Biden Plans "Psych" Test for Gun Ownership

His talk about AR-15 confiscation is overruled by new

"character, suitability and 'any other' " requirements
for gun ownership; Second Amendment would be optional.

The Bill of Rights ban on infringement would be ignored;
Unelected bureaucrats will literally choose who can bear arms;
All existing arms in private hands will be subject to confiscation.

A plain reading—not "analysis"—of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's gun bill, now in both houses of Congress, will require current and future gun owners to pass psychology and character tests to continue owning the firearms they already legally possess. When asked, legal experts have been unable to describe how this would be legal, Biden has not commented. America has 100 million gun owners by most estimates. That has grown dramatically by sales to people terrified amidst urban rioting, who can't get police protection, during the corona-virus pandemic.

The first line of the identical bills, HR5717 and S3254, requires a federal license for any American to legally "purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition." This is de facto infringement.

To obtain this license you would need to prove to unelected officials that you are of "sound mind and character," you do not "potentially create a risk to public safety," and you meet "any other requirements the State determines relevant." No standards or guidelines are provided. Assuming anyone could qualify, authorities, "make a determination of suitability," for your possession and ownership of firearms, including any you currently own. Orthodox Rabbi Raziel Cohen, a JPFO Ambassador and certified trainer says, "This outrageous usurpation of power, and affront to the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment could never pass muster at the U.S. Supreme Court."

Alan Korwin, an author and consultant to JPFO notes that, "Democrats have publicly promised if they can't succeed legislatively, they will repeal the filibuster rule, pack the Supreme Court with left-leaning Justices and exercise their will." Nothing limits the High Court to only nine seats.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA

DEMOCRATS STILL WAVING RED FLAGS

Red Flag Laws Don't Fly in the Land of the Free If you're too dangerous to have a gun— you're too dangerous to be out in public! Current Democrats' gun-law bill would release potential spree murderers Campaigning for the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress on a platform that turns potential gun psychotics loose should be an automatic non-starter. Somehow, establishment media and a huge portion of the body politic see no problem with this plan. The national red-flag law Democrats want (HR 5717) would empower neighbors to "snitch" on each other, enabling authorities to confiscate firearms, then turn the supposedly disarmed psychotics loose on the streets. No medical or serious judicial review of the neighbors' claims would be required, just a good faith story. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org, is opposed to this plan, as every individual not afflicted by irrational gun-fear should be. Empowering neighbors, who may suffer from the debilitating terrors of hoplophobia, or gun fear, to turn in their neighbors, is a precedent never even considered in this nation of 100 million decent gun owners. People with morbid gun fear believe all gun owners are dangerous—is this who should enforce law? Giving authorities power to confiscate firearms from you, without notice, no chance to confront your accuser, or even basic due process, violates the very fabric of our free society. It evinces a desire to subject us under absolute despotism, with no effect on crime or criminal behavior. It is people supporting such bills (S3254 in the Senate), who are dangerous and need investigation. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3254/text, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text ##### Support JPFO, Standing for Truth Against All Odds: https://store.jpfo.org/11-donations “Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org is America’s most aggressive civil-rights organization, dedicated to destroying the notion of 'gun control' as any kind of credible public-policy position. So-called 'gun control' does not control guns and doesn’t control criminal behavior. What it does is disarm the innocent, leaving them helpless in the face of criminals, tyrannical governments and genocide. History repeatedly proves this fact. Founded in 1989 by Aaron Zelman as a response to the Holocaust, JPFO speaks with the moral authority and tenacious commitment of survivors of persecution, and knows that surrendering your personal and family safety to government protection courts disaster. You don’t have to be Jewish to fight by our side, you just have to love liberty.” Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser on JPFO.

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA

Time for a History Lesson about Gun Control

By Stephen P. Halbrook  |  Posted: Fri. June 22, 2018, 10:29am PTAlso published in Townhall on Fri. June 22, 2018

Advocates of “commonsense gun safety” measures have been promoting two major objectives. One is universal background checks, about which the National Institute of Justice wrote, “effectiveness depends on . . . requiring gun registration.” Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) just introduced a bill in Congress that would do just that—create a national registry of all firearm owners.

The other objective is a ban on “assault weapons,” which have been defined in contradictory, bizarre, ways. The American Medical Association has just reaffirmed its endorsement of such a ban, including the confiscation of all such firearms from Americans at large.

Why hasn’t Congress adopted these proposals?

Perhaps commonsense does matter. Most guns are sold by licensed dealers, who are required to clear every sale through the National Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Congress recently passed the Fix NICS bill because governmental units were often not reporting criminal records to NICS. That’s why the Texas church shooter was able to buy a rifle. His massacre was ended only by a citizen who shot him with an AR-15.

