Latest SAF ALERTS...This thread is for your information only; no comments/replies, please.

Discussion in 'Activism' started by old lady new shooter, Apr 18, 2021.

  1. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    in response to Biden's announcement of planned "gun control" actions:

    SAF WARNS BIDEN ADMIN: ‘STEP OVER YOUR LEGAL AUTHORITY, WE’LL SUE’
    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today warned the Biden Administration that if it steps over its legal authority with any executive action or order regarding the constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms, legal action is a certainty.

    President Joe Biden has announced what an administration official calls “an initial set of actions” on gun control that include both executive and legislative action. His proposals will cover so-called “ghost guns,” a proposed national “red flag” law and incentives to the states to adopt similar state-level measures and change the designation of stabilizing braces, which are used by many shooters on AR15-type semiautomatic pistols.

    “The devil will be in the details,” acknowledged SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Our legal team will review them and we are prepared to file suit if Biden and his administration steps over their legal authority.”

    Gottlieb recalled that Biden has been an ardent gun control advocate during his entire career on Capitol Hill. He included gun control as a major component of his presidential campaign last year, and published reports say he has met with representatives from gun prohibition advocacy groups since taking office.

    “Nobody from the Biden administration has reached out to us or any other rights organization to my knowledge, which certainly clarifies Biden’s approach to firearms regulation,” Gottlieb said. “He came into office talking about unity, but he just declared war on tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners who have committed no crimes.”

    Biden’s nomination of David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is another alarming development, Gottlieb said. The nomination requires Senate confirmation.

    “Joe Biden just nominated a man now working for the Giffords gun control lobbying group to head the agency responsible for gun law enforcement,” Gottlieb observed. “That’s not just a bad signal to gun owners. The president has essentially raised the black flag, and we see nothing positive for American gun owners or the firearms industry.”
     
  2. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    March 22nd:

    SAF, PARTNERS CHALLENGE NJ GUNLAWS WITH FEDERAL LAWSUIT

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s restrictive gun laws, alleging in a 28-page complaint that “New Jersey laws…unconstitutionally restrict the acquisition of firearms.”

    SAF is joined by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Bob’s Little Sport Shop, Inc., and three private citizens. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and Joseph O. Masterman at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., Daniel L. Schmutter at Hartman & Winnicki, P.C. in Ridgewood, N.J. and David D. Jensen at David Jensen & Associates, Beacon, N.Y.

    The lawsuit is known as Kendrick v. Grewal.

    Named as defendants in the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, are New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal, State Police Supt. Patrick J. Callahan, Bridgeton Police Chief Michael Giamari, Harrison Township Police Chief Ronald A. Cundey and Glassboro Police Chief John Polillo, in their official capacities.

    “This legal action has been a long time coming, ever since Carol Bowne of Berlin Township was murdered in her own driveway in 2015 while waiting for her firearm permit to be processed,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The hoops one must go through and waits one must endure, plus the fees attached has resulted in a complicated process that delays approval far beyond what existing state law allows.

    “As we note in our lawsuit,” he continued, “such restrictions on firearm acquisition are unconstitutional on their face. No Garden State resident should be subjected to this kind of bureaucratic harassment. The idea that a law-abiding citizen must first obtain government permission before exercising a constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right is simply hostile to the right to keep and bear arms.”

    SAF and its partners are asking the court to declare the provisions of current New Jersey statutes requiring citizens to obtain an identification card or permit in order to acquire a firearm are unconstitutional. They want an injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing those provisions and any related laws or regulations.




    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
    RetiredUSNChief, Olon and bikerdoc like this.
  3. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    March 24th:

    GUN RIGHTS GROUPS MOBILIZE TO FIGHT BIDEN AND Democrats

    BELLEVUE, WA – Two national gun rights organizations are mobilizing to fight back against threats from the Joe Biden administration and Capitol Hill Democrats to impose extremist gun control measures in the wake of two tragic shootings that would not have been prevented by any of the restrictions now being proposed.

    The Second Amendment Foundation and its sister organization, the grassroots Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms announced today they are amping up their respective national TV campaigns next week on more than 20 national networks. The 60-second messages will appear on Fox News, One America News Network, Dish TV, Inspiration Channel, Fox Business, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The Weather Channel, Headline News, Bloomberg, BBC America, Destination America, Investigation Discovery, American Heroes Channel, SYFY, TLC, TruTV, DirecTV, Sportsman Channel and the Outdoor Channel.

    SAF is resuming its highly successful “2A First Defenders” campaign after a brief hiatus, while CCRKBA is adding a fifth week to its popular “SAVE2A.US” advertising effort.

    “Between the two organizations, their messages will be aired a record 87 times next week,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, who serves as the group’s executive vice president, and also chairs the CCRKBA. “The nation has witnessed two awful incidents over the past ten days, and now the nation’s law-abiding gun owners are being threatened with new restrictions by Biden and his anti-gun Democrat allies in Congress for crimes they didn’t commit. Both murderers passed background checks, which proves gun control is not the answer.

    “Both suspects are facing multiple murder charges,” he added, “and they will be held responsible for those crimes if they are convicted. But American gun owners are tired of being penalized for things they didn’t do, and our TV campaigns are mobilizing them to fight back. We are not going to stand by while Biden and his gun-grabbing cronies dismantle the Second Amendment. They’re pushing and we’re pushing back.

    “These national TV campaign efforts will reach between 17 million and 20 million Americans, some multiple times,” Gottlieb estimated.

    Gun owners can find out about each effort via text messaging, Gottlieb said.

    To learn more about the CCRKBA’s effort, text “SAVE2A” to 474747 or go to “SAVE2A.Org.”

    For more details on the “2A First Defenders” project, text “Protect 2A” to 474747.




    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
    DoubleMag and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  4. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    March 29th:

    SCOTUS DENIES REVIEW TO NJ AG IN SAF-DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED CASE

    BELLEVUE, WA – The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition for certiorari from New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal in his effort to escape the jurisdiction of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the ongoing First Amendment case brought by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation.

    The Fifth Circuit had ruled unanimously that Grewal, because of his efforts to prevent distribution of materials related to the 3D printing of firearms, was subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas courts. Defense Distributed is headquartered in Texas.

    “It’s not every day you beat a state attorney general at the Supreme Court,” observed SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “especially when he had been supported by other anti-gun state attorneys general from New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, and the District of Columbia. This is a huge victory.”

    The Defense Distributed case has always been about the First Amendment, Gottlieb observed. He recalled how Grewal had moved to dismiss the SAF/Defense Distributed lawsuit filed in the Western District of Texas “for lack of personal jurisdiction.” But the Fifth Circuit appellate ruling placed Grewal’s efforts squarely under that circuit’s jurisdiction and the SCOTUS allowed that to stand.

    “Anti-gun attorneys general need to be held accountable for threatening gun owners and the firearms industry,” Gottlieb stated, “and that includes efforts to prevent distribution of information relating to 3D printing. Grewal tried to enjoin national distribution of Defense Distributed’s files on the Internet.

    “This is one of several cases against the State of New Jersey and Grewal in which SAF is involved,” he continued. “We’re also suing the state, with several other parties, over the state’s capricious carry laws and gun purchase permitting process.”

    The next move in the SAF-Defense Distributed case is their injunction request at the Federal District court, where plaintiffs will pursue their injunction request.




    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
    DoubleMag and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  5. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    April 14th:

    SAF HIRES LEE WILLIAMS, THE ‘GUN WRITER,’ TO LEAD INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today announced that award-winning investigative reporter and editor Lee Williams has been chosen to serve as chief editor of SAF’s Investigative Journalism Project.

    “Lee has unique skills as an editor, investigative reporter and as a guardian of the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is exactly the combination we were looking for to launch this project, which is more vital now than ever before.”

    The mission of the Investigative Journalism Project is to showcase under-reported stories and debunk misinformation from opponents of the right to keep and bear arms in daily reporting, investigations, analysis, and commentary on the policy, politics, culture, and business of guns in America.

    Williams, who is also known as the Gun Writer, has been writing about the Second Amendment, firearms, the firearms industry and the gun culture for more than 10 years.

    Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Williams was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he served as a police officer and in the Army.

    He has earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop.

    “I am humbled and thrilled to be joining the Second Amendment Foundation, which plays such a crucial role in safeguarding our gun rights,” Williams said. “I look forward to helping the SAF continue its vital mission.”

    The SAF envisions its Investigative Reporting Project will create a network of national correspondents, who will help safeguard Second Amendment rights.

    Resumes, news tips and story ideas can be submitted to [email protected]




    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
  6. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    April 15th:

    NEW McLAUGHLIN POLL SHOWS MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR 2A, FOCUS ON CURRENT LAWS

    BELLEVUE, WA – A new survey by McLaughlin & Associates, a nationally-recognized polling firm based in Blauvelt, N.Y., shows overwhelming public support for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and a clear majority belief that more gun control laws would not have prevented recent mass shootings in Georgia and Colorado.

    According to Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, the new McLaughlin data shows how out-of-touch extremist gun control proponents are with public sentiment on gun rights and how to address violent crime. The survey may be read here.

    “Based on these survey results, anti-gunners, including Joe Biden, should cool their zeal for passing new legislation,” Gottlieb observed. “Over 72 percent of Americans support the right to keep and bear arms. Over 73 percent agree the Second Amendment is one of our most important and cherished rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. And more than 58 percent say they are likely to support a candidate for Congress who supports the right to keep and bear arms.”

