(April 13, 2016) Lawful concealed carry and religion intersected in the news recently as Mississippi enacted a law to “allow” churches to form church security committees for the protection of the congregation, and, with training, for security committee members to carry concealed guns. Previous Mississippi law prohibited concealed carry in a church. The reaction was swift and shrill, with predictions of blood in the aisles. Of course experience of other states proves the hysteria unfounded. Congratulations to Mississippi for expanding liberty.
Laws banning guns from houses of worship violate the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits government from making any law regarding the establishment or free exercise of religion. This has been liberally interpreted to forbid any sort of favoritism for one religious doctrine over another. A blanket prohibition on bearing arms in houses of worship favors a doctrine of pacifism over doctrines of preparedness and righteous defense of innocent life.
Constitutional issues aside, carrying a gun at church raises important questions, both doctrinal and practical. At the highest level, it’s worth pointing out that very few religions preach total pacifism or passivity in the face of a threat. No matter what denomination or creed, doctrinal questions should be worked out between individuals, church leadership, and God. Having the doctrine settled at the outset will help establish boundaries and can help dictate actions in the event of an incident.
(April 6, 2016) Over the past thirty years or so, gun owners have done a spectacular job of improving firearm safety habits. By every measure, unintentional injuries involving firearms have gone down even as the number of guns has risen. That fact is rarely reported in the general media, but it’s something gun owners can be proud of. We are, by and large, responsible and safe. But there is one big area where all shooters can improve how shooters and gun owners are perceived by the general public. We need to be more conscientious about where we shoot, what we shoot at, and especially about cleaning up after ourselves. We’ve all run across areas that have been trashed as informal shooting ranges. The ground is covered with bullet-riddled boxes, cans, televisions, washing machines, broken glass, and a carpet of empty cases and shells, trees and cactus are shredded, and we all get the blame.
Spent cases are an often neglected source of litter that shooters too frequently just leave, even if they clean up their targets. The metallic cases are pretty inert, and fade from view as the shine weathers, but they should still be picked up. Plastic shotgun hulls and wads are a bigger problem. Not only are they unsightly, they can break down into some fairly nasty chemicals that we really don’t want leaching into our groundwater, giving our opponents ammunition to use against us.
Much of the target trash is actually not generated by shooters, but rather simply dumped by others who don’t want to pay the fee at the county landfill. Unfortunately, once the first would-be gunslinger fills an object with holes, the mess becomes shooter-trash and its existence will always be blamed on us.
(March 29, 2016) As the Presidential primaries continue to unravel in the news, it seems that the main concern of Republican leaders in D.C. and around the country is stopping Donald Trump. They seem incapable of seeing their own culpability in pushing Trump to the top of the ticket. This is a trust and accountability issue, and the Republicans have failed miserably at earning trust and accepting responsibility for their actions and inactions. If Republicans want to win the presidency – or any other offices – they need to earn support by highlighting the clear distinctions between the parties and the candidates, and by demonstrating to their core constituency that they are actually listening to them, not just the donor class. That means going beyond promises to actually moving legislation, holding hearings, and taking votes.
Democrats have made gun control a central theme of their campaigns this year, so Republicans need to capitalize on that by demonstrating their commitment to individual rights. They could easily do that by bringing Rob Bishop’s (R-UT) “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act,” H.R.2710, to the floor for a vote. It’s a gun control reform that removes the onerous “sporting purpose” language from the Gun Control Act and squelches bureaucratic power over firearm imports and sales. There’s no way Obama would sign it, but that’s not the objective. While we would like to see the bill passed and enacted, its more important purpose this year would be to activate GunVoters, point up distinctions between R’s and D’s, give presidential candidates something to campaign on, force Obama to take a stand, and demonstrate to an important segment of the Republican base that their politicians are actually listening and responsive to them. All of these things are beneficial to Republicans and harmful to Democrats, so why aren’t they doing it? Votes on bills like H.R.2710 are ammunition in election season and it’s foolish of Republicans to deny that ammunition to our activists.
(March 23, 2016) John Adams said that Independence Day should be “solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.” At the Big Sandy Machine Gun Shoot, it’s Independence Day twice a year. Nothing says “Freedom!” louder than a few hundred privately owned machine guns all firing at once, especially if they’re firing at exploding targets. That’s exactly what happens every spring and fall in northwestern Arizona at the Big Sandy. Participants bring guns of every type and size – machine guns, submachine guns, short-barreled rifles, conventional rifles, suppressors, cannons, artillery pieces, and even tanks on occasion – along with plenty of ammo – to shoot, show off, and celebrate the liberty this great nation was founded on.