It is doubtful that background checks for occasional private sales between law-abiding citizens would prevent any crimes. Don’t hold your breath waiting for criminals to do background checks on each other.

Similarly, the Parkland school shooting had nothing to do with the ability of law-abiding citizens to own semiautomatic firearms. The FBI did nothing with the information that Nikolas Cruz threatened to carry out the murders, the local sheriff ignored his terroristic threats, and a cowardly deputy just stood outside while students were massacred.

President Clinton did sign a law in 1994, which expired ten years later, banning “assault weapons.” The law was not renewed after studies showed that it had no effect on crime.

The federal NICS law, passed in 1993, prohibits registration of guns and gun owners. Congress has repeatedly rejected gun registration based on bitter historical lessons. Just before the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress forbade gun registration and reaffirmed the Second Amendment based on how the Nazis used registration records to confiscate firearms from their intended victims.

Purportedly to fight violence in the streets, Germany’s Weimar Republic decreed gun registration in 1931, but warned that the records must not fall into the hands of radical elements. Hitler seized power in 1933 and used those very records to disarm political opponents and Jews in order to render them incapable of any form of resistance.

Political protest in France prompted Prime Minister Pierre Laval in 1935 to decree firearm registration and repression of the right to assemble. What could possibly go wrong?

The registration records were critical to the Nazis who overran France in 1940, imposed the death penalty for not turning in guns, and conscripted the French police to ferret out violators. Despite the chance of being executed, numerous French citizens did not surrender their firearms.

The very same Pierre Laval became the chief collaborator of the Nazis during the occupation. The newspapers regularly reported the names of gun owners shot by firing squads.

The brave French who had never registered their guns and retained them formed the basis for the Resistance. To be sure, they never had sufficient arms, and prewar restrictions on “military style” firearms hampered their efforts, leaving them to resist with inferior weapons. Yet they were able to commit acts of sabotage, gain intelligence, and sustain an underground movement to assist the Allies. After D-Day, they engaged in open armed resistance.

Such experiences are as old as humanity. Tyrants, conquerors, and dictatorships of every breed disarm the subjects in order to dominate and exploit them. Does that iron law of history mean anything today?

No such conditions exist in the United States, due in no small part to our rights protected by the First and Second Amendments. But history should teach us to be careful of what we wish for.

Require registration of, or ban, guns arbitrarily called “assault weapons” or even all firearms? Don’t bank on much compliance. Impose felony penalties? As the wartime French illustrated, many wouldn’t comply even with the threat of the death penalty.

Maybe it’s time to pursue real solutions to criminal violence and forget about a war on law-abiding gun owners.

---

Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D., is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the new book Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance, and Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”, The Founders' Second Amendment and Securing Civil Rights, the latter two of which were cited in the the U.S. Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago as well as his earlier Amici Curiae Brief in Heller on behalf of 55 members of the Senate, the Senate President, and 250 members of the House of Representatives. Dr. Halbrook is also the author of the book, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right(Independent Institute).

-27 // "What Should We Do About Guns?"

It was -19 at the house this morning, and -27 along the river. It warmed all the way up to -19 at the office in Anchorage. Globular warmering at its finest, eh?

* * * * *

And here's something you won't see everyday: a university professor telling the truth about gun control.

5 Facts That Gun Control Advocates Hate

From our friends at the JPFO

Calls For Gun Confiscation Have Begun

From the GOA:

The Left Calls for Confiscating Your Guns in Wake of California Shooting

---

ACTION:  The anti-gun Left is pulling out the stops and is now calling for gun confiscation.  We have to meet “fire with fire.”  So forward this alert to ten people.  Encourage your pro-gun family and friends to sign up for GOA alerts.  
And, you can also give Gift Memberships to your family/friends this holiday season.  We need your support and activism more than ever!

---

The Anti-gun Left Declares War on Your Gun Rights
Dear Paul, 

President Obama took to the airwaves on Sunday night and told the nation we need more gun control.

Hillary Clinton -- the one who will most likely be the Democrat nominee for president in 2016 -- recently called for an all-out war on guns, as well.  

And then, for the first time since 1920, the New York Times published an editorial on the front page of their newspaper.  

This is important because the editorial page of the Times reflects the thinking of the anti-gun Democrat Left. 

And what is the theme of the Times' most important message in nearly a hundred years? 

In two words:  Gun Confiscation.


Left “drops the gloves,” calls for gun confiscation

The New York Times said this weekend that:

It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

The Times continues that there would be no grandfather clause for the 300,000,000-plus firearms we currently own:  

[I]t would require Americans who own these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens. 

So there you have it.  You need to give up your guns -- for the good of the country.

Ironically, the editors at The Washington Post are furious with the Times for letting the “cat out of the bag.” They called the Times’ editorial “predictably polarizing.”

