Senate Watchdogs?

By Jeff Knox

(October 6, 2016) GunVoters don’t like to reward squishy Republicans, but in this very high-stakes election year, who you vote against is just as important – if not more more so – as who you vote for. Just as many GunVoters distrust Donald Trump – especially after his unfortunate comments and missed opportunities during the first debate – but intend to vote for him anyway, as a vote against Hillary Clinton, so to are many GunVoters faced with an unsavory choice in their U.S. Senate race. Several incumbent Republicans have less than stellar records on gun issues, making it very hard for GunVoters to get excited about them. On the other hand, all of the Democrats in close races have embraced Hillary Clinton’s anti-rights mantra, calling for bans on private firearm transfers and use of the secret Terror Watchlist to deny Fifth and Second Amendment rights..

More important though, is the critical role the Senate plays in limiting the power of the President, and how the parties play into that role.

If Donald Trump wins, he will face an uphill battle regardless of which party wins the majority in the Senate. With all of the Democrats and half of the Republicans in Congress, as well as the media, openly hostile toward him, it would be very difficult for him to accomplish much of anything unless he actively climbs on board with whichever party dominates Congress.

On the other hand, the media and Democrats in Congress, along with at least a quarter of the Republicans, would fully support, or at least go along with, just about anything Hillary Clinton wanted to do. There would still be resistance from the House to hopefully keep things from coming completely unraveled, but Paul Ryan has not been impressive in his battles with Obama, and Clinton is a much more formidable opponent.

The vacancy on the Supreme Court emphasizes the critical importance of maintaining Republican control of the Senate. As I recently noted in this column, this isn’t just about the Supreme Court, but lower federal courts as well. Obama has taken great strides in “liberalizing” the courts by appointing over 300 judges over the past 7 years. A Democrat-controlled Senate would mean that Trump judicial appointments would be blocked and Clinton judicial appointments would be unstoppable.

A Democrat majority in the Senate would also mean that rabid, anti-rights zealot, Chuck Schumer would be Senate Majority Leader, setting the agenda for the Senate, and blocking good bills while advancing bad ones. Just the thought of that should make every gun owner shudder.

You can impact Senate elections – even those outside your own state.

First, be sure that you and your family are educated and get to the polls on November 8 to vote for the people who will keep the serious enemies of liberty out of office. That might mean holding your nose, but sometimes that’s what it takes.

Second, make sure that your friends, folks at the ranges and gun clubs, church, fraternal organizations, etc., all know why voting is so critical this year, and why they can’t afford to sit this one out or use their vote for making symbolic gestures. Share this article with them. Post it on bulletin boards and your social media pages, and tell folks specifically who they need to vote for to slow the anti-liberty slide. Make them cheat-sheets to take to the polls with them if necessary.

Third, go through your contact lists and reach out to everyone you can to share this message – especially people living in battleground states where just a few votes could mean the difference between a pro-rights majority, and a majority led by Chuck Schumer. Again, share this article and make specific requests for votes, and ask the people you contact to contact others with the same message.

Most of the races are not races at all, with the outcome already easily predictable, but there are 7 races that are still considered toss-ups. In Nevada, where Harry Reid is retiring, leaving an open seat, Republican Joe Heck has a good shot. Nevada also has a terrible Bloomberg initiative on the ballot so heavy GunVoter turnout is expected and should help Heck.

Indiana, another race where Republicans have an opportunity to pick up a seat, is not looking great. Incumbent Democrat, Evan Bayh has a pretty good edge over Republican challenger, Todd Young, but a good GunVoter turnout could swing that race in Young’s favor.

North Carolina, Republican incumbent Richard Burr is facing a surprisingly strong challenge from a vocally anti-rights Democrat challenger. This should have been an easy win, but the challenger keeps coming on strong, so Burr needs all the help he can get.

Missouri Senator Roy Blunt is doing a little better in his race against a strong challenger who has effectively used his National Guard weapons experience to promote himself and undermine rights. Blunt needs GunVoters to see through the ploy and get to the polls.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is looking pretty good in recent polling against his Democrat challenger, but the race could still go either way, so GunVoters shouldn’t take any chances.

Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire is in a close race with the state’s governor, Maggie Hassan. Ayotte has been heavily targeted by Bloomberg’s forces ever since she stood with GunVoters against the Manchin-Toomey bill, and she needs GunVoter support now.

In Pennsylvania, incumbent Pat Toomey appears to be holding on to a thin margin against a rising star in the Democrat Party named McGinty. I can’t, in good conscience, ask anyone to vote for Toomey. I’d prefer to see him slapped down for his call to ban private transfers, but I also don’t want to see McGinty’s aspirations fulfilled. This is a race where each GunVoter will have to go with their own conscience.

Republicans are likely to lose seats in Wisconsin and Illinois. Ron Johnson is being challenged by former senator Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, and is currently far behind in the polling. A reversal in that race would be a welcome surprise, and GunVoters could make a big impact on making that happen. In Illinois, the most anti-rights Republican in the Senate is losing to a Democrat challenger. This is one race I’m willing to cede to the Democrats. Kirk has been nothing but trouble for gun owners.

Money is not enough this year. You must get personally involved. If you can’t actively support the Republican candidate, then actively oppose the anti-rights Democrat. This is too important to leave to others. Please take action now. We’ll have more details about these races posted at GunVoter.org.

Saving Children FASTER

By Jeff Knox

I’m spending some time in our DC area office, having just returned from this year’s annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Tampa. As always, it was energizing and informative to hear the latest updates and meet friends and fellow activists from around the country. One person I met was Laura Carno, an author and activist out of Colorado. I knew Laura by reputation, having followed her work on the 2013 recalls in Colorado, and more recently, an article she had written, Keeping Kids Safe In A Broken World, about a project called FASTER.

FASTER stands for Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response. The program trains teachers and administrators to be first responders for emergency situations in their schools. Created by the Buckeye Firearms Foundation (BFF) in the wake of the Sandy Hook horror, FASTER takes a pragmatic approach to preventing atrocities and reducing tragic deaths. The program recognizes that the faster victims can be moved out of harms way, the faster someone can stop the killer, and the faster someone can administer effective first aid, thus saving more lives. With that in mind, FASTER provides coordinated emergency response training for police, fire, paramedic, and school personnel.

A standard rule of first aid is to Stop the Bleeding, so FASTER emphasizes emergency medical training for school personnel, teaching them how to properly apply chest seals, tourniquets, and other life-saving techniques instead of waiting for medical professionals to arrive. That’s critical, but stopping the bleeding also means stopping the cause of the bleeding – stopping the attacker – so faster includes firearm, hand-to-hand, and improvised weapons training for school employees who are likely to be in the best position to take immediate action. The program also includes communication and coordination with local law enforcement and medical professionals to make sure that all involved are working from the same playbook and working as effectively as possible together to stop the threat and render the assistance needed to save children’s lives.

The FASTER program has been a huge success in Ohio, with thousands of educators and school administrators volunteering to take the free, three-day course. All funding is provided by concerned citizens and corporate sponsors. [Note: Angels Wanted.]

BFF is anxious to export FASTER to every state for every child. Jim Irvine, President of BFF told me; “We have four years of FASTER training under our belts. The instructors at Tactical Defense Institute in Ohio are world class, and they are willing to train instructors in other states in the methodology. We know that FASTER saves lives. Every child —regardless of geography— deserves this level of protection.”

The first challenge is overcoming the legal roadblocks in many states which mindlessly prohibit trained and capable school staff from having the critical tools needed to effectively respond to these types of events. Jim pointed out that deaths due to fire used to be common in schools in this country, but that threat is virtually nonexistent today thanks to changes in building standards, availability of fire suppression equipment, and response training. He noted that every school is equipped with fire extinguishers, most schools are equipped with AED automatic defibrillator devices for treating heart attack victims, but few schools have even one proper, serious trauma, first aid kit, and fewer still have staff with access to life-saving, rampage cessation devices – guns. That needs to change.

Laura Carno wants to bring FASTER training to Colorado. She sat in on a FASTER course earlier this year, and she’s convinced that it is the most effective way to prevent future tragedies like Sandy Hook and Columbine. “Law enforcement has changed its protocols since Columbine, but even when response time is just a few minutes, those are the crucial minutes,” she said. “The faster that an attacker can be stopped and medical aid can be administered, the smaller the loss of life. Colorado families – all families – deserve this.”

