Second Amendment Sanctuary” Idea Gaining Ground as Dems Push for More Gun Control

RICHMOND — In the wake of the Democrat takeover of Virginia, the newly empowered Left is unapologetic about plans to disarm residents of the Old Dominion. Governor Ralph Northam — having previously failed to get any traction for his citizen-disarmament policies — now appears to see his way clear to implement them. But partisan victories do not necessarily equal a carte blanche mandate. Virginians across the state are prepared to resist his gun grab, and they have the law — and some in law enforcement — on their side.

As a result of the Maoist-assisted shift to the Left in Virginia, Democrats in the birthplace of a nation appear to believe they can run roughshod over the God-given, constitutionally protected rights of Virginians. While Northam may not have expressed it quite the way former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke did in his bid for the DNC presidential nomination, he nonetheless promised that he will press forward with “common sense” gun-control laws. “Common sense” is a liberal buzz-word for repressive restrictions on the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Northam and other Democrats had tried on previous occasions to enact restrictive gun laws, but were held at bay by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. With the recent election giving Democrats control of both houses, Northam has promised to press his agenda through. That agenda includes universal background checks; child access prevention; a one-gun-per-month purchase limit; bans on all so-called assault weapons, including bump stocks and high-capacity magazines; legal responsibilities for lost or stolen guns; allowing municipalities to ban guns from municipal buildings; and so-called red flag laws.

“Red flag laws” are laws that prevent a person who has not committed a crime from buying a gun. All that is necessary is that the person is accused of being “dangerous.” As the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group active in Virginia since 1994, explains:

The person accused of being “dangerous” has not committed a crime and has no notice there is a problem until the police show up, pre-dawn, with guns drawn and confiscate the accused’s firearms. The accused is not given due process to defend himself or herself in court from the accusation for weeks or months after the confiscation. It is up to the accused to prove that he or she is not dangerous! (How do you prove a negative? How do you prove you are not dangerous?) Until such proof is provided to the Court's satisfaction, the guns are not returned. This could drag on for months, years, or indefinitely!

So, claims of “common sense” duly noted, the reality is that Democrats plan to not only limit Virginians’ ability to purchase guns, but also to confiscate them without anything resembling due process.

Read the entire article

Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington Sent Back to State Court

When Connecticut’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling last March that Remington Arms was protected from a lawsuit by families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, Remington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Without comment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back the appeal that allows the lawsuit against Remington to proceed.

The essence of the case against Remington is this: The company is accused of violating Connecticut’s fair trade laws by deceptively marketing its Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle. The company’s ads touted the rifle’s looks and expressed its benefits in ways that the families considered deceptive. That’s important because one of the exceptions to the federal law protecting arms manufacturers from such lawsuits — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — is that victims are allowed to sue if a manufacturer “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that Remington’s Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle — the one Adam Lanza stole from his mother Nancy (before murdering her) and used to murder 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 — was “designed as a military weapon” and “engineered to deliver maximum carnage” with great efficiency.

They argued that Remington touted the rifle’s military appearance as a marketing strategy, including an ad showing a large picture of the rifle along with the text: “Forces of opposition, Bow down. The only rifle you need to master the infinite number of extreme scenarios you’ll face in the worlds of law enforcement and personal defense.” The ad called the rifle the “ultimate military combat weapons system,” adding that “It’s tested and proven reliable in the most brutal conditions on earth, truly ambidextrous and the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission-adaptable as you are.”

Another ad touted the rifle’s masculinity: “Consider your man card reissued.”

The attorneys chimed that somehow these influenced Adam Lanza to use the Bushmaster in his killing spree — that he was “encouraged” by those ads to use it to commit his atrocity at Sandy Hook. In its ruling last March that overturned the lower court, the state’s Supreme Court obliquely agreed: “If the defendants’ marketing materials did in fact inspire or intensify the massacre, then there are no more direct victims than these plaintiffs.”

Chief Justice Richard Robinson spoke for the Connecticut court’s majority:

If the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault [sic] weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.