    The McLaughlin survey revealed that 52.2 percent of the public thinks better enforcement of existing gun laws is the right approach to reducing violent crime, and 55.5 percent want politicians to focus on current laws rather than enact more laws (36.1%). Importantly, 58.1 percent of Americans believe any proposed firearm policies should be debated and enacted through a democratic process, while only 31 percent think the president should enact policy by executive order.

    They also believe by a margin of 44.9 percent to 37.6 percent that more gun control laws would not have stopped recent mass shooting tragedies, while 17.5 percent aren’t sure.

    SAF commissioned the survey. McLaughlin & Associates conducted the poll among 1,000 likely voters across the country April 8-13. It has a +/- 3.1 percentage point sampling error with a 95% level of confidence, according to Jim McLaughlin.

    McLaughlin told SAF, “This survey shows clearly that Americans cherish their Second Amendment right. It’s obvious. Anybody who tells you Americans don’t believe in the Second Amendment doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s also clear they do not want Joe Biden deciding gun policy on his own, but instead want this issue debated through the democratic process.”

    “As we’ve been saying for years,” Gottlieb observed, “gun control extremists have been completely wrong in their desire erase the Second Amendment and turn a right to bear arms into a heavily-regulated privilege. That notion doesn’t even square with non-gun owners, as the McLaughlin survey results confirm.

    “Americans are protective of their constitutional rights,” Gottlieb said, “and we will use these poll results to fight the attacks on gun owners happening right now on Capitol Hill and in the Oval Office.”







    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
    DoubleMag and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  7. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    April 16th:

    SAF CALLS Democrat ATTEMPT TO PACK SUPREME COURT ‘AN OUTRAGE’

    BELLEVUE, WA – The proposal by four anti-gun Capitol Hill Democrats to pack the U.S. Supreme Court by adding four positions is “an outrage” and an attempt to prevent the high court from accepting cases and handing down rulings favorable to the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

    Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, New York Congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Mondaire Jones, and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson announced the “Judiciary Act of 2021.” Nadler insisted it is not an attempt to “pack” the high court.

    But SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb responded, “That’s a lie, and they know it. Markey, Nadler and their cronies are furious that the Supreme Court now has a majority of justices who are determined to adhere to the Constitution instead of rewriting it from the bench to advance an anti-gun-rights agenda.

    “This is,” he added, “an attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald rulings affirming the individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

    Former President Donald Trump was able to fill three high court vacancies with highly-qualified Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Their ascension to the high court could open the door to review of Second Amendment cases dealing with such important subjects as the right to bear arms in public, and whether popular semi-automatic rifles—now in common use across the country—are protected by the amendment.

    “Those are gun rights issues that anti-gunners such as Markey and Nadler, and their Capitol Hill cohorts, absolutely do not want the Supreme Court to consider,” Gottlieb said. “For decades, gun prohibitionists have been fearful that good Second Amendment cases would wind up before a court populated by solid constitutionalists. Now, with the court’s present makeup, those same anti-gunners are terrified of a majority they perceive to be pro-Second Amendment and they’ve introduced this sham legislation in an effort to prevent a ruling that would favor America’s gun owners.

    “Frankly,” Gottlieb continued, “it is not simply disappointing but disgraceful that a cadre of anti-gun lawmakers would introduce such a thinly disguised scheme to turn the Supreme Court into a judicial branch of the anti-gun-rights Democratic caucus. Markey’s claim that this is an effort to repair a broken Supreme Court is preposterous. For the first time in decades, the Court is well prepared to handle important constitutional issues, and all the Democrats can think of doing is to seize the court in a legislative power grab.

    “If they proceed,” he promised, “we’ll see them—no pun intended—in court.”





    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
    DoubleMag and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  8. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    April 16th:

    SAF FILES FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO RESTRICTIVE PENNSYLVANIA CARRY LAW

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging that state’s “laws, regulations, policies, and enforcement practices” relating to the rights of citizens wanting to bear loaded handguns outside the home, and the case involves two plaintiffs whose rights SAF was instrumental in restoring in a previous federal case.

    Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition and individual citizens Julio Suarez, Daniel Binderup and Daniel Miller. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince of Bechtelsville, Penn., and Adam Kraut of Sacramento, Calif. Named as the defendant is Col. Robert Evanchick, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, in his official capacity. The case is known as Suarez v. Evanchick, and was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

    “SAF is delighted to once again be helping Julio Suarez and Daniel Binderup,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re proud to have helped these men restore their Second Amendment rights in court a few years ago, and this time we’re joined by our friends at FPC and Mr. Miller.

    “As we say in the lawsuit,” he continued, “their rights to bear arms outside the home are being thwarted because of the state’s oppressive criminal statutes and a licensing system that has been closed under a declared emergency since 2018.”

    The 64-page complaint notes, “State and local governments, whether legislatively or by executive decree, cannot simply suspend the Constitution. Authorities may not, by decree or otherwise, enact and/or enforce a suspension or deprivation of constitutional liberties.”

    “We’re asking the federal court to permanently restrain and enjoin the state from enforcing the laws that created this situation, and we are also asking the court for a summary judgment,” Gottlieb said. “No state or agency should be able to deny the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right under color of state law. We’re confident the court will quickly recognize this problem and correct it.”






    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
    DoubleMag and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  9. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    4/22/21:

    SILENCER SHOP BECOMES GOLD SPONSOR FOR SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION

    BELLEVUE, WA – Silencer Shop of Austin, Texas has joined the Second Amendment Foundation’s “Corporate Sponsorship Program” as a Gold Level supporter for 2021.

    “It’s a great honor for us to have Silencer Shop’s support,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The enthusiasm for our work from Silencer Shop CEO Dave Matheny is very gratifying, and I’m taking this opportunity to thank him publicly for his generous support. We look forward to working with him this year and in the years ahead.”

    “The Second Amendment Foundation has played a critical role in protecting our firearm rights – and Silencer Shop is proud to be a partner and supporter of this effort,” Silencer Shop CEO Matheny stated.

    Considering all that has happened since January, Gottlieb noted that the entire firearms community from consumers to manufacturers is facing a daunting challenge. He vowed that SAF will be continuing in its leading role as a defender of the Second Amendment through education and litigation across the nation as it has done for more than four decades.

    “SAF has been in the front line trenches, fighting legal battles all over the map,” Gottlieb observed. “We’ve been able to achieve some significant legal victories, and the support we’ve received from our corporate sponsors has played a huge role in making it possible.

    “We’re facing a new administration that has already announced what it calls ‘initial actions’ and battle lines are being clearly drawn,” he added. “The support we are receiving from corporate sponsors including the Silencer Shop cannot be over-stated. We are at a critical moment, and Dave Matheny and his crew are right there with us, and for that we will be forever grateful.”

    SAF has been challenging restrictive gun control laws in state and federal courts for more than 40 years. The landmark 2010 Supreme Court case of McDonald v. City of Chicago that nullified Chicago’s 30-year-old handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment was a SAF case.
     
    DoubleMag and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  10. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    63,281
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    SAF HAILS HIGH COURT ACCEPTANCE OF NEW YORK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE
    The Second Amendment Foundation today is hailing the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Second Amendment right-to-carry case challenging New York State’s restrictive gun control law, declaring that a favorable ruling in this case will almost certainly impact challenges to similar laws in other states, which SAF and others are contesting.

    The case is known as NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. It is the first time in more than a decade the high court has accepted a Second Amendment case for review since the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which was a SAF case decided in June 2010.

    “This case was made possible by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF’s victory in that case built the foundation for this and other lawsuits against states and localities to be heard by the Supreme Court to protect and expand gun rights, and we are proud of that.”

    Gottlieb said it is certain the current makeup of the high court has opened this important door. With the addition last year of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court now has a majority of constitutional jurists who will no longer treat the Second Amendment as “a constitutional orphan,” as once observed by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

    “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to not only keep arms, but to bear them,” Gottlieb observed. “SAF has several right-to-carry cases filed which include challenges to restrictive laws in New Jersey, Maryland and New York City. A favorable ruling in this case will almost certainly impact those and other cases.

    “The entire gun rights community has waited for many years for this news,” he added. “A right that exists only in one’s home is not a right at all. We do not limit the right of free speech, or freedom of the press, or the practice of one’s religion, or the right to legal counsel just to someone’s residence. And ultimately, that’s what we’re talking about, constitutionally-protected fundamental rights.”
     
  11. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    63,281
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg
    A Letter From Your Editor

    Welcome, friends, to what is the most important undertaking of our lives.
    We’re at war, you see, an information war – or in this case a misinformation war – is being waged against our gun community and our gun culture.

    The anti-gunners have resources that the pro-gun community does not, namely billions of dollars, a growing list of corporate supporters, the President and his administration, Congress and the mainstream media, which will parrot whatever the gun prohibitionists want regardless of whether it’s true or false.

    If the anti-gunners win this misinformation war, game over.

    We can already see examples of what’s happened after the first few skirmishes. As they continue to demonize America’s most popular rifle, more states are considering banning ARs and standard-capacity magazines. Home-build kits may soon be outlawed, and there’s a good chance pistol braces will be banned too.

    I like my ARs. I won’t ever give them up.

    When you compare our resources to the team the anti-gunners can put on the field, it can be a bit daunting, right?

    Wrong.

    We can win this.

    How, you ask?

    By going guerilla – by building a vast, grassroots guerilla army.

    It’s a proven tactic oppressed people have used for thousands of years when they’ve been confronted by a larger force that they cannot engage through conventional means.