But as one insightful journalist noted, the Post editors are only upset because the Times’ piece confirms “every gun owner’s worst fear -- namely, that all the talk about gun safety and reducing gun violence is just a sham, and the real agenda of the gun control movement is total confiscation.”


Gun confiscation has always been the goal of the anti-gun Left

Everyone has known that a Hillary presidency would result in greater restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.

---

But now her mouthpiece at the Times has explicitly revealed what we knew already was the case -- the Left wants to CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS. 
 
Anti-gun radicals usually try not to say this publicly, because they know that talk of gun confiscation loses elections. But when caught on “candid camera,” they tell you they want to confiscate guns.  

Take Maryland’s Deputy Attorney General -- a liberal Democrat -- who was recently caught on hidden camera stating “we should ban guns altogether, period.”

Or remember when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) said, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, that among the different gun control proposals that were being bandied about, “[gun] confiscation could be an option.”

Or when several Democrat state senators were caught on an open microphone in New Jersey saying, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

This is their agenda.


Anti-gunners blame YOU for massacres like San Bernardino’s

In its editorial, the Times lambasted pro-gun, Republican politicians who “abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs.”

That’s what the Left thinks of you.  They think that your rights and freedoms … that your guns which have NEVER harmed anyone -- are the problem because you are aiding and abetting killers. 

These are the stakes we face in the 2016 elections.  

If Clinton wins, we can expect her to push the same Times’ agenda, which will include the elimination of “large categories of weapons and ammunition” -- probably by executive fiat.  

And we can expect the Obama-packed courts to roll over and ignore the “peculiar wording of the Second Amendment.”

You have eleven months before the November, 2016, elections.  And everything we believe in is at stake.

Please forward this alert and encourage your pro-gun family and friends to sign up for GOA alerts.  

Yes, it's that obvious. They think they can force Americans to surrender firearms. And when the armed rebellion begins - and it will - they think they can win. The only question is, how many will have to die to prove them wrong?

GOA Says Obama Planning Gun Control Via Executive Order

Dear Paul, 

I’m sure you’ve heard the news.

There’s been another shooting -- this one in California -- and, already, the President is using the tragedy to go after your guns.

Obama said yesterday that we need more “common sense gun safety laws” and “stronger background checks.”

Of course, Obama ignores the fact that California has THE STRICTEST laws in the country -- banning most so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines, requiring Universal Background Checks, imposing a 10-day waiting period, and much more.

He also used the opportunity to say that terrorists who are on the “no fly list” can easily exploit our gun laws by just walking into a gun store and buying a gun.

And herein lies the subterfuge that Obama is currently using to impose a backdoor gun ban.

The big ruse: Get Americans to ignore Obama’s incompetence

Breitbart News reported recently that the White House is using gun control as a ruse to “distract” Americans away from the President’s “faltering Islamic State strategy.”

Says AWR Hawkins of Breitbart:  The President wants to expand firearm “background checks to include individuals listed in the no-fly list.”

The President repeated this call for Universal Background Checks yesterday -- a proposal that would necessarily require a BAN on the private sale of firearms.

As stated above, California has already tried this failed approach.  And nationally, background checks are a huge failure, given that roughly 95% of initial denials under the NICS system are “false positives.”

But Obama’s solution -- that of using the government’s “secret blacklist” to keep people from purchasing guns -- is especially heinous, as it will prevent even more law-abiding gun owners from purchasing firearms.

The Terror Watch list is riddled with errors

For the record: There are a whopping number of names on the various government lists -- 47,000 on the “No-Fly” list, with another 700,000 on the government’s “terror watch” list.

One frequent criticism is that no one knows how the names got on these lists, or how people can get off.

We do know that people like the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Representative Don Young (R-AK) have been temporarily blocked from getting on planes because their names were on a “watch” list -- or their names were confused with people on that list.

We also know that an 8-year old Cub Scout from New Jersey is on the no-fly list.
And like that Cub Scout, there are hundreds of thousands of people -- at least 38% of those on the “secret blacklist” -- who have been erroneously flagged, according to the Office of the Inspector General.

There are no standards for populating the “watch list.” The uber-liberal Huffington Post says one way to get on the list is to just be “unlucky.”

Bipartisan support for a “secret blacklist” gun ban?

It is imperative that you contact your congressmen -- regardless of whether they are a Republican or Democrat.

This secret gun ban has tremendous support among Democrats, but even among some Republicans as well.

Donald Trump, one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, has voiced support for using the government’s “terror watch” list to ban Americans from buying guns.

This is why your outpouring of opposition is so important.  You can prevent even more Republicans from jumping on board this bad idea.

