s consciousness by a charming “scent of molasses” that supposedly still permeates the North End on hot days. As Puleo puts it in Dark Tide’s introduction, “the flood today remains part of the city’s folklore, but not its heritage.” The punchline takes away the punch.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The Great Molasses Flood has plenty of lessons to offer at all levels: about corporate responsibility and negligence, about immigration and disenfranchisement, and about human bravery and suffering. One hundred years after the molasses tank burst, some people are trying to restore the disaster to its rightful place in Boston history.
If you haven’t heard about the Great Molasses Flood—or if you’ve only gotten the online-video version—a quick primer is in order. In the 1910s, millions of gallons of molasses were being shipped into Boston Harbor from Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the West Indies, all property of a company called United States Industrial Alcohol (USIA). As World War I picked up in Europe, it spurred demand for molasses, which was distilled into alcohol used to make dynamite and other ammunition. USIA needed somewhere to store the sticky stuff before it got carted off to their distillery in Cambridge, Massachusetts, so they decided to build a steel tank four stories high. They put it smack in the middle of Boston’s North End, a community made up largely of Italian immigrants, and at the time one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the entire country.
The tank was made in a rush, and poorly constructed. It needed to be recaulked constantly; even still, it sprung enough leaks that a supervisor had the sides painted brown to camouflage the drips. Children would sneak over and carry the excess out in pails. One maintenance man, Isaac Gonzalez, was so panicked about the tank bursting that he would run from his home in the middle of the night to check on it.
On that January day, Gonzalez’s nightmare finally came true. A few days before, a massive molasses shipment had arrived. The tank was already more than half full of the stuff, and the new batch, warmed slightly by its journey along the Gulf Stream, had been poured on top. The mix of warm and cold sludge in the tank sped up the normally slow process of fermentation, which increased gas pressure. Around lunchtime, it blew. Millions of gallons of molasses rushed out of the tank at 35 miles per hour, engulfing the entire neighborhood. “Ensnaring in its sticky flood more than 100 men, women, and children; crushing buildings, teams, automobiles, and street cars—everything in its path—the black, reeking mass slapped against the side of the buildings,” wrote the Post. “Big steel trolley freight cars were crushed as if eggshells, and their piled-up cargo of boxes and merchandise minced like so much sandwich meat.”
It took weeks to clean the molasses off the streets, and months for the harbor to lose its brown tinge. Mopping up the legal implications took even longer. Eventually, judge Hugh W. Ogden found USIA liable for the disaster—“really the first ruling against a major U.S. corporation,” says Puleo. Although most people don’t know it, Puleo adds, “all the building construction standards that we’re used to today … all of that is a direct outgrowth of the molasses flood case.”
Puleo has been writing and talking about the Great Molasses Flood for over 15 years. His book, Dark Tide, remains the definitive account of the disaster. When asked how he managed to paint such a vivid picture of the event, he recalls immersing himself in pages upon pages of victims’ statements from the court case. “You read about the doctors and nurses … trying to get the molasses out of the breathing passages of these poor victims,” he says. “It made it so real for me. I think the descriptions kind of flowed naturally.”
He then hears himself and backtracks: “No pun intended! I did not intend that pun.” Puleo has a good sense of humor, but being a caretaker for this particular piece of history has put him on high alert. “Had this been fire or flood or famine or pestilence or whatever, I think it probably would have been better known,” he says. “But there is that initial giggle, right, when you say ‘molasses.’”
When people hear that word, they get… well, stuck. “It’s misremembered [as] something out of Willy Wonka, when in reality this was an explosion in an ammunitions plant,” says Gavin Kleespies, the Director of Programs at the Massachusetts Historical Society. (The cognitive dissonance this creates is such that there is a Snopes page to assure curious Googlers that the flood did, in fact, happen.) Peter Drummey, the librarian at MHS, agrees: “[There’s] this idea that this is something that is, if not comical … an industrial disaster that you can essentially have as an event suitable for children,” he says. “Even though there were children killed in it.”
This is especially ironic, Puleo says, because the event was so grounded in reality. “Almost every major issue that the U.S. was dealing with 100 years ago touches the flood story in some way,” he says, from munitions production for World War I to the Italian anarchist movement (which USIA tried to blame for the blowup, and which would be involved in, and accused of, a number of other bombings in the years to come).