    We’re going to create a vast army of Second Amendment supporters – Mr. Gottlieb’s original intent with this project. It’s the only way we can truly compete against their anti-gun messages and the power of the mainstream media.

    Our mission is to showcase under-reported stories and debunk misinformation from opponents of the right to keep and bear arms, through daily reporting, investigations, analysis, and commentary on the policy, politics, culture, and business of guns in America.

    However, this is definitely something we can’t do alone. We need your help. We need your eyes and ears out there, reporting the other side’s lies and shenanigans to us so they can be exposed.

    Reporting their fake news is simple.

    You can send tips to me at [email protected]

    Or, if you prefer, please feel free to give me a call.

    My cell is 941-284-8553, and my phone is always on.

    Please think of me as your pro-gun journalist.

    Together, we will expose their anti-gun lies. That’s a promise.

    There are other ways you can help.

    Once our stories are published, please share them on your social media. It’s high time that our side starts using social media more effectively anyway. The anti-gunners weaponized Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms against us years ago, and all we did was complain. If we want to win, we need to use their own tactics against them.

    If you’re able to support us financially, that, too, is appreciated. Please be assured the money will be put to good use, and we know how to stretch a dollar.
    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.

    In addition to an army of tipsters, we envision that the Investigative Reporting Project will create a network of national correspondents, who will help safeguard Second Amendment rights. If you’re a writer and want to help out, please call me. I need your help.

    For me, this misinformation war is personal, folks. It affects my lifestyle and how I choose to safeguard my family.

    Besides, I’ve seen firsthand how the media makes editorial decisions when a story involves guns. To put it bluntly, they never let the facts get in the way of an anti-gun story that furthers their anti-gun narrative.

    Take a look around at the state of our gun culture: ammo has tripled in price if you can find it, as have defensive handguns and ARs. The media is prattling on 24-7 about the need to do something about “gun violence,” and we’ve got a President who wants to “buy back” our rifles, which he never owned in the first place.

    If that is unacceptable to you, please join us and start fighting back!

    I hope to hear from you.

    Thanks,

    Lee

    Lee Williams is the Chief Editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative reporting Project. He can be contacted at [email protected] or on his cell phone at 941-284-8553.
    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
  12. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    FED. JUDGE RULES CAL’S ‘3-TO-1’ HANDGUN LAW PROVISION MAY VIOLATE 2A

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is applauding a ruling by a federal judge in Southern California that a provision in the state’s new handgun roster law, requiring the removal of three handguns already on the roster that can be sold, to make room for each new handgun added to the list may violate the Second Amendment.

    The ruling by U.S. District Chief Judge Dana Sabraw, is a slap at California’s law, which took effect Jan. 1 of this year. The lawsuit was brought by SAF, the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition and a private citizen, Lana Rae Renna, for whom the case Renna v. Becerra is named. They sued California in November. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Raymond DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. and Michael Sousa of San Diego.

    In his 15-page ruling, Judge Sabraw, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that plaintiffs “have sufficiently pled the UHA (“Unsafe Handgun Act”) substantially impacts their Second Amendment rights and thus burdens conduct protected by the Amendment.”

    The judge also observed that the defendants offered “no justification for why the statute requires the removal of three handguns for each new handgun added (to the roster), instead of, for instance, a proportional one-to-one.”

    He also noted, “Plaintiffs allege the UHA’s roster imposes a significant burden on their Second Amendment rights. Specifically, the (complaint) alleges the number of handguns available for purchase on the roster continues to decline and ultimately will ‘shrink into oblivion’ as handguns are removed from the roster, including by AB 2847’s three-for-one provision. Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, this limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms, which is critical to ensuring the Second Amendment right to keep arms.”

    “This case shows California’s amended handgun law seems ultimately designed to shrink the available number of approved handguns to virtually zero,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Judge Sabraw appears to recognize this unconstitutional dilemma near the end of his opinion.”






    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
  13. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    NINTH CIRCUIT VACATES INJUNCTION IN 3-D PRINTING CASE, TELLS LOWER COURT TO DISMISS

    The Second Amendment Foundation is applauding the Ninth U.S. District Court of Appeals for its decision to vacate an injunction obtained earlier in a lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general and the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, against an agreement between the State and Commerce departments and SAF and Defense Distributed allowing them to post data relating to 3-D printing of firearms on the Internet. The case is known as State of Washington v. U.S. Department of State.

    “This is a humongous loss for anti-gun Democrat State Attorneys General,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They consistently attack Second Amendment rights any way they can.

    “This legal debacle was led by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson,” he continued, “who became famous for suing the Trump administration in a series of partisan legal actions that cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

    “SAF and Defense Distributed look forward to sharing technical firearms information with millions of interested people on the Internet,” Gottlieb added.

    The Ninth Circuit panel remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to dismiss.

    “I want to thank the National Shooting Sports Foundation for intervening at the Appeals Court level,” Gottlieb said. “Obviously, the intent of the lawsuit was to void the agreement State had with SAF and Defense Distributed via a final rule that would remove 3-D printed guns and files from the U.S. Munitions list regulated by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). SAF and Defense Distributed were not named in the lawsuit to avoid this becoming a First Amendment case. As interested parties, we tried to get the trial judge to realize this was about our First Amendment rights to exercise our Second Amendment rights, because we were convinced we would have won on that basis.”

    Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson noted, “Because both the DOS and Commerce Final Rules are unreviewable, the States have not demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on the merits…Congress expressly barred judicial review of designations and undesignations of defense articles under the Control Act and of any functions exercised under the Reform Act. Accordingly, the district court erred in reviewing the DOS and Commerce Final Rules, and its injunction is therefore contrary to law.”
     
  14. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    Editorial: Another anti-gun Englishman denounces our Second Amendment rights and the Second Amendment Foundation

    OPINION


    Sir Max Hugh Macdonald Hastings is one of the preeminent British journalists and military historians.

    As a foreign correspondent for the BBC, he covered 11 wars and reported from more than 60 countries.

    In 1982, Hastings was the first reporter to enter Port Stanley, after the British military kicked out the Argentinians and liberated the Falkland Islands.

    Hastings was knighted in 2002 for his “services to journalism.”

    He has written more than 25 books – mostly about military history. I have a couple on my bookshelf. They’re very good. I highly recommend Yoni: Hero of Entebbe: Life of Yonathan Netanyahu (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980). It’s a great read.

    That said, Hastings doesn’t know a damn thing about Americans, our gun culture or our Second Amendment rights.

    Nowadays, Hastings writes two columns a month for Bloomberg Opinion. I assume you’re familiar with the political views of its owner.

    Hastings’ latest column is titled: “I Grew Up on Guns. Now I've Learned to Love Firearm Control: Viewed from the U.K., the American love of weapons is completely understandable, and completely irresponsible.

    The column reinforces two points: the British will never understand us, our gun culture or the Second Amendment, and who cares what the British think.

    Like legions of anti-gun writers before him, Sir Max tries to establish his gun bona fides by telling his readers that he grew up with guns.
    Evidently, Hasting’s father brought back a couple souvenirs from the Second World War: a Luger, a Mauser, a Radom and what he refers to in his column as a “Schmeisser submachine gun.” (It’s an MP-40, Sir Max. Hugo Schmeisser had nothing to do with this weapon except for holding a patent on the magazine.)

    His father, Hastings claims, turned in all of the firearms during one of several amnesties the British government used to disarm its citizens.

    “I recite this personal history before considering the latest appalling U.S. massacres in Atlanta, Colorado, Indianapolis and elsewhere. It is intended to dispel the common response of American enthusiasts to the rest of the world’s horror: ‘Foreigners don’t understand guns,’” he wrote.

    I’m sorry, Sir Max, but my “common response” is pretty far from dispelled.

    Growing up with a couple bring-backs doesn’t make you a gun guy, just like growing up with my dad’s old guitar doesn’t make me Eddie Van Halen.

    Hastings claimed that he first objected to mass weapons confiscations in Britain and Australia along Libertarian grounds.

    “I have since changed my mind,” he wrote. “I have come to believe that widespread firearms ownership is a pollutant; that we are a better, much safer society without handguns.”

    A pollutant?

    Really?

    But it gets worse.

    “My resistance to private ownership of military weapons is strengthened by close acquaintance with them. I once won a prize as a member of a British Parachute Regiment team, shooting with automatic rifle, submachine gun and light-machine gun. I know how terrifyingly easy it is for a man or woman — though it is always men — with a gun in their hands to touch a trigger and broadcast devastation and death,” he wrote.

    On this side of the pond, sir, we’re well acquainted with the I’ve-been-in-the-Army-so-I-understand-guns fallacy. It falls short both here and over there.

    “Everybody who studies U.S. experience knows that legally held firearms are almost never successfully used by civilians, either to prevent a crime or to frustrate a mass shooting,” Sir Max opined. “The more extreme U.S. gun lobbyists insist that the best response to gun massacres is to arm more people, including schoolteachers, to defend themselves. There is no shred of evidence, nor credible speculation, to justify such a claim.”

    No shred of evidence?

    That, Sir Max, is an outright lie.

    Just because the mainstream media chooses not to cover the thousands of defensive gun usages that occur in this country every single year doesn’t mean they don’t occur or that there isn’t any evidence.

    Defensive gun uses happen all the time, but you need to look for them, since the media has decided that these stories aren’t worthy of any ink or pixels.