Laura went on to explain that, “During the three days of training, I was able to interact with teachers, principals and other school employees. These are people who would place their bodies between bullets and your kids. Not their kids, your kids. They just want a chance to help children survive.”

In Ohio, the school employees applying to the program have to have a concealed carry permit, have their district’s permission, and be a volunteer. Those Laura spoke with had no hesitation when they volunteered. They are people who were already familiar with firearms, including many veterans and folks with some law enforcement experience, who wanted to be able to defend the kids in their school, just as they are accustomed to being prepared to defend themselves and their families.

The trainers too are dedicated to saving lives. Laura was impressed with the intensity of the training. “It was as if the instructors knew that this one skill,” she said emphasizing each word, “that they taught to this one teacher was going to save a life.” And it just might.

After Jim Irvine spoke at the GRPC, he was surrounded by a crowd of folks wanting more information about how they could bring FASTER to their states. “It’s a pretty compelling case,” he told me. “When we started FASTER in 2012, they laughed at us. They told us no one would sign up for the class, but we had 2500 applicants for the first class of 24.”

Thus far, FASTER has never been tested in a trial by fire, and ideally it never will be. While it could be a deterrent to a lunatic seeking a “soft target,” it’s unlikely that we’ve experienced the last attack on innocents in our schools. If another attack does occur, wouldn’t it be better if there was an armed first responder in the room when it started, as opposed to five minutes away?

If you are interested in bringing FASTER to your state, or you’d like to contribute to the efforts, you can visit their website here. To learn more about what Laura Carno is doing to bring FASTER to Colorado, you can reach her here.

The faster we get this going, the faster we’ll be saving children’s lives.

Disarming First-Responders

By Jeff Knox

(September 20, 2016) The Crossroads Center Mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota is a “gun-free” establishment, so when a Somali immigrant, apparently intent on striking a blow for the “religion of peace,” started slashing and stabbing shoppers in the mall, he had a reasonable expectation that he would meet little in the way of effective resistance, at least until the police could get there. It’s clear that the attacker was intent on killing and injuring as many people as possible, and also appears that he was determined not to survive the rampage himself. What this “suspected” terrorist coward apparently didn’t count on was that one of the nearby mall shoppers, Jason Falconer, was a competitive shooter, NRA certified firearms and self-defense instructor, and part-time police officer from a nearby town – and that in Minnesota “gun-free zones” don’t apply to law enforcement officers, even if they are only part-time cops and off-duty.

The terrorist coward – whose name I will not repeat because I refuse to give these cowards the publicity – was expecting to stab fish in a barrel, and that’s what he was doing until Falconer showed up, bringing a gun to a knife fight. When Falconer moved from safety into the danger zone, he ordered the slasher to drop his weapon, but instead of complying, the “suspected” terrorist charged at Falconer, forcing him to fire. Down, but not out, the scumbag got up and attempted to lunge again, resulting in another shot from Falconer, then repeated the sequence at least once more, until he wasn’t getting up ever again. That determination to keep attacking, even when it was clear he couldn’t win, suggests that this low-life was looking to be “martyred” so he would be guaranteed a place in Paradise.

A Middle-Eastern news outlet with ties to Daesh, the Muslim, terrorist organization and would-be caliphate based in Syria that Barack Obama insists on calling ISIL, has claimed that the attacker was acting on their behalf when he tried to slaughter helpless innocents, and witnesses reported that he asked at least one person if they were Muslim, and invoked the name of Allah during the attack, leading the FBI to investigate the incident as a “Suspected act of terrorism.”

The media has focused a lot of attention on Jason Falconer’s status as a police officer and police firearm trainer, but they have glossed over the fact that Falconer doesn’t just train police, he trains civilians as well, and while his actions were heroic and extremely competent, there was nothing particularly impressive about his firearm handling skills in this incident. The biggest factor in Falconer being able to do what he did was that he had a gun when no one else did.