While his book ties these threads together, the MHS hopes to help push these efforts even further, into the present day. Starting in January 2019, they’re hosting a series of panel discussions related to the flood. (Puleo is on all three of the panels.) The talks are meant to break the molasses flood out of the “weird history” category, and to help the city instead “think of this as we think about other important historical events,” says Drummey. One panel, for example, will be about issues facing immigrants, both past and present.
“Part of the reality of the North End [in the early 1900s] was that it was a high percentage of noncitizen immigrants who didn’t have political muscle. That’s part of why this dangerous [tank] ended up near them,” says Kleespies. “I think it’s worth taking a look today and saying—where are disadvantaged groups now? And what are they facing that we should be conscious of?” Some people are forging these connections on their own: Last year, after a series of natural gas explosions rocked the Merrimack Valley in northeast Massachusetts, killing one person and displacing struggling families, someone linked the Wikipedia page about it to the entry for the Great Molasses Flood.
It’s easier to learn from the past if there are visible reminders of it. In 2014, the civil engineer Brian Webb was living in the North End—right near the scene of the explosion, which he learned about in a city planning course. He would look across the street, picture his neighborhood drowned in molasses, and wonder why he hadn’t been made to think about all this a little earlier. “It’s the second-most disastrous event in Boston history”—after the Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire, which killed 492 people in 1942—“and all we have is a little plaque,” he says. “And this is Boston! You know how important we view our history and our city [to be].”
So when the Massachusetts Department of Transportation announced that they were accepting proposals from the public on how to use some spare land just outside the North End, Webb decided to propose what he calls The Great Molasses Flood Memorial. “My idea was to take the dimensions of the tank and kind of cut it in half and make an arch,” he says. There would be paths, ponds, and picnic lawns spilling out of it and spreading around. The north side of the structure would house a small historical exhibit, including a stone wall carved with the victims’ names. The whole thing could double as an amphitheater.
Webb started pitching his idea at planning meetings in 2014, and eventually worked up an official plan. Although he says people reacted enthusiastically, the city didn’t bite. At the moment, the land in question still sits empty, and a MassDOT representative says there are “no active conversations taking place now on the possible future use of [the] land.”
“I would like to get this going again,” Webb, who now lives in San Diego, says. “I think the 100-year anniversary is probably the last time that people are really going to be like, we should really remember this somehow.”
While you’re waiting on a proper memorial, there are a few places you can go. All of the people who perished in the Great Molasses Flood are buried in cemeteries in and around Boston. (Pasquale is at Saint Michael, in Roslindale.) Maureen Keillor, a historian living in Georgia, has put together a list of their graves. She was motivated by both empathy and incredulity: “It’s just impossible to conceive of what that had to have been like,” she says. “If you think about being killed by molasses—how horrible would that be?”
Leave those last moments aside, though, and the rest of their lives are more imaginable. “These are very ordinary people who died,” says Puleo. “Eighteen of the 21 [victims] were Irish city workers and Italian immigrants. You won’t have heard of them. You won’t hear of them again.” In Dark Tide, Puleo connects the fraught historical status of the molasses flood with the obscurity of its victims. “In a city defined by so much compelling and pivotal history … perhaps it is difficult to make room for an event in which ordinary people were affected most,” he writes. But if a dark wall already consumed them once, maybe we can keep it from happening again.
I was told that best safety for any firearm was the space between your ears aka your brain.
USA –-(Ammoland.com)- I wonder if everyone who carries a concealed pistol goes through the same mental evolution? When I started to carry, I had a subconscious fear that my gun would go off inadvertently while carrying. While I thought about carrying with an empty chamber, I never went quite that far as I recognized that chambering a round in the heat of a self-defense encounter was not a realistic recipe for success. However, I was big on carrying a gun with a manual “safety” of sorts. At the time, my choice was a Beretta 92 FS. I just couldn’t wrap my logical brain around the idea of carrying a gun where a simple trigger movement was all it took to fire a shot.
Of course, with experience, I realized that modern pistols are perfectly safe to carry, with or without a manual safety lever. Whether one prefers an external safety on a pistol is a classic apples and oranges decision. Neither is right nor wrong; they’re just different.
So, what are the mechanical safety choices on the market for today’s concealed carrier? More importantly, what are some pros and cons? Let’s take a look.
The classic example of a true safety lies with the 1911 pistol. I would describe this design as a “hard” safety. When you engage it, by flipping the frame-mounted lever up, it locks everything. The trigger won’t move. Nor will the slide. The gun is essentially inoperable for both firing and administrative actions like chambering a round.