On the other side of the aisle, Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) are pushing a similar idea in S. 551 -- legislation that could be dubbed as the “Let Terrorists Walk the Streets” act.  (H.R. 1076 is the companion bill in the House of Representatives.)

Under this proposal, if the Attorney General determines that an individual has been engaged in terrorism, the Democrat solution is to continue to let the terrorist walk the street, while simply adding his name to the NICS system to prevent him from acquiring guns -- as if a law were capable of doing that.

But here’s an idea for Feinstein and Schumer:  “If you identify a terrorist, then you SHOULD PROBABLY ARREST him, rather than using him as a pawn in your gun control agenda.”

Ominously, this bill specifically allows the Attorney General to conceal WHY that person was added into NICS, thus allowing an anti-gun Attorney General like Loretta Lynch to illegitimately add thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of Americans into the “no buy” list, without ever being called to account.

This just underscores how important it is for ALL gun owners to lobby their congressmen on this issue.

Tell your Representative and Senators to oppose every effort from the White House to cynically use Obama’s failure to curb terrorism as an excuse to impose a “secret blacklist” gun ban.  
Thank you for your activism.  It makes a difference.

Erich Pratt
Director of Communications
Gun Owners of America

P.S.  Attacks on our liberties increase more when people feel less secure.  So it’s vitally important to remind your legislator that an armed populace is THE BEST security against terrorism.  So please click here to take action.

Let's Talk About Politicizing Mass Murder

Okay, so we'll let pictures do the talking. 'Nuff said?

More UN-Style Gun Control?

From the Gun Owners of America:


Obama wants more UN-styled gun control

Right now White House officials are booking flights to Mexico...... and they’re not bringing back souvenirs.
They’re on their way to the UN Small Arms Conference, to be held in Mexico City on August 24.
And they’re planning to bring back the framework for a global gun control regime.

It’s important that you contact your Senators right now and tell them to vote NO on any agreement reached at the Mexico UN conference.
Obama has already signed the UN Small Arms Treaty and it is waiting ratification by the Senate.

Obama’s global gun grabbers are jetting down to Mexico to iron out the details of this tyrannical new regime.

It requires signing nations to "establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list."

That means not just NATIONAL gun registration. You will be entered into a GLOBAL gun registration database.
Over the past century, we have seen registration lists used as a prelude to gun confiscation in countries like Rwanda, Cambodia and many more.

Gun confiscation, in turn, led to horrific genocides in many of these countries -- including Rwanda and Cambodia. 

Imagine dictators around the world -- who can control the UN blue helmets (aka, the UN military force) -- having your name on record as a gun owner.

It’s preposterous!  And this is why the Senate MUST kill this toxic agreement.
Please take action to defend your gun rights.

ACTION: Contact your senators right now.  Tell them to vote NO on any agreement reached at the Mexico UN conference.

The Second Amendment Isn't for Playing

The Second Amendment Isn't for Playing


Excerpt:

Some variation of the words "for sporting purposes" can be found repeated over and over again in the interminable list of "gun control" laws burdening the American people. Given the history of those words, used that way, JPFO readers have plenty of reason to want to see them excised from American legal code, like the cancerous tumors they are.


But it's more than "merely" the fact that the "sporting purposes" requirement for firearms and ammunition appears to have been lifted directly from the gun laws of Nazi Germany, but the fact of why a government would want to limit the people's access to firearms to those that are better for recreation than for the deadly serious business of defending one's family, liberty, and life. There can be only one reason for that: the government does not wish the people to possess the means to effectively defend those things.

Go. Read the whole thing.

Short Attention Span

I remember when Ronald Reagan said, "I used to be a Democrat, but the Democratic Party left me", and now I wonder how long before conservatives are tempted to say, "I used to be an American, but ..."  It certainly seems as though the inmates are running the asylum, these last few years.

Remember when the will of the people was enough to cause Congress to reverse course on unpopular issues? I miss those days.

I recall instructions in boot camp about how sailors were not obligated to follow an unlawful command. What no one specified, however, was the procedure to follow if we decided that an order or command was indeed unlawful. To whom were we supposed to turn?

I suspect that the average sailor was too used to following orders, after awhile, to give it much thought. That in itself frightens me now, as we contemplate the possibility of a nation-wide repetition of the 'Great Louisiana Gun Grab.' As various members of Congress debate how many bodies they'd be comfortable with, before a lunatic runs out of ammo in his/her first magazine, the State Department proceeds with the U.N.'s treaty to disarm American citizens.

Molon labe, y'all.

Will our military remember that such a thing is unconstitutional, and must not be obeyed? Or will they do as the National Guardsman in Louisiana who said sheepishly, "It made me feel a little weird," but did it anyway?