    I have saved the best for last: “Most people seem to accept the enthusiasm of rural Americans for owning sporting guns as an assertion of the frontier spirit, which is in some measure shared by foreign sportsmen like me. Yet assault rifles, such as so many self-proclaimed militiamen now boast, have no application for practicing target skills or killing deer.”

    There is no better way for anyone – especially a Brit – to prove their ignorance of our gun culture and our God-given Second Amendment rights than by bringing up hunting – especially deer hunting.



    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.

    Give the Second Amendment a read, Sir Max, a thorough read. You’ll see there’s nothing about hunting. There is, however, a bit about the security of a free state. That means tyranny, sir, which we still won’t allow over here. Perhaps you’ve heard about the dustup that occurred the last time some Englishmen tried to regulate our private gun ownership.

    As to Hastings’ claim that ARs “have no application for practicing target skills” – that’s so incredibly ignorant it’s difficult to respond. There are millions of Americans who practice their “target skills” with ARs every single day, myself included. In fact, if you go to the range – any range – you’ll see more people shooting ARs than anything else. It’s the most popular firearm in the country – it’s America’s Rifle. I cannot even comprehend the level of ignorance it takes to not understand this.

    However, Hastings’ ignorance knows no bounds.

    “The Second Amendment Foundation, a firearms lobby, recently denounced President Joe Biden’s proposal for new restrictions as signifying that he has “declared war on tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners.”

    To be clear, I do not speak on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation. That’s Mr. Gottlieb’s job. However, as a proud life member of the organization, I agree 100% that President Biden has declared war on gun owners. Why else would he have nominated an anti-gun activist to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

    Why else would the President have threatened door-to-door confiscations?

    Why else would he even consider using the National Firearms Act to regulate the most-popular rifle in the country and its standard-capacity magazines.

    We are at war, Sir Max.

    Instead of denigrating a country and its people who you clearly know very little about, I’d recommend you drop immediately to your knees and thank God we have a solid gun culture over here, because if we didn’t, you’d likely have written your ignorant collection of lies and falsehoods in German.

    In addition to an army of tipsters, we envision that the Investigative Reporting Project will create a network of national correspondents, who will help safeguard Second Amendment rights. If you’re a writer and want to help out, please call me. I need your help.

    For me, this misinformation war is personal, folks. It affects my lifestyle and how I choose to safeguard my family.

    Besides, I’ve seen firsthand how the media makes editorial decisions when a story involves guns. To put it bluntly, they never let the facts get in the way of an anti-gun story that furthers their anti-gun narrative.

    Take a look around at the state of our gun culture: ammo has tripled in price if you can find it, as have defensive handguns and ARs. The media is prattling on 24-7 about the need to do something about “gun violence,” and we’ve got a President who wants to “buy back” our rifles, which he never owned in the first place.

    If that is unacceptable to you, please join us and start fighting back!

    I hope to hear from you.

    Thanks,

    Lee

    Lee Williams is the Chief Editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative reporting Project. He can be contacted at [email protected] or on his cell phone at 941-284-8553.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and JTHunter like this.
  15. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    The number of states, counties and cities declaring themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries is skyrocketing.

    by Lee Williams

    There are few stories the mainstream media enjoys more than “trend” stories.Whether it’s plant-based fake meat, live-streamed workouts, celebrity podcasts or Tic-Toc and other new apps, the media revels in reporting the latest trends that are sweeping the country – at least most of the time.

    However, if the trend involves guns or the Constitution – especially the Second Amendment – don’t look for stories anytime soon, even if it’s a viral national trend.

    The mainstream media has missed one of the biggest trend stories ever – the massive surge in Second Amendment Sanctuaries at the state, county and local level.

    As it stands now, more than 46% of all counties in the United States have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, according to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com and its companion site constitutionalsanctuaries.com.

    Davis has been tracking the movement since its inception – tallying the growing numbers every single day.

    “There are 1,459 Second Amendment Sanctuary counties, out of a total of 3,144 counties, but I’m still tallying them right now,” Davis told me Wednesday. “I’ve got a bit of a backlog. I’m working on updating my national map, but they’re happening so fast, and I’m just one person in Virginia.”

    The 1,459 includes counties located in the 10 states that have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, he explained.

    Davis, too, has seen little interest and major errors in the media’s coverage of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement.

    “There have been people writing about it, but most refer to an article that was published in the Trace more than a year ago,” he said. “That story indicated there were only 400 Second Amendment Sanctuary counties, but that number is completely out of date.

    “This is frustrating to me,” he said.

    Davis explained that he was not politically active until the Democrats took control of the Virginia state government.

    “They started proposing laws that would have made many Virginians like myself felons overnight,” he said. “I started looking for ways to fight back.”

    Within a few months, he said, more than 95% of Virginia’s counties had declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, and then the movement was copied in Kentucky and Michigan.

    “After that it just took off,” he said.

    As the movement grew, Facebook intervened. Second Amendment Sanctuary groups with hundreds of thousands of members were shuttered by Facebook in Michigan, Georgia and elsewhere.

    “They realized we were being too effective,” Davis said.

    Davis’ numbers are staggering.

    You’d be hard-pressed to get half of America to agree that beer is good, or that steak should be served medium rare. Yet millions of Americans have forced their elected officials to erect a legislative wall around their communities to protect their gun rights.
    Despite the skyrocketing trend, stories about the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement are scarce, unless they’re anti-gun.

    Vice news recently wrote a hit piece about the Sanctuary movement: “These ‘Gun Sanctuary States’ Want to Destroy Biden’s Gun Control Plans.”

    But even Vice couldn’t conceal the effectiveness of the movement.

    “In the month of April alone, six states—Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—became so-called gun sanctuaries. But the specifics of the bills range widely, from political grandstanding, to having the potential to trigger a nasty constitutional showdown,” Vice reported. “At least seven more states, including Texas, have meanwhile introduced legislation proposing Second Amendment sanctuary protections. Four states—Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, and Wyoming—passed gun protection laws during the Obama administration.”

    Language

    Most Second Amendment Sanctuary bills are simple. They declare that the municipal, county or state government simply won’t recognize or enforce any federal law that infringes upon the Second Amendment.

    Many of these laws bar local officials from participating in any federal enforcement. Some add civil and criminal penalties.

    A few would criminalize the actions of federal agents if they try to enforce federal gun laws, but many say this is a step too far, as it could spark costly lawsuits from the U.S. Justice Department.

    Pushback

    While some gun control proponents have spoken out against the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, they have not been as vocal as they have about other advances in gun rights.

    The Giffords director of litigation Hannah Shearer told Vice that Sanctuary resolutions would be “confusing” for local officials, explaining that “making it a state policy to not enforce federal gun laws is going to compromise public safety and leave state and local officials confused about what they are allowed to do to help with the enforcement of federal gun laws.”

    Even though Ms. Shearer isn’t giving local officials enough credit. compared to some of her other statements, she is almost being kind,

    There has been very little of the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth over this nationwide trend from Giffords and other anti-gun groups, which could indicate they realize the scope of what they’re up against – nearly a half of the country supports the Sanctuary movement.

    Some cable TV news actors have referred to Second Amendment Sanctuaries as symbolic, in what can be seen as an attempt to downplay or trivialize the movement.

    When a half of the country supports an issue – any issue – there’s nothing symbolic about it.

    If the media needs to come up with a label for the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, call it a warning – a stern warning – for federal officials, especially the elected ones.


    The Second Amendment Foundation's Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and P5 Guy like this.
  16. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    Bias exposed: Media asks Bloomberg groups how to cover mass shootings

    Gun-control activists want reporters to pledge in writing to cover gun violence their way.

    Have you ever heard of The Trace?

    It describes itself as the “only newsroom dedicated to reporting on gun violence.”

    It has slick digital packages that are chockfull of stories, photos and videos, so it’s easy to confuse the Trace with an actual news website.

    But a news website it is not.

    The Trace was founded in 2015 by former New York City mayor and staunch gun-control advocate, Michael Bloomberg.

    The Trace operates as the propaganda arm of Bloomberg’s anti-gun empire, which includes the astro-turf (not grassroots) groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demanding Action, which the New York City billionaire also bankrolls.

    Like his other groups, the Trace advocates for more restrictive gun laws, but their message is a lot slicker than the handmade signs carried by Demanding Moms and Everytown employees.

    The Trace’s work resembles actual news stories. It was designed that way.

    As a result, the legacy media frequently cites the Trace as a legitimate news source, without disclosing that it is a gun-control propaganda factory financed by Bloomberg.

    The relationship between the Trace and the legacy media got even murkier recently, thanks to the Columbia Journalism Review – once a respected and well-regarded journalism thinktank.

    According to its website: “CJR’s mission is to be the intellectual leader in the rapidly changing world of journalism. It is the most respected voice on press criticism, and it shapes the ideas that make media leaders and journalists smarter about their work. Through its fast-turn analysis and deep reporting, CJR is an essential venue not just for journalists, but also for the thousands of professionals in communications, technology, academia, and other fields reliant on solid media industry knowledge.”

    About a month ago, CJR convened a panel discussion “from across the industry to talk about how to improve gun-violence coverage in the country.”

    “We’re here because we have a sense that the way we cover guns needs to be rewritten,” CJR Editor in Chief and Publisher Kyle Pope, who led the discussion, told the online audience.

    Pope wrote in a subsequent story that the roundtable, “included conversations with journalists from the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Trace, The Guardian and others to detail what was working, what wasn’t, and what we can do about it. For two hours, we hashed through what the news business can do to cover American gun violence like the public health crisis that it has become.”