To me, this design represents the definition of manual operation that relies on the care and good habits of the user, kind of like a manual transmission in a car. You have absolute control, but you have to know what you’re doing to run it effectively. From a concealed carry point of view, it’s up to you to train to disengage it at the right time. Just as important, it’s up to you to train to re-engage at the appropriate time – especially before re-holstering.
Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen a growing number of previously “pure” striker-fired pistols that have added safety-equipped models to their lineup. For example, the new Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 models offer a variant with a manual safety option. With most, you will notice a difference in the trigger press sensation. Sticking with our example case, the striker-fired M&P 2.0 model I have has a five-pound pull weight with about ½-inch of take-up followed by ¼ of an inch of constant pressure to the break. I also had a manual safety version of the same pistol in for review. The pull weight was heavier at six pounds and there was a detectable slightly gritty “shelf” during the final quarter inch of movement owing to the safety mechanism. Adding a separate safety to a pistol not originally designed for one carries a small cost in this case.
Double-action / single-action guns like the classic Sig Sauer P226 and P229 pistols are designed to be inherently “safe” due to their revolver-like heavy and long first trigger press. As with a revolver, there is no technical need for a separate safety device.
However, the double-action first shot feature didn’t squash market demand for a separate safety. For many decades, manufacturers like Beretta have offered double-action / single-action pistols with a safety device – of sorts. The de-cocking lever on the Beretta 92 FS and other similar models performs a “safe” function although it doesn’t lock the trigger and slide like safeties on a single-action pistol. In the Beretta’s case, the trigger is disconnected and swings freely until you disengage the safety. The result is similar, it’s just a subtle difference in how the safe function is implemented.
All the Above
Other double-action / single-action pistols take a different approach that combines single-action and double / single attributes. The FN FNX 45 Tactical and Springfield Armory XD-E pistols operate as double-action / single actions but with a twist. The safety lever actually locks the hammer, sort of like a 1911. So, these pistols can be carried either with the hammer down and safety on or with the hammer cocked and safety engaged for “cocked and locked” operation. It sounds complex but the bottom line is simple. If you disengage the safety and press the trigger, the gun will fire. If the hammer is cocked, the press is light. If the hammer is down, the gun fires in double-action mode.
No External Safety
Ever heard of a company called Glock? Just kidding! But seriously, this pistol is the standard for “safety-less” design, at least in terms of an external lever that either locks or disconnects the trigger. Glocks, Springfield Armory XD series, Smith & Wesson M&Ps, Sig Sauer P320s, and plenty of other popular pistols are designed to be carried and used without an external safety lever. Of course, these pistols almost always have several internal safeties that prevent firing unless the trigger is pressed, the slide is fully in battery, and so on.
Most striker-fired pistols in this class split the difference with the trigger press weight. While double-actions require 10 to 12 pounds of pressure for the initial pull and single-action pistols are usually four pounds or fewer, striker-fired pistols normally operate in the five to six-pound trigger weight range. The thinking is that the internal safeties combined with a heavier than single-action press are adequate for carry safety.
So, what’s the right answer? That depends primarily on you and your comfort level and carry method. There’s nothing wrong with carrying a gun that has no manual safety provided it was designed to operate that way. In fact, most law enforcement officers do exactly that on a daily basis. If you choose a deeper concealment method without the rigidity of a firm leather or Kydex holster (think undershirt) you might want the peace of mind of an extra mechanical safety. If you carry in a purse or bag, you might want the same. Or maybe you just feel more comfortable with that extra step between holstered and firing.
Over the past couple of years, I’ve drifted to the “no manual levers” approach. While I love a good 1911 as much as the next guy, I’ve been favoring capacity and simplicity. While you can get a single-action design with a double-stack magazine, there are far more options on the market in striker-fired and double-action / single-action packages. For me, there’s a lot to be said for “simple, simple, simple…”
How about you? Let us know what style of mechanical gun safety you prefer to carry?
About Tom McHale
Tom McHale is the author of the Practical Guides book series that guides new and experienced shooters alike in a fun, approachable, and practical way. His books are available in print and eBook format on Amazon. You can also find him on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest.
There needs to be a shakeup at the top of the NRA.