What I expect would happen, though, is the incremental approach as they begin to disarm individuals and small groups, in isolated areas. Despite the popularity of T-shirts which read, "The Founders would be shooting by now", it's pretty obvious that there won't be any widespread uprising. That leaves individual resistance, unless the level of unconstitutional tyranny gets ratcheted up sharply. Given the progressives' approach, I suspect they'll continue to move just slowly enough to allow the heat to die down before the cross the next "line in the sand".

And while we hear stories about this group or that being raided, the majority will sit back, forgetting the urgency because of their shortened TV/internet attention-deficit. They won't take it seriously until a squad of black-clad soldiers/police (and what's the effective difference, these days?) show up at their front door & turn the house upside down, looking for now-prohibited arms and ammunition.

And then, of course, it will be too late to do anything except stand around, bleating ineffectually.

Don't look to the courts for any help. 

It will fall to the several States to effectively nullify any federal actions in this regard. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said about hanging together?
* * * * *

In local news, we watch gaggles of politicians (State and municipal) debating the sudden need for fiscal conservatism due to budget shortfalls. It would be amusing, if it weren't so serious, how it seems to be an unfamiliar concept to them. They're more interested in pointing fingers at one another, debating whether it's the previous Governor or mayor, or the current ones at fault, all the while talking about which programs need more money. Then they debate, without apparent end, about how many bond issues to place on the next ballot.

It never seems to occur to more than one or two of them that perhaps the issue isn't how many, but whether to place any at all.

I don't want to get depressed, so I'll move on to other things today. The weather is warmish this morning (24 degrees) with scattered areas of dense fog, and we only received about a half-inch of wet snow yesterday. There are probably slick spots, but yesterday afternoon's sunshine melted most of what fell on the roads. There's no snow in the forecast at all, as AccuHunch calls for a warm, rainy period over the next week. 

We could use the snow: the Iditarod's re-start on March 8th has already been moved from Willow to Fairbanks, and the Tustamena 200 on the Kenai Peninsula has been canceled due to lack of snow for the second year in a row.

Oh, well.

Thanks for stopping by, friends. Happy Friday!

Bloomberg Counting on Gun Owners' Stupidity

Wayne LaPierre: Bloomberg Banking On The ‘Stupidity’ Of Gun Owners

Remember the firestorm that erupted last year when Obama administration consultant and MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber revealed the deception at the heart of the White House’s strategy to pass Obamacare? According to Gruber:

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass. … Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

There you have it. The end justifies the means, no matter if it takes outright lies or sleight of hand to “have this law.”

Poll after poll showed that Americans were satisfied with their health care plans. The only way President Obama and his cohorts could sell Obamacare was to conceal the law’s true ramifications and convince those who were already content with their health insurance that they wouldn’t be affected.

You remember the lie: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

Now, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the gun-ban crowd are hoping a “lack of transparency” combined with the “stupidity” of the American gun owner, will help them pass so-called ”universal background checks” in states around the nation.

Obama, Bloomberg, and the national gun-ban media frequently exploit tragedy, using fear and lies to sell their agenda to non-gun owners, especially when it comes to election season. This is their traditional playbook. They target folks who have very little understanding of the Second Amendment, and who have never been exposed to firearms or our hunting and shooting traditions, in their quest to raise money and win votes.

As gun ownership continues to grow in popularity, however, the anti-gunners have increasingly turned to trying to sway actual gun owners to advance their anti-freedom, anti-civil rights agenda.
Sounds incredible, doesn’t it? What gun owners would support policies that are blatantly designed to strip them of their constitutional freedom?

To put it bluntly: gullible gun owners. Uninformed folks who believe Obama and Bloomberg when they say that law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear with a universal background checks system because it’s only aimed at preventing “gun violence.”

These are outright lies. You know it and I know it. Simply put, violent criminals break the law—any law—every day with impunity.

It’s already a federal crime to engage in the business of selling firearms or ammunition without a federal firearm license. It’s already a crime for licensed firearm dealers to sell a gun at retail without conducting a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check on the purchaser. And, of course, federal law also prohibits felons, those adjudicated mentally ill, drug users and others from purchasing a firearm.

We don’t have to guess how hardened criminals will get their guns if universal background checks are passed, because we already know how they get them now: through theft, black market purchases, criminal associates, and straw purchasers. Background checks cannot and do not stop any of these things.

The plain truth is that universal background checks are designed to put the government squarely in the middle of virtually every firearm transaction that takes place between law-abiding adults. Such proposals seek to criminalize lawful, everyday transfers of firearms just because they happen without a government bureaucrat first rendering his approval and documenting the event. They put nearly every transaction under the thumb of the government.