Due to rampant media misinformation, members of the general public are often confused about civilian possession of machine guns, and even what a “machine gun” actually is. A lot of folks think common, semi-automatic rifles and pistols are machine guns just because they look military. Even many gun owners don’t understand that machine guns are perfectly legal to own in most states. Ownership requires registration, background checks, and payment of hefty taxes under the National Firearms Act of 1934, or NFA. Prior to passage of the NFA, you could buy a Thompson or other full-auto firearm at your local hardware store with no more restrictions than for buying a shovel.
In 1986 the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act reformed the 1968 Gun Control Act. As that bill passed into law, an amendment was tacked on freezing the NFA registry and effectively forbidding the sale of any new, full-auto guns to civilians. The so-called “machine gun freeze” capped the total number of machine guns available to the civilian market to only those that were already registered with the federal government – about 175,000 in all. The limited supply coupled with soaring demand drove prices for those guns through the roof, so now the cost of buying them is a bigger deterrent than the laws.
(March 17, 2016) In an unusual move, the National Rifle Association released a statement of strong opposition to President Obama’s pick of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, on the same day Obama announced the nomination. Historically NRA has refrained from jumping in on presidential appointments until late in the confirmation process – if at all – and they’ve caught quite a bit of flak for this in recent years, including strong criticism from us at The Firearms Coalition. When Obama named Eric Holder as his choice for Attorney General, we, along with many others in the rights community, pressed the NRA to oppose his confirmation. NRA remained silent through the confirmation process, then promised that they would not grade Senators on the Holder vote. They did send out letters expressing concerns about Holder and asking senators to keep their concerns in mind when voting, but since they were not scoring the votes, there was no power behind that request, and 6 out of 8 “A-Rated” senators on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of confirmation.
When Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the NRA refrained from commenting on the appointment until late in the process, issuing a last-minute pledge – after loud complaints about their inaction – to score the vote. She was subsequently confirmed on an almost straight party line vote.
Again, with the appointment of Elena Kagan, NRA waited to weigh in on the nomination until after Senate hearings, and although they did speak up a little earlier in the process than they had with Sotomayor, the threat of scoring the vote didn’t seem to have much commitment behind it. Indeed, in subsequent elections, many “A-Rated” incumbents who had voted in favor of Sotomayor and Kagan, retained their “A” ratings from NRA.
(March 9, 2016) One of the problems in discussing guns and gun laws is the fact that many people don’t know what they’re talking about – especially among those advocating for stricter gun laws. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it’s not so much that gun control advocates don’t know anything; it’s that so much of what they know is wrong.
Let’s review some facts about terminology frequently used regarding guns and gun laws.
1.There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Truth be told, marketers and the gun press of the 1980s bear some responsibility for creating and popularizing the term, but then it was picked up by the anti-rights lobby, and they’ve ridden it for all it’s worth. Today it is liberally applied to any gun that someone thinks looks scary or militaristic. Like beauty, “good” art, or pornography, what constitutes “assault weapon” is in the eye of the beholder. So-called “assault weapons” are not machine guns, and the laws restricting “assault weapons” do not apply to machine guns. Nonetheless, folks like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and a multitude of media outlets routinely suggest that the guns they are talking about when they mention “assault weapons” are fully-automatic machine guns.
Before the atrocity at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the state of Connecticut had some of the toughest restrictions on “assault weapons” in the country. That law didn’t prevent the murders. After the tragedy, the state implemented additional restrictions – none of which would have prevented or mitigated the horror in any way had they been in effect prior to the attack. Similarly, California has strict regulations regarding “assault weapons,” but these laws did not prevent or mitigate the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
2.There is no “gun show loophole,” no “Internet loophole,” and no “private transfer loophole.” When the Brady Background Check law was negotiated and passed, this issue was raised, and private transfers were specifically and intentionally exempted from the law. That’s a feature, not a loophole.
Justice Thomas Breaks His Silence Bad law still prevails
By Jeff Knox
(March 2, 2016) “One question… This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”
With that “one question,” two weeks after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and one week after the unofficial anniversary of a decade of silence during oral arguments in the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas broke his inquisitional fast. The question, and several follow-up questions along the same theme, obviously flustered the Assistant U.S. Solicitor General to whom the questions were addressed, and stunned court-watchers who have grown accustomed to the high court’s lone African American voice – and its most conservative – not being heard from the bench.
Beyond the novelty of Justice Thomas breaking his silence for the first time in 10 years, the topic of his questions also raised some eyebrows. The case at hand, Voisine v. U.S., challenges the applicability of a federal law which makes it a felony for anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, to possess a firearm or ammunition. The law, commonly known as the Lautenberg Amendment, specifies that it only applies to those DV misdemeanors which have, “as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon,” within a defined domestic relationship. The petitioners contend that, because the state DV law under which they were convicted uses a broader definition for DV, which can include unintentional physical contact, that unless the charge specifies use of force or threats, as described in the Lautenberg law, the proscription of firearms cannot be legally applied. Their petition goes on to challenge the constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment itself under the provisions of Article One’s ex post facto restrictions, and the Second, Fifth, and Sixth amendments.
Courting Disaster Could Barack Obama replace Justice Scalia?
By Jeff Knox
(February 17, 2016) On Saturday, February 13, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died at a West Texas hunting resort, one month shy of his 80th birthday. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat commented, “Politics aside, we should all die full of years, with 28 grandchildren, in our sleep after quail hunting.” But politics was not really put aside for a moment. Justice Scalia led the “conservative” wing of the precariously balanced court and his death immediately raises questions about succession. As we have often reported in recent months, the Supreme Court is, or should be, one of the central issues of the 2016 Presidential Election. The untimely death of Justice Scalia has brought that fact home in a very tangible way.
The two sides of the court have been almost evenly split, with a slight edge to the “conservatives,” for over two decades. On the “liberal side, are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (83), Stephen Breyer (77), Elana Kagan (56), and Sonia Sotomayor (62). On the “conservative” side are Chief Justice John Roberts (61), Samuel Alito (66), and Clarence Thomas (68). Holding the critical “swing” position is Justice Anthony Kennedy (79), who usually leans to the “conservative” side, but often swings to the “liberal” wing, particularly on “social” issues. With Scalia on the court, “conservatives” had an edge, not just in votes, but in intellect, philosophy, and powers of persuasion. Scalia was smart, thorough, extremely knowledgeable, and he wielded significant influence over his fellow justices. No new justice, no matter how qualified, is going to have the respect Scalia had earned.
With almost a year left in his term as President, Barack Obama has the right to nominate someone to fill the vacancy on the court – with the advice and consent of the Senate. With a Republican-controlled Senate, that consent is not going to come easily, especially considering Barack Obama’s record when it comes to taking advice from Republicans.
By Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox urges members to cast ballot for just 1 man in race for 25 seats
Vote Board of DirectorsFirearmsCoalition.org
Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- Every year the NRA elects one third of its 76-member Board of Directors to a three-year term, plus one to a one-year term, and every year I share my thoughts on the candidates.
Only Life Members and Annual Members with at least five consecutive years of membership are eligible to vote. Those members will have received a mail-in ballot in their latest NRA magazine. If you did, VOTE, and be sure to read the directions carefully.
For those voting members of NRA who don’t want to bother reading the whole column, I’ll tell you up front that I am only endorsing one candidate this year: Sean Maloney.
I encourage voting members to “Bullet Vote,” marking only Sean Maloney’s name and no one else.
This year there are two issues above and beyond regular NRA internal politics: a recall effort against Grover Norquist and the controversy over Ted Nugent’s “sharing” of a rather blatantly anti-Semitic Facebook meme.
I think the Facebook controversy surrounding Nugent is pretty overblown. Ted is an old-school rocker, not particularly known for PC sensibilities. He should have looked at the picture a little more closely before forwarding it on with his comments, but he didn’t, and people who don’t like him made a huge deal about it. I’ve known Ted for a long time. My sister used to babysit his kids. While he certainly has his faults, anti-Semitism isn’t one of them. In spite of monumental efforts from the anti-rights media, the charges against Ted seem to have fizzled after he made a public apology to, and through, the Zelman Partisans, a group of hardline rights activists who split from Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership after its founder, Aaron Zelman, passed away and the group was absorbed by Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation. The controversy is not going to hurt Ted’s re-election bid.
As to the effort to recall Grover Norquist, I do not support it. I’ve known Grover for a number of years, and while I don’t always agree with him on other political issues, and I would prefer that politicians, celebrities and political insiders like Norquist be part of an advisory board rather than members of the policymaking body of the NRA, I think the charges proffered against him are bogus and that removing him from office would be harmful to the Association.
I fully expect the membership to reject the recall, and I encourage members to vote NO.
NRA elects board members to a three-year term, with 25 seats, one-third of the board, up for election each year – and incumbents have a significant advantage. The class that is up for election this year has more “celebrity” members than either of the other two groups, making it the most difficult to break into. Along with Ted Nugent, Oliver North and Susan Howard of “Dallas” fame, the class also includes basketball’s Carl Malone, football star Dave Butz and NASCAR great Richard Childress. Then there are the politicians, former Sen. Larry Craig, former Reps. Don Young and Bob Barr, former Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt and Indiana State Sen. Johnny Nugent. Finally, there are the NRA and industry celebrities, former NRA Presidents Marion Hammer and Sandy Froman, and current NRA First Vice President Pete Brownell. Of these 14, only one is at any risk of failing to make the cut. I’ll leave it to you to guess which one. That leaves only 12 seats, and some of those are filled by well-respected stalwarts who are solidly ensconced.
At best, four, maybe five seats could be in play this year. Allen West, a former congressman and popular columnist, will almost certainly take a seat. Bart Skelton, gun writer and son of gun writing legend Skeeter Skelton, and Craig Morgan, country singer and outdoor show host, both have some celebrity status, but I’m not sure how deep that runs among voting members, or how much effort they have been putting into winning a seat. Either could possibly make the cut. There are also competitive shooters, likely to draw heavy support from those ranks, and local activists who are campaigning hard, but I doubt that will be enough. All appear to be solid candidates. Some are personal friends, but I don’t think it is likely that any of them can garner enough votes to unseat any of the incumbents.
Vote Sean Maloney for NRA Board
The one incumbent I strongly support, and who I see as most vulnerable, is Sean Maloney. I endorsed Maloney and his fellow Colorado Recall architect Timothy Knight last year. Knight made the cut, but Maloney did not. Thankfully, he was able to win election to the one-year, “76th Director” seat that is voted on each year at the NRA’s Annual Meeting of members. During his year on the board, he obviously impressed folks because he has gotten the nod from the Nominating Committee this year, as well as being nominated by petition. That’s pretty unusual but doesn’t surprise me. Maloney is an impressive guy and a workhorse for the cause. He’s an Ohio attorney, where he is very active in local battles, but he virtually moved to Colorado to assist with the recall effort. And that’s not the first, or last, time he’s simply shown up on the front lines with his work gloves on asking how he can help. He’s a firebrand and he’s smart. We need people like Maloney on the NRA Board.
I am going to vote only for Maloney, because if I cast a vote for any one of the other 19 candidates actually competing for the last few seats, that person – who I like but don’t support as strongly as I support Maloney – could bump Maloney out of the running, meaning I would be negating my own vote.
Therefore, I am asking NRA voting members to join me in casting a single “Bullet Vote” for Sean Maloney.
(February 4, 2016) I’ve received a number questions about who I like for the 2016 Presidential Elections. Frankly, I’m not anxious to pick a horse. All other issues aside, from a GunVoter perspective, the only Democrat candidate that I would have even considered considering was Jim Webb, and he dropped out of the race months ago – though he has kept the door open for the possibility of an independent run, and possibly as a hedge in case one of Hillary Clinton’s many scandals ever actually catches up with her.
In the expansive Republican field, I have been unimpressed. Donald Trump has been talking an over-the-top conservative game, shoveling out a lot of what the late New York Senator Daniel Moynihan used to call “boob bait for the bubbas.” The fact is, until recently, Trump was a Democrat, and in years past often expressed support for various gun control schemes. In spite of his recent positions on guns, his record moves him way down my list of acceptable candidates. Most of the rest of the field has already been winnowed down, with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio being the only other likely contenders at this point.
I have predicted that Trump’s huge popularity will not translate into actual votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, a prediction that has panned out in Iowa. I think the mainstream Republican base is just as mistrustful of him as I am, and the serious conservatives have always favored Cruz. I expect Cruz’s star to rise through the three contests remaining this month, but as Trump fades, the contest will shift from Trump vs. Cruz to Cruz vs. Rubio. By March 1, when 14 states will assign delegates on “Super Tuesday,” I think we will see Rubio surge. I’m not saying this is what I want to see happen; it’s a prediction, not a statement of preference. As I noted, I’m not picking a horse.