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Bless her heart, Marion Hammer just can’t help herself. She just had to take a shot at me for exposing some of the financial corruption and poor decisions in the NRA and take some jabs at my dead father in the process. Don McDougal also wants to incorrectly frame my criticism of NRA executives as “hating on the organization.”
Let’s get one thing straight. I couldn’t agree more with the title of Mrs. Hammer’s column. NRA absolutely needs strong, proven leadership, now more than ever. Where we differ is that Marion thinks that Wayne LaPierre represents that “proven leadership,” and I think he’s at the core of the problem.
Of course, when the facts aren’t on your side, go for personal attacks.
It doesn’t matter whether my father had ambitions to take over the NRA or not. I happen to know that he didn’t, but that’s irrelevant, just as it’s irrelevant whether I’m motivated by a 20-some-year old grudge, or whether Marion or Wayne or others at NRA have accomplished some things to be proud of. What matters is relevant facts. Facts that I laid out pretty clearly, and which Mrs. Hammer and Mr. McDougal didn’t bother to address.
I agree with Marion and Don that the NRA has done a lot of outstanding work over the years, and I’m proud to say that my father and many close friends played significant roles in much of that good work.
I’ve never said that the NRA hasn’t done good, and have argued consistently that it is critical that we have a strong and effective NRA with as many members as we can get.
Unlike Marion and Don though, I am willing to recognize when NRA leaders make missteps and mistakes, and when those failures demonstrate an ongoing pattern, they need to be addressed. I’m also not willing to turn a blind eye to blatant corruption and self-serving.
Let’s go over some of the pertinent facts again:
According to NRA’s tax filings, Wayne LaPierre is receiving annual compensation more than $1.4 million per year, and in 2015 received over $5 million dollars from NRA.
The same filings report that Chris Cox received over $1.2 million in compensation in 2017, and at least nine other NRA executives received compensation that was between $450,000 and $800,000 that year.
Josh Powell, Wayne’s Chief of Staff and for a time, former acting ED of General Operations [he has been replaced by Joe DeBergalis], received almost $800,000, including over $100,000 in “taxable expense reimbursement.”
And even though the IRS form 990 reports payments to the advertising and PR firm Ackerman McQueen more than $20 million as I reported, later in that same filing document, it states that Ack-Mac actually received more than twice that much – over $40 million!
I will accept a correction from Mrs. Hammer on one point: I incorrectly reported that some NRA staff had been laid off, when in fact they were not NRA staffers, but rather Ack-Mac staffers working for NRA TV, which raises another issue. Did you know that NRA TV is operated by Ack-Mac, as is the NRA magazine America’s First Freedom? Editor Mark Chestnut and familiar NRA TV personalities like Cam Edwards, Ginny Simone, Dana Loesch, etc., are Ack-Mac employees, not NRA employees. Long-time NRA Board member Robert K. Brown bragged in his last reelection bio that he had saved the association something like a half-million dollars. The bulk of that savings came from his insistence that NRA quit paying Ack-Mac over $400,000 a year for the production of the online version of America’s First Freedom. As a magazine publisher himself, Brown knew NRA was paying way too much.
Marion also reiterated that Wayne and Chris had called for bump-stocks to be “regulated,” not banned. That’s true, and it was a huge mistake that led directly to the ban. I predicted this result when I called them out for that idiotic statement at the time and called for the Board to repudiate the statement – but Marion jumped to their defense. As I pointed out then, if Wayne and Chris had said that the NRA was open to revisiting the regulations regarding bump-stocks, that might have been excusable as a political maneuver to help dodge negative action in Congress. Though you have to wonder why congressional action was such a concern, when our Republican “friends” held majorities in both houses and the White House. Instead, Wayne and Chris said that the “NRA believes” that bump-stocks should be more tightly regulated, and President Trump quickly agreed and gave the order to BATFE.
Wayne and Chris have taken a similarly destructive and unprincipled position on Extreme Risk Protection Orders, merely insisting that some semblance of due process be included in the laws in order to get approval from NRA. This has given a green light to Trump and numerous Republican governors to pursue ERPO legislation. Legistlation to deprive gun owners of their arms based on someone’s concern that they might be dangerous, while leaving these potentially dangerous people free to roam the streets with ready access to knives, gasoline, poisons, planes, automobiles, and all manner of other dangerous and possibly deadly tools. Not only does this result in Republican “friends” doing stupid things that push GunVoters away from them, at least one person flagged by one of these ERPO’s has been killed by police trying to confiscate his guns. Have any lives been saved?