So if you wanted to lend a shotgun or rifle to your hunting buddy for the weekend, or hand down a cherished family heirloom to a cousin, or even if you wanted to lend a firearm to a loved one in danger, you would be forced to get permission from the government, or face criminal charges. Under the measure recently passed in Washington State, participants in the classroom portion of a gun safety class can’t even hand unloaded firearms to each other. How does that prevent gun violence?
Worst of all, the only way universal background checks can be enforced is through mandatory gun registration. In fact, Obama’s own Justice Department reported that a viable background check system for private sales “depends” on “requiring gun registration.”

You read that right. The whole scheme is a Trojan horse for mandatory gun registration. [Emphasis added - Ed.] According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the only way to fully enforce universal background checks is to force all law-abiding gun owners to document and register their firearms in a government database. Think about it. How else are they supposed to know when the background check requirement has been triggered, unless they can match every firearm to a documented gun owner.

That’s why Bloomberg and his billionaire buddies spent millions upon millions of dollars to pass Initiative 594 in the state of Washington last November. At its core, I-594 is nothing more Obama’s backdoor gun registration scheme that NRA members like you fought so hard to defeat just two years ago in the U.S. Senate.

It’s also why Bloomberg announced a major offensive to pass this scheme state-by-state, with Nevada the next target, until universal background checks and mandatory gun registration become an inescapable reality for all Americans.

It’s a nightmare for every law-abiding gun owner and should serve as a wake-up call for every one of us to say “never in my state.”

As an NRA member, I know that you’re well-informed and won’t be duped.

But gun owners who are not NRA members don’t read our magazines, nor do they receive our legislative alerts and e-mails, leaving them vulnerable to falling for Bloomberg’s and Obama’s lies.
You and I must expose the truth about universal background checks to every gun owner we know  to make certain that a “lack of transparency” and “stupidity” don’t end up costing us our freedom!

Wayne LaPierre is the Executive Vice-President of the National Rifle Association. Wayne’s column appears in the NRA publications American Rifleman, American Hunter and America’s First Freedom.

GOA: Boehner Secretly Plotting to Stab Gun Owners in the Back

Gun Owners of America Boehner Secretly Plotting to Stab  Gun Owners in the Back  In a closed-door meeting of wealthy contributors in Las Vegas, House Speaker John Boehner said he was "hell-bent on getting [anti-gun immigration amnesty] done this year." And earlier this week, the Speaker viciously mocked conservative Republicans for opposing him on this issue. The wily Boehner had led his conservative Republican members to believe the issue was shelved for the year.  Now it appears that Boehner is simply planting a trap for Republicans and gun owners -- springing this Obama-backed proposal when it's too late to primary anti-gun Republican amnesty supporters. Gun Owners of America has argued all along that Second Amendment supporters have "a dog in this fight." In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed an immigration amnesty bill for about 3 million illegals.  It was supposed to be accompanied by new enforcement measures -- which never happened.  Instead, the prospect of citizenship only attracted over ten million new illegals.  And those granted amnesty in 1986 turned California from a "swing state" into an anti-gun nightmare.  A Pew poll from last year indicated that if illegal immigrants were given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.  So by the time that a net 8,000,000-plus additional anti-gun voters emerge from Obama's new proposal, it will be far too late to do anything about it.  Handgun bans.  Total gun registration. Confiscation programs.  SWAT teams.  These will be the inevitable consequence of adding 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters to the electorate. Boehner's Republican members understand that anti-gun immigration amnesty could cost Republicans the Senate and House in November -- and would damage their prospects even more in long-term. This is why, up until now, he was pretending to shelve the issue. Boehner thinks he can get away with bushwhacking the Republican members who elected him Speaker. But the good news is that there is a procedure for unseating the Speaker, and we are beginning to work with members in order to invoke it. ACTION:  1. Contact your Representative. Please urge him to oppose any efforts to move anti-gun amnesty legislation -- regardless of his party affiliation. But if he is a Republican, ask him to move for Boehner's removal if, as reported, he betrays his own members -- and jeopardizes control of the House. 2. Contact Speaker Boehner and tell him to get off his "hell-bent" road to anti-gun amnesty. There is absolutely NO WAY for you to communicate with the Speaker (via email) if you live outside of his district. So if you wish to communicate with him, please contact his office using the following methods: * Phone: (202)225-6205 * Fax: (202)225-0704 Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable. Please forward this e-mail to friends and family Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 703-321-8585 www.gunowners.org Contact Form If this alert was forwarded to you, you can subscribe to receive alerts directly by clicking here.

Small Arms Survey: Biased Reporting, Anti-Freedom Goals

From the JPFO:

Small Arms Survey:
Biased Reporting, Anti-Freedom Goals

By Nicki Kenyon, April 7th 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.