    In addition to the Trace staffer, the discussion included a gun-control activist from the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma – a CJR affiliate, which also receives Bloomberg dollars.

    At no point during the discussion did Pope disclose to the audience or to the other attendees that the Trace and the Dart Center were both on the payroll of the country’s wealthiest gun-controller.

    Instead, Pope introduced the Trace’s west coast correspondent, Alain Stephens, by saying that “the Trace is devoted fulltime to gun coverage and understanding the root causes of how the gun industry works.”

    “They did this fantastic piece called ghost guns, which are guns that are untraceable that are now becoming a thing that people are turning to,” Pope said.
    “You live in the gun world and you watch it,” Pope said to Stephens. “I know what this is like because CJR is also a trade publication.”

    It should be noted that unlike the Trace, CJR is not committed to the destruction of the industry it covers.

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
    Pope then asked Stephens how journalists should cover mass shootings.

    To be clear – he asked an anti-gun activist to dictate national media coverage.

    “Tell me about national coverage and what people do and what people should do,” Pope asked.

    Stephens bemoaned the lack of diversity and longform investigative reporting at the local level, but admitted that at the national level, “We’re all directed towards the NRA and these mass shootings.”

    And then Dart Center’s executive director, Bruce Shapiro, revealed one of Bloomberg’s media strategies, which they hope will help alter the public’s perception about guns.

    “The only way this is going to change is if you show us the bodies,” Shapiro said. “What is it going to take to wake America up to a uniquely American public health crisis – if not the bodies, then what?”

    The pledge

    Last week, CJR released its “gun coverage commitment.” It’s a pledge the thinktank wants all working journalists to sign.

    The main points came from comments made during the panel discussion – the one that included members from the two Bloomberg groups.

    “We’re calling it the CJR Gun Violence Coverage Commitment, and we’re hoping to convince newsrooms across the country to sign on,” the press release states. “Give us your feedback, your thoughts, your concerns. Better yet, sign on to the commitment, as we seek to change the coverage of this uniquely American plague.”

    Ethical concerns

    The Society of Professional Journalists maintains a code of ethics for journalists, which was last updated in 2014.

    Every journalist knows the code. Most try to abide by it. A few don’t.

    In my humble opinion, Pope’s presentation violated a half-dozen of the code’s key principles.

    SPJ’s code of ethics states that journalists should:

    • Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
    • Label advocacy and commentary.
    • Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
    • Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
    • Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
    • Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

    My takeaways

    I find it inconceivable that any journalism organization – especially CJR – would convene a panel discussion that mixes media and activists of any kind, and then allow the activists to dictate coverage. It’s neither objective nor fair.

    Besides, Bloomberg’s groups have a huge dog in the fight, and they’re activists after all, not journalists.

    I find it even more troublesome that neither these gun-control activists, nor their employers or their funding sources were disclosed, and that their ideas were later turned into a pledge that was sent out to the country’s working media.

    I wonder if CJR would convene a similar panel discussion with anti-abortion activists or anti-immigration activists, and then ask them to help shape national media coverage. I am pretty sure I already know the answer.

    How about a sit down with NRA, GOA, SAF and other pro-gun groups?

    That, too, would never happen.

    Nowadays, public trust of the media is plummeting. The number-one reason cited for this is the media’s biases, of which there are many.

    Why else would CJR believe they could get away with this unethical lunacy?

    We all know that when it comes to guns, the legacy media throws its highly touted ethics right out the window.

    I’ve seen it happen.

    Standards of accuracy, sourcing and fairness – which are common practice for other news stories – simply don’t apply if the story is anti-gun.

    This country needs a fair and objective media, because without reporters performing their watchdog role, government can run amok.

    We’re seeing that now with the laudatory coverage of the Biden/Harris administration – whom the media believes can do no wrong.

    And as to the pledge, in my humble opinion there are far more important things for working journalists to do with their time than to sign loyalty oaths to Michael Bloomberg.

    As always, thanks for your time.

    Lee
    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and P5 Guy like this.
  17. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg
    Special Report: Red-flagged at age 14

    by Lee Williams

    It’s not easy for Eli Pagunsan to talk about the ordeal that began seven years ago, when he was a high school freshman in Riverside County, California.

    His life was destroyed. He briefly considered suicide as a way out.

    When he looks back, the now 22-year-old feels a mix of “anger, anguish and fear.”

    “There’s a part of me that needs this story to be told,” he said. “I’ve been trying to tell people about it. I didn’t understand that what happened to me was wrong until I went to therapy.”

    Life has never been easy for Pagunsan. He has always been an outsider and somewhat of an introvert. His parents immigrated from the Philippines. Pagunsan was born in Arkansas. He says he grew up the victim of frequent abuse, which was meted out by his father.

    “We’ve reconciled now. I’ve forgiven him, but I remember whenever he was mad at us, he’d strip us naked and beat us with whatever was closest – a vacuum pipe, electrical cord or belt,” Pagunsan said.

    At one point, he said, his father made him tell his teachers he was “worthless,” and that he wouldn’t be coming to school anymore.

    After his parents divorced, an ex-Army officer who was helping raise Pagunsan told him he would either be a heroin addict or shot by police, and that he would be a “juvenile delinquent.”

    All three assessments were wrong.

    As a young man, Pagunsan found solace in reading, video games and history.

    “I used to be a big fan of World War II films like ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific,’ he said. “I played a lot of ‘Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault.’ I found out that my family fought as guerillas against the Japanese, and I’m very proud of that.”

    Pagunsan’s great-grandfather was a carpenter on Luzon when the Japanese invaded.

    “He had a choice to either run or fight. He fought with the Americans. He was captured and survived the Bataan Death March. He lived until 1978, when he died of lung cancer,” Pagunsan said.

    While most kids his age were socializing and interacting with others, Pagunsan was playing video games, reading in the library or writing.

    He joined a writing club when he was only 12 years old.

    “I still get a weird, cathartic feeling creating characters that are based off of experiences I have had,” he said. “I get satisfaction from writing – being able to improve upon it feels good.”

    All of Pagunsan’s hobbies and interests would play a role in what was to come.

    Potential shooter

    Rather than becoming a juvenile delinquent as the Army officer had predicted, Pagunsan gravitated toward law enforcement.

    He became a police explorer – a hands-on program for kids interested in making law enforcement a career, which offers training, competitions, character development and physical fitness.

    One evening in 2014, Pagunsan received a call from his police explorer instructor – a sworn law enforcement officer.

    “The first thing he asked me was, ‘Are you going to shoot up your high school?’” Pagunsan recalled.

    The instructor ordered Pagunsan and his mother to report to his school’s main office the next day, promptly at 8 a.m.

    There, they were met by another police officer, who told them Pagunsan had tripped the “Kids with Guns” protocol, and that he was now “red-flagged” as a potential school shooter.

    They were also told officers would be searching Pagunsan’s bedroom.

    Pagunsan knew his rights – especially his Fourth Amendment rights – and he told his mother that police would be looking for anything to support their conclusion that he would become a school shooter. He was particularly concerned about his screen plays, his video games and the fact he enjoyed reading about World War II.

    He pleaded with his mother not to allow police to search his room.

    Pagunsan’s mother grew up in the Philippines when Ferdinand Marcos was in power. Marcos, a notorious and bloody dictator, ruled with an iron fist until he was deposed in 1986. His military and police had authority to kill anyone who disagreed with the dictator’s policies, so the thought of refusing to comply with police was something Pagunsan’s mother would never do.

    “When she grew up, if the police knocked on your door that was the warrant,” Pagunsan said. “If you refused to let them in, you’d be taken out and shot.”

    She let the officers in.

    “That sealed my fate,” Pagunsan said.

    The search

    Officers tore Pagunsan’s room apart. They found no firearms or other weapons. Neither Pagunsan nor his family owned a gun.

    Instead, police focused on his screenplays and books.

    One of the officers threw a manuscript onto a table in front of Pagunsan.

    “What’s this? Is this your kill list?” he demanded.

    “It was a list of characters I’d created,” Pagunsan recalled. “None of them were real people. It was titled: ‘Character sheet.’”

    Another officer ordered the youth not to move from the couch.

    “What’s in your room that’s got you so nervous?” he asked, menacingly.

    By this time Pagunsan was dying inside.

    Police interrogated him about his books: an old Army field manual on infantry tactics and books about World War II and other military subjects.

    They tried to make him admit he was a danger to himself and other students, and that the best place for him was behind bars in a juvenile correctional facility.

    The officers eventually left emptyhanded, and Pagunsan believed the ordeal was finally over, until he was ordered to report to the school district’s main office the next day.

    There, he attended yet another disciplinary meeting, with the vice-principal who had red-flagged him and the school district’s chief disciplinarian.

    They explained that Pagunsan had been red-flagged under the district’s “Kids with Guns” protocol, even though he had no guns, and that the school district had acted to “stop a potential school shooter.”

    Pagunsan instantly felt shame sweep over him. He began to question himself – he still does – even though he had never even considered violence. These were adults and authority figures, after all. He was a 14-year-old.

    The district’s disciplinarian looked at the reports in front of him, which had been written by school and police officials, and told Pagunsan he was going to be expelled.

    Pagunsan was never charged with a single crime.

    The Second Amendment Foundation's Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.


    The protocol

    The School Threat Assessment and Response (STAR) protocol used by schools in Riverside County, California was created by officials from the school district, probation department, District Attorney’s Office, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, social services, the courts and the county’s behavioral health department. Dozens of other agencies have signed on.