It is also a fact that NRA was over $30 million in the red in 2017, and had an almost $50 million deficit in its pension fund. These deficits aren’t due to lack of revenue, but rather irresponsible spending.
In short, Marion Hammer and Don McDougal are saying that since NRA has accomplished some good things during Wayne LaPierre’s 30 years at the helm, the members and the Board of Directors should be unconcerned about a $30 million deficit, profligate spending, cronyism, and obscene salaries. Nor should they be concerned about the failure of NRA leadership to adhere to the core principles of the Second Amendment, or to ensure that all operations are above reproach and squeaky clean. And we shouldn’t be at all worried about an outside vendor owning and controlling major segments of NRA operations, and making tens of millions of dollars in profit from our association.
I respectfully disagree.
I believe that principles matter, even when they are politically challenging. That giving our enemies ammunition by being careless about our business is inexcusable. And that the NRA should be controlled by a board of directors elected by the membership in fair and open elections, without interference from outside vendors or others with a financial stake in our leadership. I also believe that those who work for the NRA, especially in the higher echelons, should be motivated first by their dedication to the Second Amendment and the safe enjoyment of the shooting sports, not by monetary factors. That’s why I believe that Wayne LaPierre, with his waffling, wheedle words, outrageous salary, and cozy relationship to Ackerman McQueen, needs to go, and that the NRA needs a strong, committed, Second Amendment purist with a solid corporate management background, to lead the organization going forward.
This isn’t personal, and it’s not politics. It’s not about “tearing down” the NRA or building up any other organization. This is about principles, right and wrong, and what’s best for the NRA, gun owners, and America.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
We can not become so complacent that we focus only on the gun control push on the federal level we forget about the skunks pushing gun control in our backyards.
There isn’t just one gun control fight. There are hundreds.
In addition to the federal level, we have fifty states where gun control is likely to pop up at any given time, plus dozens of cities where some idiot is likely to decide that they need gun control because some jackwagon did something. In other words, there’s a lot of ground to cover.
The bills are part of an ongoing effort led by DFL lawmakers to expand criminal background checks for all gun sales — closing a “loophole” where buyers can obtain firearms through private sales without a check. A second House proposal would enact a “red flag” law that would allow law enforcement or relatives to petition to take guns away from someone suspected of posing a threat to themselves or others. Similar measures are being prepared in the Senate.
In announcing the new House proposals, Hortman singled out Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee, as one of several Republican state senators up for re-election in 2020 in suburban districts where one or more Democratic challengers unseated a Republican.
But some Republicans and gun rights advocates remain skeptical as to how much gun issues motivated voters during the 2018 midterms, saying that President Donald Trump’s unpopularity and other issues like immigration and health care were more decisive. Activists also point out that several incumbent Republican lawmakers who either signed onto or entertained backing gun control bills still lost their re-election bids in 2018.
Still, Limmer, from whose committee any new Senate bills on gun regulation would need to pass, acknowledged in a recent statement that “gun safety will continue to be a topic of discussion at the Capitol next session.”
“Last year, those conversations led to a significant investment in school safety that I’m very proud of, and I think there will be interest in doing more for schools this year,” Limmer said. “With divided government, any new solutions will need to have wide bipartisan support to be seriously considered.”
Gun rights activists are also digging in and are ready for a fight.
It’s funny that a universal background check system is such a priority since even liberal website Vox agrees that they’re useless. The fact that they’re pushing for this despite their side coming to terms with the fact that this doesn’t work is telling. It tells us that they don’t actually care about safety, but about adding layers of restrictions.
The other item on their agenda, a red flag law, is one of those things that I’m sorry to say will likely happen. They poll well, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pushing for one at the federal level will give them some degree of political cover for voting in favor of one. The truth is, we don’t want crazy people running around with guns. Yes, even someone like me who opposes these laws. Unfortunately for everyone, politicians poorly construct these red flag laws so that they provide almost no due process protection and are just as likely to be used to punish someone as they are to be used on someone who is a threat to themselves or others.
But that’s the fight that’s taking place in Minnesota, so we all need to dig in. These measures need to be stopped cold, and the idea that it’s not our state needs to die. Gun control measures are rarely confined to the arbitrary lines on a map. They spread out like a virus unless they’re stomped flat.
Minnesota is just as good a place as any for a good stomping.