What is the Small Arms Survey? It claims it is an independent, impartial source of information on small arms and armed violence. According to its website one of its objectives is to "act as a resource for governments, policy-makers, researchers, and activists in terms of information and research on small arms and armed violence issues."

The research project is located at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland and is supposed to be an objective source of information for governments, but a closer look at its mission reveals a distinct anti-gun agenda that threatens to endanger our rights.

The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people. The future success of efforts to deal with small arms and light weapons depends in large part on the development of accurate information concerning the global flow of these weapons and on reliable analyses of the causes and consequences of their proliferation.

How could anyone possibly mistake the political goal behind this plainly-stated background on the project's site?

1) Gun availability is a "grave threat" to human security
2) Lack of gun control has caused human misery, destabilized economies, resulted in human rights violations and violence.
3) Future efforts to control guns cannot be successful without "accurate information" and "reliable analysis."

There's your translation of the Survey's seemingly "benevolent" mission, which turns out to be malignant, freedom-sapping tripe.

In other words, it's more of the Progressive, statist garbage from those who would enslave us. And no, that's not too strong a word.

Go. Read the whole thing.

Senator Mark Begich Trying to Fool Alaskans about his Recent Anti-gun Actions

Gun Owners of America Senator Mark Begich Trying to Fool Alaskans about his Recent Anti-gun Actions GOA holding the Senator’s feet to the fire QUESTION: How do you tell when an anti-gun politician is lying? ANSWER: His lips are moving. On February 10, GOA alerted Alaskans to Democrat Senator Mark Begich’s role in defeating the Rand Paul pro-gun amendment that would have allowed individuals to carry firearms in Post Offices. But rather than just admit his complicity in helping to kill the pro-gun amendment, Senator Begich is trying to fool Alaskans into thinking that he was the hero who saved the day. However, these claims couldn’t be further from the truth. Even more so, it’s truly amazing that -- given the importance of firearms in Alaska -- Senator Begich actually played the central role in defeating Senator Paul's efforts to repeal the post office gun ban. Now, just to recap what happened: * Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tried to offer his guns-in-Post-Offices amendment during a committee session on Wednesday, January 29. But it was Mark Begich who raised objections, thus preventing the committee from voting on Paul’s language that day. * Senator Paul then tried to offer his amendment at a subsequent meeting -- on Thursday, February 6. This time, the anti-gun chairman of the committee, Tom Carper, was ready with his own amendment to simply “study” the issue of whether Americans should be able to carry guns in Post Offices. And guess what? Mark Begich actually voted IN FAVOR OF the Carper “study” amendment, which effectively killed Paul’s pro-gun amendment. The Carper amendment -- which passed 9-6 -- killed the Paul language by making sure that it would not even be considered at all. Later, when Senator Paul kept insisting on getting a vote on his amendment, Begich offered his own anemic language as an alternative to Paul’s. It was so anemic that F-rated anti-gunners -- like Tom Carper (D-DE), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Carl Levin (D-MI) -- were able to vote for it. Many of you took action on GOA’s February 10 alert and have contacted Senator Mark Begich to express your displeasure. So what does Begich have to say about all this? (1) Begich Misrepresentation: Begich says that he offered his killer amendment because “it became clear that the committee was going to vote against Sen. Paul's amendment.” ANSWER: The reason “it became clear” that the committee was going to kill the Paul amendment is because Democrats like Mark Begich -- along with Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- were voting IN OPPOSITION to Rand Paul! If Begich (and these other two Democrats) had not opposed Paul, the committee would have passed his amendment, rather than defeating it.  Begich is like a kid who kills his father and then throws himself at the mercy of the court because he is now an orphan. One can go here and here to actually view the committee debates … to watch the votes … and see how Senator Begich worked to bury Paul’s amendment in favor of his own language. (2) Begich Misrepresentation: Begich says that once the Rand Paul amendment was going to be defeated -- again, in part, because of Begich’s opposition to the Kentucky Senator -- then “I quickly offered a common sense solution...” ANSWER: The fact is, Begich's anemic language is called a "cover amendment." It allows reluctant Democrat senators to vote to kill the underlying pro-gun proposal, while giving them "cover" against protests from their pro-gun constituents. It should tell you something that ALL the Democrats on the committee -- even the viscerally anti-gun Senators -- were able to ALL vote for the Begich amendment. And, it should tell you something that Michael Bloomberg's minions have commended Begich for his role in killing pro-gun legislation.  