    The 10-page document, which was last updated in 2017, has a list of 25 “High Risk” Indicators:

    • Typically between ages 11-16.

    • May not have ever been arrested or been to Juvenile Court for a law violation.

    • Few or no friends.

    • Withdrawn, excessive feelings of rejection.

    • May have moved frequently.

    • Feelings of being picked on and persecuted.

    • Depression.

    • May have difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures.

    • May have suicidal comments or self-mutilated.

    • May be a victim of violence/abuse.

    • Pattern of angry behavior.

    • May have history of tantrums, explosive rage.

    • May have felt bullied, persecuted by others.

    • Violent or dark themes.

    • Discussion, drawings, writings, fantasies, video games, posters, music, computers, internet, text

    and cell phone activity.

    • Preoccupation with guns, explosive devices or possibly other dangerous weapons.

    • Animal cruelty.

    • Torture or mutilation of animals in the past.

    • Past history of setting fires.

    • Verbal cues.

    • Talks about something “big” happening.

    • Talks about being noticed/becoming famous.

    • Makes specific threats against a person or group.

    • Access to guns and knowledge of their use.

    • Parents may minimize or deny.

    “A youth may have more than one high risk characteristic and never commit a violent offense,” the document states. “However, we all want to be aware and to do everything possible to immediately assess a threat to prevent a tragic situation from occurring.”

    Pagunsan believes the list is far too broad.

    “If you look at that list – other than hurting animals or setting fires – almost every kid in America could be considered high risk, especially boys,” he said.

    The aftermath

    Pagunsan’s alternative school was 100% online. He worked remotely from his computer at home.

    “I loved it,” he said. “I did far better than in public school.”

    There was, of course, no socialization with other kids.

    “Most of my friends were online anyway,” he said. “We kept in touch.”

    During breaks, he would play video games and read history books.

    Despite his newfound academic success, he could not come to terms with being branded as a school shooter.

    “I was scared to tell anyone what happened to me,” he said.

    He still suffers the effects today. He has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, severe depression and general anxiety disorder.

    His counselor told him that his young age – he was only 14 when he was red-flagged – may have increased the severity of his disorders.

    “I get nervous talking to cops. I’m very polite, but the hair stands up on the back of my neck. I try hard to please other people, because I don’t want to be labeled, again, as the guy who wants to shoot up a school or a business.

    “I don’t trust people my own age. They’re too quick to judge,” he said.

    He now has a better relationship with this mother.

    “She didn’t get it. Now, she does,” he said. “She’s proud of me. She understands what happened and why it was wrong.”

    Nowadays, Pagunsan doesn’t trust anyone in authority.

    “I did,” he said, “once upon a time.”

    Pagunsan is a licensed security guard in Arizona. He’s single and lives alone, except for his puppy Kelsie, a 50-pound German Shepherd.

    Before the recent ammunition shortage, he enjoyed shooting at a nearby range, especially when he could take someone who was new to the sport.

    “I loved taking new shooters out there,” he said.

    He wants parents to know that if their child is ever confronted by officials as he was, they should not let police into their home.

    “They will try to pressure you. They’ll tell you the search will be quick. It won’t take long. They’ll use every trick in the book,” he said. “Get a lawyer immediately.”

    He wants lawmakers to consider the human toll of red-flag laws.

    “Think about how this affects someone. Maybe the next person this happens to won’t be as strong as me. Think of how this person is going to feel in a world that they already believe is pushing down on them,” he said. “Think about what that does to someone, especially long term.”

    Pagunsan has spoken to a few local Second Amendment groups about his ordeal, but he is not sure if this will continue. Nowadays, his primary goal is getting better.

    Said Pagunsan: “Despite everything that’s happened to me, I am doing a lot better than I used to. No one thought I would be, and that’s given me a sense of pride. I’m at a place where people are interested in what I have to say, and that’s a great feeling.”


    The Second Amendment Foundation's Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and JTHunter like this.
  18. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

    More than half of US poised to become Second Amendment Sanctuary

    With Texas governor’s signature, more than half of the country will be a Second Amendment Sanctuary.

    All it takes is the stroke of a pen – one pen to be precise.

    When Texas Governor Greg Abbott signs HB2622 into law, which he’s expected to do any moment, more than half of the country will become a Second Amendment Sanctuary.

    According to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com and its companion site constitutionalsanctuaries.com, when Abbott signs the bill, 1,715 of the country’s 3,144 counties – or roughly 54% – will either be self-declared Second Amendment Sanctuaries counties or located in states that that have declared themselves sanctuaries.

    “And that doesn’t include all the towns and cities that have self-declared,” Davis said. “There’s been a ton of those too, but I don’t have the manpower to count all of them.”

    Davis has diligently tracked the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement since its inception. His maps and data offer the most precise and current information available.

    Gov. Abbott, Davis and most others predict, will definitely sign the legislation .

    “He’s been begging the state legislature for the bill,” Davis said.

    True grassroots effort

    The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement began in Davis’ home state of Virginia, after the Democrats took control of state government and began passing strong anti-rights laws.

    Once 95% of Virginia became Second Amendment Sanctuaries, other states took notice and starting crafting their own legislation.

    With no national leaders or funding, it’s a true grassroots movement, focused at the local level.

    More city councils and country commissions are declaring themselves Sanctuaries every single day.

    Most Second Amendment Sanctuary bills are simple. They declare that the municipal, county or state government simply won’t recognize or enforce any federal law that infringes upon the Second Amendment.

    Many of these laws bar local officials from participating in any federal enforcement. Some add civil and criminal penalties.

    Legacy media ignores

    The majority of the news stories about the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement have been written by local reporters for local newspapers and TV.

    Most national news stories have described the movement as “symbolic” or “reactionary.”

    Once a majority of the country becomes a Second Amendment Sanctuary, I wonder whether these stories will change – assuming the legacy media even covers the issue.
    123344636_3707347822629575_5592385313173890583_o-e1605727788548.jpg
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  19. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    SAF FILES FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO ILL. CARRY BAN FOR YOUNG ADULTS

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Illinois, challenging the state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, alleging the ban violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights of those citizens.

    Joining SAF are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and three private citizens in the 18-21-year age group, David Meyer, Eva Davis and Mitchell Nalley. They are represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of David G. Sigale, P.C. in Wheaton, Ill., Christian D. Ambler of Stone & Johnson in Chicago and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom, all with Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C. The case is known as Meyer v. Raoul.

    Named as defendants are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, State’s Attorney of Fayette County Joshua C. Morrison, State’s Attorney of St. Clair County James Gomric, State’s Attorney for Kendall County Eric Weis, Fayette County Sheriff Christopher Palmer, St. Clair County Sheriff Richard Watson and Kendall County Sheriff Dwight A. Baird, in their official and individual capacities.

    “All law-abiding citizens of this country are considered adults at the age of 18 for nearly all purposes,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They can vote, enter into contracts, start businesses, get married and join the military. But the state prohibits them from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms, that is, to carry a handgun outside the home or in an automobile, even though the state allows other adults to obtain a license to carry firearms in public.

    “This is not our first legal encounter in Illinois,” he noted. “First we had the landmark McDonald v. City of Chicago Supreme Court victory that nullified Chicago’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. That opened the doors for other cases around the country. We successfully litigated Ezell v. City of Chicago when the city tried to get creative with its handgun law. We won again with Moore v. Madigan, forcing the Illinois Legislature to adopt a concealed carry statute, which we’re very proud of. And we’ve had other successful legal battles, so Illinois is familiar ground to us.

    The lawsuit notes, “Moreover, young adults between eighteen and twenty-one were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Hundreds of statutes from the colonial and founding eras required 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms.”

    “We’re asking the court to remedy this situation by issuing an injunction against further enforcement of the ban on our individual plaintiffs and other young adults facing the same situation,” Gottlieb said. “Citizens in this age group enjoy nearly all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution except when it comes to the Second Amendment. This cannot be allowed to stand.”
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  20. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

    It's Bill Clinton's fault

    Democrats now want more gun dealers so they can conduct more background checks, which they believe will deter more crime, but the shortage can be traced back to Bill Clinton.

    77f5643e-ffbb-98bd-f89e-4091912af0ef.jpg
    Former President Bill Clinton signing the "Assault Weapon" ban of 1994 into law. The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that the ban, which sunset in 2004, did nothing to reduce crime. (Official White House photo).
    Senators Chris Murphy, (D-Conn.), and John Cornyn, (R-Texas), have met in secret recently — behind closed doors — to negotiate a way to expand federal background checks.

    Citing the 2019 mass murder that killed eight people and wounded 25 near Odessa, Texas, Cornyn believes the deaths could have been avoided if the killer had undergone a background check before obtaining his home-built AR, which he purchased through a private sale.

    Cornyn, much to the dismay of the gun community, says he now wants to clarify exactly who has to register as a Federal Firearms Licensee, or FFL, and therefore be legally required to conduct background checks of all firearms purchasers.

    "We need to clear that up," Cornyn told NBC News. "That, by definition, will make more people get background checks because all federal firearms licensees have to do background checks."

    In other words, if more people were forced to register as FFLs, there would be more background checks and therefore less crime, Murphy and Cornyn believe. If that sounds familiar, it's because Obama tried it just a few years ago.

    But who is responsible for reducing the FFL ranks from a high of more than 250,000 licensed gun dealers in 1994 to just 55,000 10 years later?

    What caused today's FFL shortage?

    That, friends, is Bill Clinton's fault. And Democrats have been tinkering with the FFL system ever since.