Read the entire article

Another Russiagate Flop: Senate Finance Committee Calls NRA a Russian Asset

The U.S. Senate Finance Committee released a report in September, claiming the National Rifle Association (NRA) acted as a "foreign asset" for Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election. The 77-page minority report released by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) focuses on a 2015 NRA delegation to Russia, and the relationship between the NRA and Russian nationals, Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin. The report capitalizes on the anti-Russia attitude that is so prevalent today in US politics and seems like nothing more than an attempt to smear and embarrass the NRA.

Maria Butina is the founder of the Russian gun rights organization Right to Bear Arms. She is currently serving an 18-month sentence for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). FARA requires "persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal."

While the media has portrayed Butina as a spy, in reality, Butina is an ambitious gun rights activist who was caught up in the Russia hysteria of post-2016 election America. FARA was created to keep track of foreign lobbyists and has nothing to do with spies. Butina plead guilty to the charge to keep her sentence shorter.

Alexander Torshin is a former Russian politician, a gun rights enthusiast, and a friend of Butina since 2012. Torshin met Butina while he was serving as a senator in the Duma (a Russian legislative body). After the two met, Torshin tweeted, "We will start organizing our own Russian NRA." Torshin brought Butina and her organization to the Duma and discussed the possibility of loosening gun restrictions in Russia through legislation. In January 2015, Torshin finished his service as a Senator and was appointed deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia.

Read the entire article

Gun Control & War with Middle East

WAITING PERIODS: A Right Delayed is A Right Denied

Trump Announces U.S. Withdrawal From UN Arms Trade Treaty

During his speech April 26 to the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, President Donald Trump revealed that he will end the participation of the United States in the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

“Today, I’m proud to announce another historic step to protect your Second Amendment rights,” the president told those gathered to discuss the future of the right to keep and bear arms.

Then, after informing the audience that he had not informed the NRA-ILA leadership in advance that he intended to make this praiseworthy parting of ways with the UN, President Trump spelled out his motivation for abandoning the ATT:

So, in the last administration, President Obama signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.  And in his waning days in office, he sent the treaty to the Senate to begin the ratification process.

This treaty threatened your subjugate — and you know exactly what’s going on here — your rights and your constitutional and international rules and restrictions and regulations.

Under my administration, we will never surrender American sovereignty to anyone. We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom.  And that is why my administration will never ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.  I hope you’re happy.

Read the entire article

Anti-Gun Activist Tossed From Gun Hearing After Threatening to Shoot GOP Lawmaker, NRA Members

A woman was reportedly expelled from a gun hearing after she threatened to “blow away” a state GOP lawmaker and NRA members.

A hearing was held in Hartford, Connecticut on Monday to discuss new legislation calling for tougher gun laws following the accidental shooting of a teenage boy.

One of the anti-gun activists ironically threatened to shoot the place up and was subsequently removed from the hearing.

“If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA,” a text message from an unidentified woman read. (screenshot below)

The anti-gun activist threatened Republican Connecticut State Senator Rob Sampson, a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and defender of the NRA.

Read the entire article

Anti-Gun Rights David Hogg Calls for Canadians to Intervene to Save America

Appearing on stage at the Toronto (Canada) Film Festival, anti-gun rights activist David Hogg asked Canadians to intervene in American elections with campaign contributions. Hogg and some other Parkland, Florida, high school students had been invited up to the stage last week by movie producer Michael Moore. They had just screened Moore’s anti-Trump film Fahrenheit 11/9.

Moore is known for left-leaning “documentaries,” such as Bowling for Columbine, in which he cruelly mocked Charlton Heston, the former president of the National Rifle Association, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

Hogg took the microphone away from Moore and shouted, “I have a question for you guys. Who’s ready to save America?” Hogg specifically expressed concern about what would happen if the Democrats fail to re-take Congress in November.

After applause, Hogg continued, asking the Canadian audience, “Who’s ready to make America the country we say it is on paper, and make it the actual country that it wants to be?”