As we alerted you earlier, the Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action praised Senator Begich and other Democrats on the committee right after the Paul amendment was defeated, and they declared a victory for their side: “We are pleased the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs rejected [the Paul amendment] today that would have allowed concealed, loaded guns to be carried in post offices.” Make no mistake about it:  The poorly drafted Begich "face-saver" amendment is a joke. Whereas the Paul amendment cut through the technicalities by repealing the post office anti-gun regulations, Begich’s text merely massages the regs. Hence, under the Begich amendment, you could be arrested for mailing a letter with a gun in your car if the public parking lot is also used by Post Office employees. Or, you could be arrested if another federal office shares the parking lot. Or, you could even be arrested because the anti-gun Postal Service determines that a "gun rack" in your car is not protected in the same way as "carrying." So bottom line: If you are ever arrested for having a gun in your car when you are at your local post office parking lot, you can blame Mark Begich. (3) Begich Misrepresentation: Finally, Begich is trying to assure voters in the state that “protecting Alaskans’ right to bear arms is a priority for me ….” ANSWER: The truth is that Mark Begich holds a “D” rating from GOA because he has voted with Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer MULTIPLE TIMES against your rights. Consider just some of his anti-gun votes from 2013, which can be seen if full here: * Begich opposed Senator Ted Cruz’ efforts to filibuster funding for the anti-gun ObamaCare mandate, which effectively means that doctors will be able to ask their patients about guns, and health information will be used to deny guns to millions of Americans -- just as more than 150,000 military veterans have already been denied; * Begich voted for several of Obama’s anti-gun judges to sit on the federal bench; and he voted to set the stage for an anti-gun majority on the Supreme Court and the overturning of the pro-gun Heller decision; * Begich opposed efforts to raise the vote threshold for passing gun control in the Senate from 51% to 66% -- thus, making it easier for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to enact gun bans; * Begich voted to make it more difficult to for private individuals to sell firearms to certain military veterans; and  * Begich voted to confirm President Barack Obama’s anti-gun choice to be the new director of the ATF. ACTION:  Don’t let Senator Begich get away with trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Let Begich know that Alaskans like yourself know what he’s up to -- and that his back-room deals in committee have been completely exposed. So contact him again to counter his fallacious comments to the citizens of Alaska. You can cut-n-paste the text below into his webform here. Make sure to select the topic “Second Amendment Issues.” ----- Pre-written letter ----- Dear Senator Begich: I am appalled that you are trying to justify your efforts to kill the pro-gun Paul amendment, which would have allowed Alaskans to carry guns in Post Offices. First, you say that you offered your killer amendment because "it became clear that the committee was going to vote against Sen. Paul's amendment." But of course, the reason "it became clear" that the committee was going to kill the Paul amendment is because Democrats like yourself -- along with Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- were voting IN OPPOSITION to Rand Paul! If you and the other two Democrats had not opposed Paul, the committee would have passed his amendment, rather than defeating it. You are kind of like the kid who kills his father and then throws himself at the mercy of the court because he is now an orphan. Second, you say that once the Rand Paul amendment was going to be defeated -- again, in part because of your opposition to the Kentucky Senator -- then "I quickly offered a common sense solution..." But as you very well know, your anemic language was nothing more than a "cover amendment", which allowed reluctant Democrat senators to vote to kill the underlying pro-gun proposal, while giving them "cover" against protests from their pro-gun constituents. It's telling that ALL the Democrats on the committee -- even the viscerally anti-gun Senators like Tom Carper, Claire McCaskill and Carl Levin -- were able to vote for your amendment. And, it's telling that Michael Bloomberg's minions have commended you for your role in killing Paul's pro-gun legislation. The Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action praised you and other Democrats on the committee right after the Paul amendment was defeated, and they declared a victory for their side: "We are pleased the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs rejected [the Paul amendment] today that would have allowed concealed, loaded guns to be carried in post offices." Your "face-saver" amendment doesn't hold a candle to the original Paul amendment. Whereas the Paul amendment cut through the technicalities by repealing the post office anti-gun regulations, your text merely massages the regs. Hence, under your amendment, I could be arrested for mailing a letter with a gun in my car if the public parking lot is also used by Post Office employees. Or, I could be arrested if another federal office shares the parking lot. Or, I could even be arrested because the anti-gun Postal Service determines that a "gun rack" in my car is not protected in the same way as "carrying." So bottom line: If I’m ever arrested for having a gun in my car when I’m at a local post office parking lot, I will have you to blame. Finally, I see that you are trying to assure voters in the state that "protecting Alaskans' right to bear arms is a priority for me …." But the truth is that you hold a "D" rating from Gun Owners of America because you have voted with Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer MULTIPLE TIMES against my rights. GOA has posted your anti-gun votes from 2013 here: http://www.gunowners.org/state1132014a.htm It would mean more to me if you would just admit your complicity in helping to kill Rand Paul's pro-gun amendment in committee, rather than trying to fool Alaskans into thinking that you were the hero who saved the day. Sincerely, Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 703-321-8585                                                   www.gunowners.org Contact Form