    Clinton's first war on guns

    For more than three decades before Clinton took office, a Federal Firearms License cost around $30. Applicants had to meet the same standards as a firearm purchaser — they could not be a prohibited person.

    Clinton changed all that.

    He jacked up the cost of a license, and he added more regulations and oversight via the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and (now) Explosives.

    The ATF loved the new rules, and the lighter workload. They had been complaining for years that there were too many licensed gun dealers for them to regulate. In 1994, one ATF official told the New York Times there were only 250 inspectors for 250,000 FFLs. "The smaller ones, the kitchen-table dealers, might not see an inspector for 10 years," the official lamented.

    "Probably 70 percent of the people holding licenses shouldn't hold them," another ATF spokesperson told the newspaper.

    Clinton changed all that. Thousands of FFLs were forced out of business. Only the larger ones remained.

    Selling guns has never been easy, anyway. Dealers must comply with federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations. Labor costs are high, and margins are low. Couple that with regulators who cannot only close them down for violating a book-full of regulations — they can also make arrests — and the FFL ranks were decimated, under Clinton.

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
    Tried before

    The Cornyn/Murphy scheme — more dealers will mean more background checks, which will result in less crime — has been tried before.

    Obama tried to tighten the screws and force more people into getting FFLs in 2016. It didn't work then. Cornyn and Murphy should know that now.

    "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn't matter where you conduct your business — from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you're in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks," Obama's press secretary wrote in a 2016 release titled: FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer.

    Then, as now, Obama issued a long list of anti-rights decrees his press secretary characterized as "commonsense executive actions."

    Then, as now, the president tried to sell his unconstitutional orders to the American people by citing a laundry list of made-up facts and statistics — including the myth of popular support.

    "The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administration's disposal to reduce gun violence," Obama's press secretary wrote five years ago. "Some of the gaps in our country's gun laws can only be fixed through legislation, which is why the President continues to call on Congress to pass the kind of commonsense gun safety reforms supported by a majority of the American people."

    If that sounds familiar, it's because it's nearly identical to press releases Biden's crew has put out.

    Then, as now, the plan backfired. The American people simply ignored the president's ramblings and bought more guns — a lot more guns.

    Why?

    Because neither Obama nor Biden could ever grasp what happens when a president threatens a God-given, constitutional right.

    As always, thanks for your time.

    Lee
    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  21. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg

    New Jersey AG misusing his office to shut down out-of-state firearm businesses

    New Jersey's Attorney General is ordering firearm products banned in the Garden State, and then extorting thousand of dollars from out-of-state firms through lawsuits.

    e3527be4-337e-d735-ae86-e996e2577ec8.jpg
    New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal
    When I worked at a newspaper in Delaware, I was intimately aware that if I strayed across the border into New Jersey with any weapons, ammo or mags and got caught, I would likely spend the rest of my life in a state prison.

    Back then, New Jersey officials were content with only targeting individual gun owners, either those who weren't familiar with their crazy gun laws, or those from free states who may have taken a wrong turn.

    Nowadays, things are different. New Jersey officials are actively targeting citizens of other states, who may have never even set foot in New Jersey.

    New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal is using "undercover" detectives to entrap firearms retailers and manufacturers – especially those in other states – in the hopes that the exorbitant fees and penalties he will extort from them will force the owners out of business.

    This is a new kind of gun control.

    So far, AG Grewal has targeted retailers who sell firearm components designed for home-builds and, of course, those who sells standard-capacity magazines.

    Even the judges are in on the AG's scheme. A New Jersey state court recently ordered a Florida firm to pay the state $150,000.

    Their crime? They refused to turn over their customers' names and addresses to the Attorney General.

    Grewal v. 22Mods4ALL
    According to the civil complaint, 22Mods4ALL is a small, mom-and-pop retailer with less than 10 employees located in Longwood, Florida.

    22Mods4ALL sells ARs and AR components, as well as the accessories you'd expect. (They actually have 5.56 in stock at $0.66 per round.)

    I reached out to them seeking comment for this story, but have not heard back. I can't say I blame them. They're up against a team with unlimited resources paid for by taxpayer dollars. Besides, the prosecution seems very personal. Whoever wrote the civil complaint Grewal's office filed against the small shop has a flair for the dramatic. It's based upon emotion, rather than facts.

    The complaint begins in El Paso, where the author describes a mass murder committed by an AK-47 and "extra magazines capable of holding at least 30 rounds of ammunition each." The he carts the reader off the Dayton, Ohio, and describes "a shooter equipped with an AR-15 style rifle, a 100-round drum magazine, and 250 rounds of ammunition." Then it's Parkland, Florida's turn, followed by Tucson, Arizona and then, finally, New Jersey, where the author defines "Large Capacity Magazine."

    "To prevent gun violence, and to mitigate the risk of mass shootings, the State of New Jersey has long banned possession of large capacity ammunition magazines ("LCMs") — firearm magazines capable of holding more than the standard number of rounds provided by the manufacturer," the complaint states.

    You'll notice that New Jersey's LCM definition is flawed on its face. AR manufacturers designed 20- and 30-round magazines for the rifle – that's the "standard number of rounds provided by the manufacturer."

    Regardless, the penalties are very clear: "Any person who knowingly possesses an LCM is guilty of a fourth-degree crime, punishable by fines of up to $10,000, and by a term of imprisonment of up to eighteen months," the complaint states.

    22Mods4ALL – allegedly – sold six 30-round magazines to "to New Jersey undercover detectives from the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice ("DCJ")," the complaint states. During a second purchase, the gun shop allegedly sold the detective three more. The Attorney General then sent 22Mods4All a cease-and-desist letter, which the gun shop honored. It stopped shipping mags to New Jersey, but that wasn't the end of the malicious prosecution.

    "The Attorney General also demanded Defendant provide the details of all past sales of ammunition magazines capable of holding fifteen rounds or more to any New Jersey address since January 1, 2014, including the name and address of the purchaser and the specific ammunition magazine purchased," the complaint states.

    In other words, the AG wanted the names of any New Jersey residents who may have bought a magazine, which would likely have been followed by a knock on their front door.

    That may have been too much for the good folks at 22Mods4All who, evidently, respect their customers' privacy and don't want to see any of them carted off to prison.

    "Defendant, despite repeated attempts at contact, has ignored the Subpoena for months. As a result, the CFA authorizes the Attorney General and the Director to obtain a judgment from the Superior Court directing compliance with the Subpoena," the complaint states.

    Last week, a New Jersey judge ruled that the gun shop owners must pay a civil fine of $150,000 for not cooperating with the AG's subpoena and turning over a list of customers' names and addresses.

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
    Legal reaction
    The New Jersey AG is weaponizing his office to push a political agenda, according to former Florida prosecutor Lisa Chittaro.

    Last year, Chittaro ran for State Attorney of Sarasota County, but lost during the Republican primary to the incumbent. She had been endorsed by the National Rifle Association in the race.

    "This is a crafty and questionable use of litigation," Chittaro said. "Because of their elected position, this seems designed to impede and attack a legitimate business – a business that did not target the citizens of that state – for the sole purpose of attacking the Second Amendment.

    "This attorney general is trying to harness access and regulate the spread of the internet, and hold a legitimate business accountable," Chittaro said. "This is an attack on the Free Market, an attack on the Second Amendment – it's an attack. They are using their office as a political weapon. They are pushing through their political agenda of gun control, and they are overreaching into the state of Florida. New Jersey is trying to put a legitimate Florida firm out of business."

    Takeaways
    In my humble opinion, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has two reasons for his cross-border shenanigans. First, he wants to make a name for himself. That much is very clear. Second, he wants to close down gun shops – as many as he possibly can – because of his anti-rights political agenda.

    As bad as AG Grewal tries to paint them, the good folks at 22Mods4All look like heroes. They should be commended for protecting their New Jersey customers – if they have any, of course. Standing up to a bully sounds good, but they're standing up to a bully who can put them out of business. That takes balls – big brass ones. The problem is exacerbated because AG Grewal desperately needs a win – something he can show off to his constituents.

    Right now, Attorneys General from 24 states have filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New Jersey's ban on standard-capacity magazines.

    "The Amici States the Attorneys General serve are among the forty-three states that permit the standard, eleven-plus capacity magazines that New Jersey has banned...and have advanced their compelling interests in promoting public safety, preventing crime, and reducing criminal firearm violence without a magazine ban such as the one here," the brief states.

    I certainly hope the Justices will take up the case. In the meantime, someone needs to take a hard look at Attorney General Grewal. He is clearly misusing the powers of his office to further his own political agenda.

    There's a term for that. It's called public corruption, and it's always been a problem in the Garden State.

    As always, thanks for your time.

    Lee

    The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  22. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    SAF COURT VICTORY: JUDGE SAYS CAL. ‘ASSAULT WEAPON BAN’ UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has won a significant court ruling in the case of Miller v. Bonta , which challenged the constitutionality of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” with U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez declaring the state’s statutes regarding such firearms to be unconstitutional.

    SAF was joined in this action by the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Poway Weapons and Gear, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, and several private citizens including James Miller, for whom the case is named.

    “In his 94-page ruling, Judge Benitez has shredded California gun control laws regarding modern semi-automatic rifles,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is clear the judge did his homework on this ruling, and we are delighted with the outcome.”

    In his opening paragraph, Judge Benitez observes, “Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR- 15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.”