Turning to Moore, Hogg demonstrated his ignorance when he told the Canadian audience, “I think Canadians can donate to political campaigns in the United States.”

Read the entire article

How Will Americans React To Gun Confiscation

Left WORRIED that Senate hearing on Parkland school shooting will NOT focus on NRA and instead on FBI, law enforcement

Pointing Fingers: Liberal news outlets are voicing concern that a Senate hearing focusing on events that led to the recent shootings at a Parkland, Fla., high school will focus more on failures of local law enforcement and the FBI rather than the nation’s foremost gun-rights group, the NRA.

“A Push for Gun Control Legislation Appears Dead in Congress. Again,” the Left-leaning Daily Beast news site reported.

“Meaningful reform on guns or “school safety” appears to be nearing a quiet death, just weeks after demands for action peaked following the Parkland shooting,” the web site noted.

“Sources on Capitol Hill now universally say they do not expect legislation—even the narrowed down variety—to pass, while senior officials at the White House appear committed to spotlighting the influence they suggest violent video games are having on our nation’s youth.”

The site noted further:

Read the entire article

Nevada Bundy Prosecution Collapses: The Federal Government Spent a Quarter-Billion Dollars but Couldn’t Convict the Bundys of a Single Crime

In 2013 the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) obtained federal court orders authorizing the agency to “seize and remove to impound” hundreds of Cliven Bundy’s cattle on the public ranges around Bunkerville, Nevada.   The agency interpreted these court orders broadly, and descended on the area in April 2014 with some 200 body-armor-wearing agents, semiautomatic weapons, sniper teams, undercover informants, and surveillance cameras aimed at the Bundy residence.

The BLM brought more than corralls and horse trailers.  They brought backhoes, dumptrucks and earth-moving equipment to tear up water lines and other infrastructure that had been built by Bundy and his ancestors over decades.  Defying county officials, the federal officers chose calving season—the very time when cows and newborn calves are most physically weak and vulnerable—to execute the court orders.  They orchestrated a paramilitarized roundup operation using helicopters to terrify the cattle into stampeding to the point of exhaustion in extreme heat. At least 40 cows either died from the ordeal or were shot by BLM employees and contractors.

The Feds even used the impoundment order to establish “First Amendment Zones” limiting freedom of speech in a 600,000-acre area to two small isolated parcels in the desert.  It was almost certainly the largest infringement of First Amendment rights (by area) in American history.

When Bundy’s son Dave stopped on a state highway to photograph BLM snipers on local hillsides, BLM agents threw him down, ground his face into asphalt and falsely arrested him.  And when other family members stopped a BLM dump truck to inquire if the truck was carrying dead cows, BLM agents erupted in a flurry of violence.

Read the entire article

Memo From Middle America: Mexican Gun Control Doesn’t Work, But Mass Immigration Could Bring It Here Anyway

Immigration impacts every other political issue. And if mass immigration continues, Americans’ right to bear arms will be lost.

The Mexican media is mostly opposed to America’s Second Amendment. Mass shootings are widely publicized in the Mexican media and blamed on American gun laws. Mexico’s Excelsior has a regular online section entitled Violencia Armada en EU (“Armed Violence in the United States”)

Mexico’s gun laws are far stricter than America’s. It’s not illegal to own one, but the government makes it difficult. Civilian gun ownership is under the authority of the military, it’s harder to obtain a gun, there’s a lot of paperwork and expense and there’s only one gun store in the entire country  [At a Nation’s Only Gun Shop, Looking North in Disbelief, by Damien Cave, New York Times, July 24, 2012].

It wasn’t always so. The Mexican Constitution of 1857 stated in Article X: “Every man has the right to possess and bear arms for his security and legitimate defense. The law will indicate which are prohibited and the penalty to be incurred by those who bear them.” [Translation]

The 1917 constitution’s Article X also defined a right to bear arms.

Read the entire article

All 4 'Gun Control' Amendments Get 'Shot Down' by Senate

The Orlando Massacre Massive Psyop For Gun Control