I don’t mean to diminish Falconer’s actions in any way. The heroic part of what he did was facing the trouble rather than running away, and that’s no small thing. But I want to point out that there are millions of other Americans with the skills needed to safely and effectively neutralize this sort of threat. There are some 13 million Americans licensed by their states to discreetly carry firearms. There are untold millions more who choose to discreetly carry in the 11 states where no license is required, or who carry openly, without any special licensing, in the 30 states where that is not prohibited.

While not all of these folks have the level of training and experience that Falconer does, most of Falconer’s training and experience wasn’t really a factor in this particular incident. Like the traffic cop in Texas who dispatched the two Jihadis who attacked the Draw Mohammad contest, Falconer is a competitor in “Action Shooting Sports.” Falconer is a member of the U.S. Practical Shooting Association, which boasts around 30,000 members, but USPSA is only one of several national and international organizations that put shooters’ skills to the test under pressure.

The International Defensive Pistol Association, the National 3-gun Association, NRA Action Pistol, the Glock Sport Shooting Foundation, the Single-Action Shooting Society, and others sponsor and sanction thousands of challenging matches every year all over the country. USPSA alone has some 400 affiliated clubs across the U.S. hosting thousands of events each year. On top of that are the thousands of local clubs and ranges that host training and formal and informal competitions, all designed to test and improve shooters’ gun handling skills.

Then there are the training establishments and independent instructors who offer basic to advanced training in all sorts of shooting disciplines. Front Sight Firearms Training Institute in Nevada trains some 50,000 students a year. The grandaddy of handgun training schools, Gunsite Academy in Paulden, Arizona has been offering top-quality training since the mid 1970s, with hundreds of their students and instructors subsequently striking out on their own to offer individual and group training all over the country.

As a long-time USPSA member and competitor myself, and a contributor to their magazine, Front Sight, I’ve met thousands of people with the skills and mindset needed to handle emergencies like the attack in Minnesota. Of course no one ever knows exactly how they will react in a given situation, but training, competition, and the practice they demand help ingrain habits that ensure safety and enhance performance under stressful conditions. Many experienced law enforcement officers participate in action shooting sports, but they do not dominate the sport by any means. In fact, only a relatively small percentage of top competitors have law enforcement experience.

All of this leads up to the one burning question that the media and politicians just can’t seem to wrap their heads around: In this age of “lone wolf,” random terrorist attacks and pervasive threats, why do some in our society demand that millions of competent gun owners, who safely and responsibly carry every day, disarm when shopping, sipping coffee, or watching a movie?

So-called “Gun-Free Zones” don’t prevent violence, they only reduce the likelihood that a hero will be equipped to stop the violence when it starts.

Not Just the Supreme Court at Stake

By Jeff Knox

(September 15, 2016) With less than 8 weeks left until the critical November elections, both sides are pulling out all the stops to try and get their supporters to the polls. One of the big topics has been potential Supreme Court appointments, but there is much more than just the Supreme Court at stake in November.

With the vacancy on the Court due to the death of Antonin Scalia, we know that the next President will, at a minimum, have that appointment to make, which will either maintain the Court at a slight lean to the “right,” or lean it far to the “left.” Since Scalia was a conservative leader on the Court, it will be close to impossible to find anyone who could effectively fill his shoes, or possibly take the Court any further to the right. That means that regardless of who wins the election, at best, the Court will probably be a bit to the left of where it was a year ago with Scalia on the bench. If Hillary Clinton wins though, Scalia’s replacement would be something between a “moderate liberal” like Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland, and a “radical liberal” like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her pick will depend on the make-up of the Senate after the election. Whoever she appoints, when added to the current 4 liberal justices, would mean a solid liberal majority that would completely dominate the Court. There is also a likelihood of 83-year old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retiring if Hillary wins the presidency, meaning the liberal wing of the Court would have only one member over 60-years of age, all but guaranteeing liberal dominance for at least the next 20 to 30 years.

But the Supreme Court is only the tip of the judicial iceberg, and the next President will have a significant impact on the rest of the judiciary as well. Over the past 8 years, Obama has shifted the balance of power in most of the circuits of the Federal Courts of Appeals, along with the Federal District Courts. In all he has appointed over 300 judges to lifetime seats on federal benches, resulting in Democrat majorities in 9 of the 13 Courts of Appeal, with at least 2 of the remaining 4 poised to topple with the next appointments. While most of those appointees have been considered “moderates” by the current yardstick of the pundit class, their decisions have been anything but moderate. Another 4 years of Democrat control will seal all of the circuits in “liberal activist” mode for decades. The Supreme Court is certainly important, but SCOTUS only hears about 80 cases each year, while Federal District Courts hear something in the neighborhood of 200,000 cases each year, and Federal Appeals Courts review approximately 40,000 of those.

Though Congress writes the laws, with the executive branch crafting regulations and enforcing the laws, it is the courts that decide what the laws mean and how they can or must be enforced. They can rule a law null and void by declaring it unconstitutional, or can, in effect, overrule the Constitution by ruling that a law or regulation either doesn’t violate it, or that it only violates it in a minor way which is acceptable as a “reasonable burden” on people’s rights.

For instance, the 9^th Circuit recently ruled that federal prosecutors could not prosecute people who violate federal laws against growing, using, or selling marijuana, as long as those people only did so in accordance with state laws regarding marijuana for medical purposes. But in a separate case, the same court ruled that a person who has a state-issued card authorizing them to use marijuana for medicinal purposes can have their right to purchase a firearm denied on the basis that if they have the card, it is a reasonable assumption that they are a user of illegal drugs. Even though the court acknowledged that this is a violation of Second Amendment rights, they concluded that the government’s interest in trying to keep guns away from illegal drug users outweighs individual rights to purchase firearms.

In that particular case, the plaintiff, who holds a medical marijuana card in Nevada, claimed that she did not actually use marijuana, but got the card as a way to show support for the concept. Under that circumstance, the court said, she is not prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition, but can be prohibited from purchasing them, because it is reasonable for a gun seller who knows that a person has a medical marijuana card to assume that the person is a user of illegal drugs.

In this decision the court applied what is known as “intermediate scrutiny” to reach their conclusion that the infringement of the plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights was acceptable. This level of scrutiny is the middle-ground between “rational basis” and “strict scrutiny,” and is based on a determination that the government has a “compelling interest” for its infringing laws, and that the laws substantially relate to satisfying that interest. The use of “intermediate scrutiny” has become the standard method for courts to ignore the protections of the Second Amendment. Even though the Supreme Court, in their McDonald decision, declared that the right to arms is a fundamental right, and court procedures dictate that the higher standard of “strict scrutiny” should be applied to cases dealing with fundamental rights, liberal-dominated courts routinely ignore this standard and opt to go with “intermediate scrutiny” so they can justify ruling in favor of laws that restrict gun rights.

The only way this trend of abuse will ever be corrected is for the Supreme Court to step in and reverse some of these bad decisions. But that will never happen if Hillary Clinton gets to name the next justice to the Supreme Court, and the abuse will continue to get worse as more liberal judges are added to District and Circuit Courts.

The November elections might not be our last chance to save the Constitution, but they are our best hope for doing so. If Donald Trump doesn’t win, Hillary Clinton does, and Hillary Clinton will unquestionably stack the courts against Second Amendment rights.

Time to Take Away the Guns & Badges

By Jeff Knox

(September 8, 2016) It is the nature of bureaucracies to grow – in size, scope, and power. Various agencies compete for authority, staff, and budgets. They schmooze politicians and try to grab headlines in efforts to achieve these goals, and they are never ever satisfied with what they have.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF as they like to be called, is an excellent example of this phenomenon. In the early 1900’s, a small research branch within the Department of Internal Revenue became known as the Bureau of Prohibition, and was tasked with chasing bootleggers. It grew, was moved from Treasury to the Justice Department, and was, for a time, a division of the FBI.

To get the funding they needed to grow, the Bureau of Prohibition got remarkably good at promoting itself in the media. It became common for agents to make pre-raid phone calls to friendly reporters so they could be on-scene as major busts occurred, and agents like Eliot Ness became national heroes, erroneously credited with taking down Al Capone.

With the end of Prohibition, the Bureau was transferred back to Treasury, where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit, but their gun-slinging, gangster fighting reputation earned them regulatory authority over production and sale of machine guns when Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934, and even more firearms oversight with passage of the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, regulating gun dealers and manufacturers. This gave the ATU a big boost in scope and budget, but in spite of the sexy-seeming idea of dealing with machine guns, enforcement of the NFA and FFA turned out to be primarily an accounting job. With little excitement on the gun front, the ATU turned their attention to mostly small, moonshine operations that continued to produce un-taxed liquor throughout the Appellation mountains. As “revenooers,” the agency maintained their image as intrepid crime fighters by using aggressive and brutal tactics against the hard-bitten mountain men, resulting in violent clashes and lots of publicity. This provided plenty of good press opportunities and led to exaggerations in popular books and movies – along with the creation of NASCAR.

In subsequent years, ATF’s responsibilities regarding guns increased. By the late ’70s ATF was again making headlines, but not good ones. Having discovered that catching real criminals engaged in serious gun crimes was difficult, the agency was focusing their attention on technical violations of the nation’s gun laws, but they were still using their trademark aggressive tactics, resulting in people being killed and lives being destroyed over minor paperwork errors. In 1978 and ’79, Congress investigated some of these activities, chastising ATF and pulling money from their budget. This also led to passage of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act in 1986.

In frustration, ATF turned its attention to “right-wing hate groups” and “anti-government militias,” using possible weapons violations as an excuse to wade into what was normally FBI territory. In 1992 they tried to force a reclusive separatist into infiltrating the Aryan Nation organization by accusing him of selling a pair of shotguns which ATF said had barrels that were a quarter-inch too short. This led directly to the deaths of a 14-year old boy and his mother, along with a U.S. Marshal on Ruby Ridge in rural Idaho.

Failing to learn their lesson, less than a year later, the ATF launched a raid on the facilities of a small religious group outside of Waco, Texas. The group believed Armageddon was going to start with the federal government trying to murder them, so when the ATF launched their military-style assault, shooting chained dogs out front and storming the buildings, something like Armageddon did break out. Four ATF agents were killed along with six church members, leading to a 51-day standoff that ended with the church going up in flames and at least 76 men, women, and children dying.

Two years later, a truck full of fertilizer and racing fuel was exploded in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Ruby Ridge and Waco were cited by the perpetrators as major motivation for their actions.

After that, the ATF laid low for a time. They attempted to restore their reputation in 2002 with a two-year, multi-million dollar, deep-cover investigation of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang, but botched the operation so badly that no serious prosecutions resulted. This led to years of court battles between ATF and the undercover agent at the center of the operation, after his cover was blown, his house was burned down, and ATF tried to confiscate the royalties from a book he wrote about the investigation. It turned out to be an expensive mess that only resulted in another expensive mess – and additional embarrassment for the ATF.

In December 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a gun battle near Naco, Arizona. It was later discovered that the gun used to kill him had been purchased at a Phoenix gun shop and allowed to be smuggled across the border – along with nearly 2000 others – by the Phoenix ATF office. The gun-walking operation known as Operation Fast and Furious was uncovered by citizen-journalist Mike Vanderbough in collaboration with writer David Codrea. WND was among the first to report on the scandal with this column published in early February, 2011.

While the scandal resulted in some shake-ups at ATF – and the first-ever contempt of Congress citation for a U.S. Attorney General, many questions have still not been answered, and no one has been held to account for the operation that facilitated Agent Terry’s death and the deaths of possibly hundreds of Mexicans.

ATF followed this up with storefront sting operations in several cities where they set up fake stores that paid criminals for stolen goods in hopes of attracting illegal guns. The results tended to be lots of low-level thieves selling lots of stolen electronics and jewelry to U.S. taxpayers. Indications are that the sting operations caused increases in petty crime, and little in the way of useful intelligence or prosecutable serious offenses. Those operations have now been harshly criticized in an Inspector General’s report from the Department of Justice.

What all of this leads to is the inescapable conclusion that this is not a reliable law enforcement agency, and it’s agents should not be allowed guns and badges. The vast majority of ATF’s responsibilities lie in monitoring paperwork and collecting taxes. Their criminal investigation resources should be turned over to the FBI, and the ATF should be reorganized as an agency of bean-counters and pencil-pushers.