    Later in the ruling, Judge Benitez observes, “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons.” A few pages later, he adds, “Modern rifles are popular. Modern rifles are legal to build, buy, and own under federal law and the and the laws of 45 states.” Perhaps most importantly, the judge notes that California’s ban on such firearms “has had no effect” on shootings in the state. “California’s experiment is a failure,” Judge Benitez says.

    “There is not much wiggle room in the judge’s decision,” Gottlieb stated. “Today’s ruling is one more step in SAF’s mission to win back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and Dunross like this.
  23. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    SAF FILES FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO MINN. BAN ON CCW BY YOUNG ADULTS

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit in Minnesota, challenging that state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, alleging the ban violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights of those citizens.

    The lawsuit was filed in U.S District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case is known as Worth v. Harrington.

    Joining SAF are the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens in the affected age group. Defendants are John Harrington, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, plus three county sheriffs, Mille Lac County Sheriff Don Lorge, Douglas County Sheriff Troy Wolbersen and Washington County Sheriff Dan Starry, in their individual and official capacities.

    “We recognize the rights of law-abiding young adults to vote, join the military, sign contracts, start businesses, get married and do other things,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but when it comes to exercising one of the most basic fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, suddenly we treat them like children. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.

    “Minnesota law prohibits private citizens from carrying guns outside the home or vehicle without a permit,” he added, “but the state does not issue permits to anyone under age 21. This is patently unfair to an entire class of citizens who have otherwise achieved ‘majority status’ to exercise these other rights and privileges, but their right to keep and bear arms is kept off-limits. Young adults between eighteen and twenty-one were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Hundreds of statutes from the colonial and founding eras required 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms.”

    The time has come, Gottlieb said, for courts to remedy this situation and eliminate what amounts to a double standard.

    “You either have the rights of an adult, or you don’t,” he observed. “Rights are an all-or-nothing package, whether you are 18 or 81. This inconsistency in law needs to be fixed.”






    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and Dunross like this.
  24. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    6045527f-3d09-43b0-a93f-37dad5241aa3.jpg
    USA TODAY partners with Bloomberg anti-gun advocacy group for investigative series




    Gannett’s flagship newspaper violates many of its own ethical principles.




    The editor’s note posted at the end of the stories says all you need to know: “For this project, USA TODAY partnered with The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to improving public understanding of gun violence, increasing accountability and identifying solutions.”

    For those of you who may not have heard of the Trace, here’s some background information:

    • The Trace describes itself as the “only newsroom dedicated to reporting on gun violence.”
    • It has slick digital packages that are chockfull of stories, photos and videos, so it’s easy to confuse the Trace with an actual news website. But a news website it is not.
    • The Trace was founded in 2015 by former New York City mayor and staunch gun-control advocate, Michael Bloomberg.
    • The Trace operates as the propaganda arm for Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups, which include Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, which Bloomberg also bankrolls.
    • Like his other groups, the Trace advocates for more restrictive gun laws, but their message is a lot slicker than the handmade signs carried by Demanding Moms and Everytown employees.
    • Reporters at the Trace are advocates and activists, not news reporters.
    To sum, the Trace masquerades as a legitimate news source without disclosing that it is a gun-control advocacy group financed by an anti-gun billionaire. Over the years more than a few members of the legacy media have fallen for its deceptive practices. USA TODAY sure did, despite the newspaper’s highly touted ethical principles, which should have stopped the partnership long before it even began.

    Together, the Gannett-owned newspaper and the anti-gun advocacy group coproduced a series of stories titled: “Off Target: The ATF Catches Thousands of Lawbreaking Gun Dealers Every Year. It Shuts Down Very Few.”

    Their findings were summed up in their first story:

    “In one of the most sweeping examinations of ATF inspection records, The Trace and USA TODAY found that the federal agency in charge of policing the gun industry has been largely toothless and conciliatory, bending over backward to go easy on wayward dealers like Uncle Sam’s — and sometimes allowing guns to flow into the hands of criminals.

    Gun industry lobbyists have fought for decades against tougher oversight by casting gun dealers as among the most heavily regulated businesses in the U.S. But The Trace and USA TODAY’s review found that dealers are largely immune from serious punishment and enjoy layers of protection unavailable to most other industries.

    Reporters spent more than a year analyzing documents from nearly 2,000 gun dealer inspections that uncovered violations from 2015 to 2017. The reports showed some dealers outright flouting the rules, selling weapons to convicted felons and domestic abusers, lying to investigators and fudging records to mask their unlawful conduct. In many cases when the ATF caught dealers breaking the law, the agency issued warnings, sometimes repeatedly, and allowed the stores to operate for months or years. Others are still selling guns to this day.”

    For their series, USA TODAY went all-in with the Trace. Not only did they allow reporters from the Trace to work on the series, they teamed with their editors and production staff too.

    To be clear, the newspaper relinquished editorial control to an advocacy group, which is unprecedented.

    According to the newspaper’s The team behind the Off Target project:

    • There were five Trace reporters and three reporters from USA TODAY working on the project.
    • There was one graphic artist from the Trace and one from USA TODAY.
    • There was one social media, engagement and promotion staffer from the Trace and four from USA TODAY.
    • There were two Trace editors overseeing and directing the investigative project, and one editor from USA TODAY.





    The Second Amendment Foundation's Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.



    Ethical violations

    Gannett is the largest newspaper chain in the world. It has more than 100 daily newspapers and more than 1,000 weeklies. It uses its “Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms” as a way to keep control of its thousands of journalists.

    The partnership between the Trace and USA TODAY clearly violates many of these ethical principles:

    Exercising fair play:

    • We will strive to include all sides relevant to a story and not take sides in news coverage.
    Maintaining independence:

    • We will maintain an impartial, arm’s length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.
    • We will be free of improper obligations to news sources, newsmakers and advertisers.
    Ensuring the Truth Principle:

    • We will not intentionally slant the news.
    Conducting investigative reporting:

    • Evaluate legal and ethical issues fully, involving appropriate colleagues, superiors, lawyers or dispassionate outside parties in the editorial process. (For example, it may be helpful to have a technical story reviewed by a scientist for accuracy, or have financial descriptions assessed by an accountant, or consult an ethicist or respected outside editor on an ethical issue.)
    • Be careful about trading information with sources or authorities, particularly if it could lead to an impression that you are working in concert against an individual or entity.
    Editing skeptically:

    • Protect against being manipulated by advocates and special interests.
    Takeaways

    I’ve stated multiple times that the legacy media couldn’t care less about facts, accuracy, fairness or ethics if it involves an anti-gun story – anything goes.

    This, however, actually partnering with an anti-gun advocacy group, is a new low.

    The work product this partnership created is clearly propaganda, not journalism, and should be treated as such.

    I wonder when USA TODAY will partner with NRA, GOA, NSSF or perhaps even the SAF? It would seem to be the fair thing to do.

    I’m not holding my breath.

    Nowadays, there are few journalism watchdogs left – a couple of nonprofits staffed by semi-retired former editors who needed a paycheck. I wonder whether they will even notice USA TODAY’s complete disregard for its own ethics. Since it involves an anti-gun story, I wonder whether they will even care.

    A personal note

    I called and sent an email seeking comment for this story to Maribel Perez Wadsworth, president of the USA TODAY network and publisher of USA TODAY.

    I have yet to receive a reply.

    I should point out that Ms. Wadsworth and I have a bit of history. When she learned that one of her editors in Sarasota operated a pro-gun website, she ordered it immediately shut down. She had me fired a few months later.

    I’m still kind of proud of that.

    As always, thanks for your time.

    Lee









    The Second Amendment Foundation's Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
     
  25. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    25,232
    ccrkba_header.png Click Here For Web Version


    CCRKBA RIPS BIDEN, MEDIA FOR ‘INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY’ IN PULSE EXPLOITATION

    BELLEVUE, WA – President Joe Biden was being intellectually dishonest, and the legacy media has allowed him get away with it by pushing gun control on the anniversary of the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

    “Joe Biden told reporters it is time to close loopholes that allow gun buyers to bypass background checks, but it is well-documented that the Orlando mass killer had passed background checks when he legally purchased the rifle and pistol used in the attack,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Biden was either stupid, or intellectually dishonest with his remarks, and I’m livid the establishment media omitted this key fact in its reporting.”

    The Pulse nightclub shooter purchased his rifle from a retailer in Port St. Lucie one day and he returned to the store to buy a pistol the following day. Both transactions required federal background checks, and there was a 3-day waiting period on the handgun purchase.

    “This is the kind of flagrant disregard for the facts that gun owners have to deal with constantly,” Gottlieb added. “Biden wants Congress to adopt so-called ‘reforms,’ without acknowledging that when these decisions are made on Capitol Hill, they affect individual rights and freedoms, and the results can be disastrous for law-abiding citizens who had absolutely nothing to do with the Pulse shooting or any other crime.”

    Gottlieb is particularly frustrated and appalled by the establishment media for giving Biden a pass on all of this without raising any questions.

    “Nobody in the legacy media calls him out,” Gottlieb stated. “Not one member of the White House press corps has challenged Joe Biden on his gun control agenda, even when the facts about such incidents as the Pulse shooting are well-documented and easy to find. It is pathetic that nobody in the elite, establishment press questioned anything Biden said.

    “Biden has made a lot of promises and predictions over the years about what his gun control schemes would accomplish,” Gottlieb recalled, “but all we’ve seen is more erosion of rights, added inconvenience and increased penalization of honest Americans. It’s time for the legacy media to stop giving him a pass.”





    With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to [email protected].
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice