The Legion

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/18/obama-returns-to-efforts-to-ban-assault-weapons.html?intcmp=hpbt1 Published June 18, 2016 FoxNews.com President Obama on Saturday renewed his call to ban so-called assault weapons, in the aftermath of the Florida nightclub shooting and other recent terror attacks on U.S. soil. “Being tough on terrorism -- particularly the sorts of homegrown terrorism that we’ve seen now in Orlando and San Bernardino -- means making it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on assault weapons that are capable of killing dozens of innocents as quickly as possible,” Obama said in his weekly radio address. “That’s something I’ll continue to talk about in the weeks ahead.” The president stayed silent on the assault-weapon issue in public remarks immediately after the attack early Sunday at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., in which 49 people were killed and dozens more were wounded. However, he returned to the ban issued Tuesday in a fiery speech in which he also defended his decision not to use the term “radical Islam” when referring to Islamic terrorists. The Orlando gunman, Omar Mateen, a self-radicalized Muslim who pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State terror group, used a handgun and a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle in the massacre. Congress in 1994 passed a ban on semi-automatic weapons like the one Mateen used inside Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. However, the ban expired in 2004. An effort in Congress led by Senate Democrats and pushed by Obama after the 2012 mass shooting inside a Newtown, Conn., elementary school to reinstate the ban ended in bitter defeat. "Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad," Obama said earlier this year when announcing his own efforts, through executive action, to tighten gun control. Obama’s renewed push comes at the same time Senate Democrats are trying again for tougher gun-control laws. On Thursday, they forced a vote on four measures. None addresses the issue of semi-automatic weapons and are expected to fail, considering Democrats in the GOP-controlled chamber would need votes from Republican senators and the political might of the National Rifle Association. The vote is expected Monday. Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has also joined the fight to ban semi-automatic weapons, saying last week: “Weapons of war have no place on our streets." The NRA lobby is already gearing up for the fight over Second Amendment rights, releasing a 5-minute-long video this weekend featuring a Navy SEAL veteran named Dom Raso. “Let me say something to every political hack pretending to know an AR-15 from a double-barrel shotgun, in the wake of the Orlando attack,” Raso says. “For the vast major of people I work with, there is nothing better to defend their homes against realistic threats than with an AR-15 semi-automatic.” Donald Trump has been endorsed by the NRA, but the presumptive GOP presidential nominee told Fox News on Wednesday that he wants to meet with the group to discuss barring people on the terrorism watch list from buying guns. About 71 percent of Americans, including eight out of 10 Democrats and nearly six out of 10 Republicans, favor at least moderate regulations and restrictions on guns, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted from Monday to Thursday. That was up from 60 percent in late 2013 and late 2014. Two of the four Senate proposals are from Democrats and would allow the government to prevent terrorist suspects from buying guns and expand background checks to online and gun-show purchases. The other two are from Republicans and would require court approval for the government to ban an individual from trying to buy a gun and would require law enforcement agencies to be notified if somebody investigated for terrorism in the past five years tries to buy a gun.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/16/ryan-top-republicans-urge-caution-on-post-orlando-gun-control-measures.html?intcmp=hpbt2 Published June 16, 2016 FoxNews.com House Speaker Paul Ryan and other top Republicans pushed back Thursday on growing calls from Democrats to ban people on terror watch lists from buying guns, even as Donald Trump and other GOP figures opened the door to discussing it. Calls for action have increased in the wake of the terror massacre at Pulse nightclub in Orlando that left 50 people, including the gunman, dead on Sunday. The gunman, Omar Mateen, had been on a watch list for 10 months before being removed. “We want to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again. Everybody wants that," Ryan told reporters Thursday. "But as we look at how to proceed, we also want to make sure that we're not infringing upon people's legitimate constitutional rights. That's important.” Ryan's comments come a day after Trump indicated potential support for new gun laws in this area. “I will be meeting with the N.R.A., who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no-fly list, to buy guns,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee tweeted Wednesday. Whether Trump would support an outright ban or just a delay for gun sales for those on watch lists is not clear. That is the sticking point right now in the Senate. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and other Democrats are pushing a measure to ban those on no-fly lists from purchasing weapons. But Republicans worry about such a measure infringing on gun rights for someone wrongly included on such a list. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has a dueling measure to delay a gun sale for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause if they want to block the sale permanently. Cornyn’s bill has been backed by the NRA. Meanwhile, Republican Sens. Charles Grassley, of Iowa, and Ted Cruz, of Texas, have a measure that would notify law enforcement if anyone investigated for terrorism in the last five years tries to buy a gun -- in addition to making other changes. Democrats drew more attention to their version of the legislation Wednesday night as Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., held the floor along with colleagues in a nearly 15-hour filibuster that lasted into the early hours Thursday. "We can't just wait, we have to make something happen," said Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., at an emotional news conference where Democrats joined family members of people killed in the nation's recent mass shootings. "These are people bound by brutality, and their numbers are growing." But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., blasted Murphy's filibuster as a "campaign talk-a-thon" that did nothing but delay potential votes. Cruz also slammed Democrats, saying on the Senate floor the Democrat effort was nothing more than a political distraction that avoided the real issues. “I find it ridiculous that in response to an ISIS terror attack, the Democrats go on high dudgeon that we've got to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” Cruz said. “This is not a gun control issue, this is a terrorism issue.” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Cornyn's bill a "wolf in sheep's clothing" and said it would allow "every terrorist to get a gun." Clinton's spokesman, Brian Fallon, called Cornyn's bill a "smokescreen." Cornyn responded angrily. "That's an incredibly ignorant thing for her to say," Cornyn said. "That anybody can be denied their constitutional rights without due process of law and without the government coming forward and establishing probable cause, that's simply un-American." A possible bipartisan compromise was proposed by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. Toomey said Wednesday his bill would prevent potential terrorists from getting a gun, while providing an extra layer of due process that the Democratic bill lacks. “I have drafted legislation that takes the best features from both of the previous proposals, effectively preventing terrorists from being able to purchase guns, while also safeguarding the rights of innocent Americans who are mistakenly put on the list,” Toomey said. Meanwhile, the Justice Department backed a ban on gun sales to those on watch lists. “The amendment gives the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while ensuring protection of the department’s operational and investigative sensitivities," a DOJ official said in a statement. The DOJ’s stance is a departure from past warnings from FBI Director James Comey, who reportedly has said a ban could alert terrorists they are being investigated. Ryan cited those remarks when talking to reporters. “As the FBI director just told us the other day, and I think he said this publicly, if we do this wrong, like the president is proposing, we can actually blow our ongoing terrorist investigations. So, we want to get this right, so that we don't undermine terrorist investigations,” Ryan said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/clinton-urges-intel-surge-assault-weapons-ban-in-wake-of-orlando-attack/ar-AAgZwEk?li=BBnbcA1 Hillary Clinton called Monday for an "intelligence surge" and a ban on assault weapons as part of a mutil-pronged strategy to confront homegrown terrorism, in the first of two security speeches by the 2016 candidates one day after the worst shooting in U.S. history. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, following the Orlando terror attack, called on Americans to fight terrorism at home with “clear eyes” and “steady hands.” She delivered a carefully calibrated message, calling for America to get tougher on terrorists while also renewing gun control proposals that have failed to gain steam in Congress. At the Cleveland campaign event, she drew cheers from the crowd after calling for a ban on assault weapons. “Weapons of war have no place on our streets,” Clinton said. Clinton also said if she were in the White House, a top priority would be “identifying and stopping lone wolves,” like the Orlando shooter. She also called for increased efforts to remove Islamic State messages from the Internet and said “peace-loving Muslims are in the best position to help fight radicalization.” Clinton and Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, were giving back-to-back speeches on Monday, laying out very different visions for confronting the safety concerns that weigh heavily on voters. Trump’s speech was originally supposed to focus on his case against the Clintons – but Trump changed his focus following the attack in Orlando that left 49 people dead and dozens injured. The gunman died in a shootout with police. Trump is speaking shortly in New Hampshire. In morning show interviews, meanwhile, Trump doubled down on his call for temporarily banning Muslims immigration to the U.S., despite the fact the shooter in Sunday's Orlando nightclub attack was an American citizen born in New York. On Monday, President Obama said investigators believe the gunman was not directed by external extremist groups, instead saying the shooter “was inspired by various extremist information that was disseminated over the Internet.” He added that there is “no direct evidence” the shooter “was part of a larger plot.” Clinton warned earlier Monday against demonizing an entire religion, saying doing so would play into the hands of the Islamic State group. "We can call it radical jihadism, we can call it radical Islamism," Clinton said on CNN's "New Day." "But we also want to reach out to the vast majority of American-Muslims and Muslims around this country, this world, to help us defeat this threat, which is so evil and has got to be denounced by everyone, regardless of religion." She also reiterated her call for an assault weapons ban that would outlaw one of the weapons used by the Orlando shooter. "We know the gunman used a weapon of war to shoot down at least 50 innocent Americans.” The horrific shooting consumed the White House race just as Trump and Clinton were fully plunging into the general election. It served as a reminder to the candidates and voters alike that the next president will lead a nation facing unresolved questions about how to handle threats that can feel both foreign and all too familiar. Authorities identified the killer in Orlando as Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American-born Muslim. FBI officials said they had investigated him in 2013 and 2014 on suspicion of terrorist sympathies but could not make a case against him. Mateen opened fire at the Pulse Orlando club with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. He called 911 during the attack to profess his allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist organization though it was unclear whether he had any direct contact with ISIS or was just inspired by them.

You beat me to it. I couldn't say it better!!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/24/critics-fire-back-at-seattle-gun-ammo-tax-claim-is-aimed-at-killing-business.html?intcmp=hpbt2 Published May 24, 2016 FoxNews.com Mike Coombs feels like he is in the crosshairs of Seattle lawmakers, who this year implemented a special tax on the guns and ammo his Fourth Avenue store has sold for more than 40 years. On January 1 Seattle began imposing a $25 tax on every gun and a 5-cent tax on every round sold within city limits. The stated objective was to raise up to $500,000 per year to fund programs to prevent gun violence. But Coombs claims the real effect is to kill his business, and a gun rights legal foundation is battling the city for figures it believes will show the law was never about taking in revenue. “What they’re trying to do is get gun stores out of the city,” said Coombs, 48, whose Outdoor Emporium store operates in the shadow of Safeco Field and boasts of having “the largest selection of outdoor related products at affordable everyday warehouse pricing.” Longtime customers have told Coombs they simply go outside the city now to buy firearms and ammunition rather than pay the tax, which he blames for the layoffs of two workers so far this year. Precise Shooter, a smaller gun shop in Seattle, moved 16 miles outside of the city to Lynnwood on the day the tax took effect. “We feel that, basically, a crockpot politician was trying to buttress his 'progressive' credentials and we got run over,” owner Sergey Solyanik told MyNorthwest.com. Solyanik was referring to Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess, who drafted the law providing for the so-called “gun violence tax.” The City Budget Office estimated the gun violence tax would collect between $300,000 to $500,000 a year, which Burgess said would fund gun violence prevention programs and medical research. Burgess and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who also supported the tax, declined to comment when contacted by FoxNews.com. Pro gun control groups say the tax is justified. "[Seattle] has every right to tax products that are causing public safety/public health issues in its jurisdiction," said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "The medical and legal costs associated with gun violence are astronomical and I don’t see any foul play in asking gun buyers to help bear some of these costs alongside taxpayers who choose not to own guns." Solyanik said his small business previously generated about $50,000 per year in city sales tax. With Precise Shooter's move out of the city, Seattle will lose those funds and collect nothing from the new tax, he said. The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation sued the city, claiming the tax violates state law, which gives the Washington State Legislature sole power to regulate registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge and transportation of firearms. A Superior Court judge sided with the city, and the case has now been appealed to the intermediate court. “Seattle is arguing that this is a tax, not a regulation,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said. “But it’s a specific tax on a specific item, which falls back to being gun control because it is only a tax on guns.” The plaintiffs have filed Freedom of Information Act requests to determine how much revenue has been brought in by the tax, and the city has so far declined to turn over the information. The plaintiffs also believe the real numbers would show the tax has brought in far less than was projected, which would undermine the city’s claim that it was instituted to generate revenue for gun violence programs. Cook County, Ill., implemented a similar tax on guns April 1, 2013. Beginning next month, the county, which includes Chicago, will impose a tax on ammunition as well. Second Amendment backers believe overturning Seattle’s tax is key to stopping more cities from implementing gun and ammunition taxes they say are simply a pretext for driving out gun shops. “We do not intend to sit idly by and allow taxes against the Second Amendment,” Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told Fox News. “We are aware that gun control advocates view this as a new weapon in their effort to trample upon the Second Amendment and try to drive law-abiding firearm retailers out of business.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/20/furniture-firepower-gun-sales-drive-specialty-concealment-craze.html?intcmp=hpbt3 Published May 20, 2016 Rising gun sales have triggered a new trend in furniture fashion -- coffee tables, cabinets, headboards and hutches with secret compartments for firearms. 'Gun concealment furniture' sales, once the province of solitary craftsmen making custom goods have gone mainstream, allowing firearms owners to maintain easy in-home access to hidden handguns and rifles. “There are a lot of people who don’t want a big iron safe,” said Dan Ingram, owner of NJ Concealment Furniture, based in Hampton, N.J. “There are a lot of people who don’t even have room for one, but they still need someplace to safely store their guns.” Ingram, a longtime cabinet maker, started building the special furniture four years ago after getting inspiration from the online gun community. “At the time, I was on a lot of online gun forums and there was a constant complaint,” he said. “People wanted something with quick access when they needed their weapons to keep their homes safe which is why they bought the guns in the first place. Related Image Expand / Contract Furniture maker Dan Ingram says more people are looking for alternatives for storing firearms in the home. (NJconceal.com) Ingram’s first design was a simple nightstand with a side compartment to hold a pistol. From there, he began designing and fabricating other items, such as wall shelves, coat racks, desks and hutches. Soon the specialty line became the company mission. “I eventually closed my main cabinetry business,” he said, adding that he has seen more and more interest in his products as gun sales have gone up. His products draw a steady stream of curious future customers at gun shows, Ingram said. Related Image Expand / Contract A coffee table from Ingram's NJ workshop. (NJconceal.co) Related Image Expand / Contract Shelves like this one have proven to be one of the more popular and most affordable options. (NJconceal.co) “We often draw a crowd of 30-40 people looking at our products," he said. "They wind up calling their friends over to check it out.” Small and large furniture manufacturers alike are coming up with more creative ways to design furniture that not only provides safe keeping, but also easy access. Related Image Expand / Contract A corner hutch unit with secret panels for rifle storage. Major outdoor outfitters including Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops sell ottomans, benches and other furniture with built-in, locking gun compartments. Smaller furniture companies including Stealth Furniture, Secret Compartment Furniture and Heracles Research also specialize in gun concealment furniture. Michigan inventor Frank Marshall built a headboard that enables anyone lying on the bed to go from dream to draw in one quick motion - provided the built-in safety latch is unlocked. Dubbed The Gun Bed, Marshall's creation hides a 12-gauge shotgun behind a spring-loaded panel that, when pressed, drops the gun in the owner's hands. “It has no place to go but your hands,” Marshall said. A key challenge for Ingram and other manufacturers is to make the furniture as secure as a traditional gun safe, to ensure against household accidence or children getting their hands on the weapons. “I come from a law-enforcement family, so we all grew up with a shotgun in the bedroom,” Marshall said. "But my grandkids did not grow up that way, and when they were running through my house during a visit, I realized I needed a way to safely store my shot gun, but still have a way to quickly get to it if needed during a home invasion.” Marshall has employed the help of a cabinet maker to help with manufacture, and while his business is in its infancy, demand and interest in his Gun Bed has grown. “We sold just under 100, but we are getting more and more inquiries every day,” he told FoxNews.com. “There seems to be a growing demand, and I think it’s tied to people’s concern about the economy and where things may be headed."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-senate-to-vote-on-sweeping-gun-control-measures/ar-BBtegwc?li=BBnbcA1 SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Democrats in the California Senate plan another attempt to outlaw the sale of assault weapons with easily detachable ammunition magazines known as bullet buttons as part of a wide-ranging slate of gun control bills scheduled for votes on Thursday. Nearly a dozen measures would significantly reshape California's gun laws, already among the strictest in the nation, following last year's terrorist attack in San Bernardino. The debate comes as Democratic legislative leaders rush to head off a ballot measure advocated by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, which would ask voters to enact many of the same policies the Legislature is now set to debate. Under California's assault-weapon ban, most rifles must require a tool to detach the magazine. Gun makers developed so called bullet buttons that allow a shooter to quickly dislodge the ammunition cartridge using the tip of a bullet or other small tool. Outlawing bullet buttons is a priority for gun control advocates, who hope that making it harder to reload would limit the carnage a mass shooter can inflict. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013 vetoed the Legislature's last attempt to ban bullet buttons, saying it was too far-reaching. The debate has fallen along familiar lines, with Democrats advocating a crackdown on guns in the name of safety and Republicans complaining that gun laws only hinder people intent on following the law. "We raise our children in communities, not war zones," said Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael. "Military assault weapons have no place on our streets and gun violence must not be tolerated." Limiting access to firearms and ammunition is dangerous at a time when the Legislature and voters are easing some of the strict sentencing laws from the 1980s and '90s, said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber. "We're going easy on the real dangerous people. Now with these bills we're criminalizing the law-abiding people," Nielsen said. Aside from the bullet button ban, senators plan to consider 10 other gun control bills. They include regulations for homemade firearms, background checks for ammunition purchases, a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, a mandate to report lost or stolen guns, a ban on loaning firearms to friends, and funding for a gun-violence research center. The debate in the Senate comes as Newsom, a Democrat running for governor in 2018, is advocating a November gun control ballot measure. Some Democrats worry the initiative will fire up gun rights supporters, potentially increasing turnout of conservative voters. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, wrote to Newsom last month asking him to hold off on his initiative and allow lawmakers to tackle the problem. He declined.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/US-Appeals-Court-to-Hear-Maryland-Gun-Control-Case-378943781.html     RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court spent more than an hour Wednesday vigorously questioning lawyers about the constitutionality of Maryland's assault weapons ban and whether a judge who upheld it applied the correct legal standard. Gun rights supporters claim the ban violates the Second Amendment because it applies to firearms that many Maryland residents keep in their homes. The state argues that lawmakers had authority to prohibit the weapons because they are rarely used for self-defense and are disproportionately used in mass shootings and killings of police officers. The appeals court typically takes several weeks to issue a ruling. Maryland lawmakers passed the sweeping Firearms Safety Act after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. Gun rights advocates went along with most of the law but challenged the provision banning 45 assault weapons and the 10-round limit on gun magazines. U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld the ban, but a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February that she did not apply the proper legal standard. The panel sent the case back to Blake and ordered her to apply "strict scrutiny," a more rigorous test of a law's constitutionality. The state appealed to the full appeals court. John Parker Sweeney, an attorney for the gun rights advocates who challenged the ban, argued that lawmakers went too far. "Government cannot ban protected firearms from the homes of law-abiding citizens," he said. Judges asked Sweeney how far that protection extends. "If machine guns were not banned and were in the same use as AR-15s, could they be banned?" Judge Dennis Shedd asked. They could not, Sweeney replied. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said Sweeney seemed to be suggesting that any gun that can be kept at home is out of government's reach, no matter how dangerous the weapon. "Your position is so broad that it comes to a point of disabling legislatures from their core function of protecting citizens," Wilkinson said. Sweeney said handguns are "more dangerous" than the assault weapons because they are used in the vast majority of slayings, yet the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital. The assault weapons banned by Maryland "are almost never used in crimes," Sweeney said. But Maryland Assistant Attorney General Matthew J. Fader said the Supreme Court struck down the D.C. law because handguns "are the quintessential weapon for self-protection" and therefore protected despite their use in crimes. Firearms that rank below handguns in the spectrum of self-defense weapons can be more tightly regulated, he said. Wilkinson suggested lawmakers are better equipped than judges to decide which types of firearms are so dangerous that they should be banned, and that gun rights supporters have plenty of clout to be heard on the issue. "Nobody is powerless here," Wilkinson said.

Removed

That made me laugh. I needed that tonight and yes it is a beautiful handgun thank you.  It is one of the best looking guns I have ever owned.

Removed

You will love your Glock 17 Gen 4.  I had one when they first came out, but sold it to fund another project.  I missed that gun and recently purchased another Glock 17 Gen 4 from another TGO member. Great gun this one will be a keeper.  Enjoy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/as-states-expand-gun-rights-police-join-opposition.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0     GULFPORT, Miss. — Guns in bars. Guns in airports. Guns in day care centers and sports arenas. Conservative state lawmakers around the country are pressing to weaken an array of gun regulations, in some cases greatly expanding where owners can carry their weapons. But the legislators are encountering stiff opposition from what has been a trusted ally: law enforcement. In more than a dozen states with long traditions of robust support for gun ownership rights, and where legislatures have moved to relax gun laws during the past year, the local police have become increasingly vocal in denouncing the measures. They say the new laws expose officers to greater danger and prevent them from doing their jobs effectively. “We are a gun society and we recognize that, but we should be writing gun laws that make us safer,” said Leonard Papania, the police chief in Gulfport, Miss., who opposes part of a new state law that creates exceptions to the rules for concealed-carry permits. “Do you want every incident on your street to escalate to acts of gun violence?” Mississippi’s measure, signed into law in April and pushed mainly as an effort to allow worshipers in church to arm themselves, is one of several that have passed in recent months. West Virginia and Idaho have approved laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns without a permit or firearm training — and, in many cases, without a background check. Texas has given residents the right to carry handguns openly. Oklahoma appears set to pass a similar measure in the next several weeks. During the past year state capitals have emerged as a fierce battleground when it comes to guns. Gun control groups have challenged and sometimes even outflanked the powerful National Rifle Association in the states, but gun rights advocates have won numerous victories in relaxing restrictions. There has long been a tension between the interests of law enforcement and the efforts to roll back gun regulations, but the conflicts are becoming more frequent as gun laws are expanded, particularly in states with permissive policies. Police officers in Maine and Texas have described coming across people displaying their weapons near schools and libraries, daring anyone to call the police and challenge their newly won rights.   Several states, including Georgia, Arizona and Michigan, have enacted laws that prohibit the police from destroying firearms that have been used in crimes. Instead, the weapons must be sold to licensed dealers or to the public at auction.   Despite the current conflicts, police officers and gun rights advocates have long been largely on the same side of the national debate over guns. But police departments have insisted that gun owners be required to receive training, as their officers do, and that people with violent histories, who are more likely to clash with the police, be blocked from obtaining weapons. The recent legislation, including “constitutional carry laws” — which typically eliminate the police’s role in issuing permits or questioning people who are openly armed — has frayed the alliance. “What is alarming to the police is that they have no power to ascertain the potential criminal background of an armed individual until a crime is committed, and by then it is too late,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, an advocacy group. The objections to these laws are not only about officer safety. Law enforcement officials also argue that creating more exceptions to gun regulations will impede investigations. The discovery of an unpermitted weapon typically gives officers probable cause to conduct searches, but some of the new laws could take that option away. In some cases, this has upended longstanding political dynamics, with traditional law-and-order conservatives, who are championing the new gun laws, questioning the tactics of police officers as overly aggressive. “I believe they’ve got some merit to their concerns,” said Ken Morgan, a Mississippi state representative who backed the state’s new law, which allows people to carry holstered weapons without a permit. But Mr. Morgan, a Republican, added that the police were overstating how much the measures would affect the way they pursued investigations. “A lot of times they don’t consider their own discretion,” he said. The N.R.A., which supports the new laws, said opponents of the measures sought to harm people’s ability to defend themselves. “These laws simply protect and expand the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to self-protection,” said Jennifer Baker, an N.R.A. spokeswoman. “Gloom-and-doom predictions of Wild West scenarios in states with strong gun rights have proven time and again to be nothing more than scare tactics.”   In Mississippi, law enforcement officials said that they had learned of the new law only when it was heading toward passage in the State House of Representatives, and that attempts to negotiate the language in the bill — particularly the section expanding exceptions for concealed-carry permits — had been mostly unsuccessful. The police said that N.R.A. members across the state had received fliers accusing law enforcement of allying with Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who is one of the nation’s most visible gun control advocates. Another challenge for opponents was that the law, despite containing multiple parts, was widely identified as a church security measure. The success of such a law in a conservative state like Mississippi was practically preordained, they said. Law enforcement officials in the state said the political power of the gun rights lobby had overwhelmed their calls for caution. “We’re advocating the safety for our police officers, but on the other side you have the N.R.A. and other special interest groups that say, ‘If you’ll do this, we’ll endorse you and make you look good,’ ” Ken Winter, the executive director of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, said of his efforts at lobbying in the Legislature. “We don’t have anything to offer them other than good advice.” Local law enforcement agencies opposed to enhancing gun possession rights have generally lost the recent legislative battles. Maine enacted a law last year allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit or training, despite the objections of Michael Sauschuck, the police chief in Portland, the state’s largest city. “It is absolutely ludicrous to me that we require people to go take a test to get a driver’s license, but we are allowing people to carry a deadly weapon on their person without any procedures regulating it,” Mr. Sauschuck said. There have been some victories for the police, however. Law enforcement officials in California last year helped win approval of a law that allows the police to seize weapons from someone for 21 days if a judge determines that person has the potential for violence. And the police in Ohio have so far stalled a bill that would allow people to carry guns inside police stations, airports and day care centers.   In Texas, where concealed handguns will be allowed in university classrooms beginning on Aug. 1, law enforcement officials won a surprise victory last year after Art Acevedo, the police chief in Austin, held a news conference where he was flanked by law enforcement leaders from across the state. His message to conservative Republican lawmakers, who were seeking to limit police officers’ authority to question people with firearms as part of the state’s open-carry legislation, was blunt. “You can’t be the party of law and order and not listen to your police chiefs,” Chief Acevedo said. The Legislature ultimately approved the open-carry bill, which went into effect in January, but voted down the amendment curtailing the police’s power to ask questions.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/02/california-lt-gov-newsom-lawmakers-on-collision-course-over-gun-control.html?intcmp=hpbt2   Published May 02, 2016 FoxNews.com California’s Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democratic lawmakers appear to be on a collision course over a new round of gun control measures. Newsom, claiming lawmakers are dragging their feet, is collecting thousands of signatures in pursuit of a gun initiative ballot measure in November. But lawmakers say they’re planning to address these issues via legislation, and the initiative could hurt what they’re doing. Critics also say the proposed California ballot initiative contains a wide variety of restrictive, costly and unreasonable gun and ammunition control measures. The proposed “Safety for All As of 2016” initiative has 600,000 signatures from California residents, nearly double the number required to be included on the November ballot, Newsom told the Los Angeles Times. He added that what the initiative proposals have in common is “that over the past number of years they have suffered the fate of either being watered down or rejected by the Legislature.” The signatures still must be validated. But leading lawmakers, including Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, say they are working to address these issues legislatively. In addition, the mandate is extremely difficult to change and will be the subject of a hearing at the Capitol in Sacramento Tuesday. “California's legislative leaders are busy considering crime bills, while Newsom is circumventing them,” said Michele Hanisee, president of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, in a written statement and interview with FoxNews.com. “The only way we're going to make progress against violence is through a cooperative effort of law enforcement, legislators, the private sector, and individual citizens who can take some responsibility for their own safety. Self-serving political schemes like Newsom's initiative will only set us back.”  The initiative “carries multiple proposals that were either killed by the Legislature as not workable or vetoed by the governor,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told the LA Times. “Newsom has collected failed policy issues from the Legislature and put them up as an initiative. It’s going to be a massive effort to defeat him,” Paredes said.  Local law enforcement, including Hanisee and the California Sheriffs Association, claim law-abiding gun owners and law enforcement will suffer if the initiative passes, while criminals will be empowered. “California's law enforcement officers and prosecutors responsible for fighting criminals and terrorists need more tools to fight crime. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom's new ballot initiative gives us less,” Hanisee said, adding the proposal is a “rehashed patchwork of impractical, tried and failed ideas that will not help law enforcement to combat crime or terrorists.”  Last year, crime in Los Angeles rose by more than 12 percent, and while law-abiding citizens are limited in protecting their families, the lieutenant governor travels with armed bodyguards, Hanisee noted. California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, but Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told FoxNews.com that California lawmakers appear to be in a contest to determine “who can be the most anti-gun rights.”  “California Democrats will not be happy until there is total firearm prohibition," Gottlieb said.  The ballot initiative, according to its website, would make five major changes in California’s gun laws if approved by voters. These include prohibiting possession of large-capacity military style magazines. But Hanisee said the only way to enforce this law is by “pulling police from the streets and putting them into the homes of people who pose no threat.”  The initiative would also require ammunition sales to be treated like gun sales, requiring the seller to conduct background checks for all ammunition purchases.   “The centerpiece of Newsom's proposal would require a license to sell, and a background check just to buy, a box of ammunition,” Hanisee said. “This would require the creation of another complicated, expensive and inevitably flawed database, which California officials will be unable to effectively maintain. New York already tried this approach, abandoning it after wasting millions of public dollars.”  Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and world recognized expert on guns and crime who founded and heads the Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety, called the initiative “racist.”  “The question is who are you stopping from owning a firearm or getting hold of ammunition – in this case it is law-abiding, poor blacks and Hispanics who won’t be able to afford the cost of ammunition, which will rise with the cost associated with required background checks for ammunition purchases.” Another provision would require law enforcement to collect firearms from those who were convicted of felonies or violent misdemeanors, and to share data with the federal systems related to anyone prohibited from owning a firearm. And yet another provision requires lawful gun owners to report their lost or stolen guns.  Evan Westrup, spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown, maintained the governor has not taken a position on this initiative and generally doesn’t comment on pending ballot measures. But in 2013 the governor vetoed a proposed reporting of stolen or lost firearms, saying he was “not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns.” Brown added, “I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not."   Lott said many of the claims by Newsom and the Safety for All ballot initiative website are inaccurate, something that also drew the attention of Politifact, the independent fact-checking organization that won a Pulitzer Prize for calling out politicians' false claims. “Politifact called Newsom's rhetoric "mostly false” and said he used “pseudo data” that is “out of context and is done in a way which is calculated to cause confusion,” Hanisee said.   Many campaign organizers claim Newsom is heading up the effort because of political ambition.  "Newsom has resurrected failed policy initiatives in a too-obvious resume-builder for his governor's campaign,” said Willes Lee, president of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.   But Newsom maintains on the initiative’s website that changes are needed to keep Californians safe.  "With 150 school shootings since Newtown and many more mass shootings devastating communities across our state and nation, it is time to say enough is enough," Newsom wrote. "The Safety for All initiative will save lives by making it much harder for dangerous people to get guns and ammunition in California."

There will be an IDPA and Classifier Match at Memphis Sports Shooting Assoc. this Saturday (4/9).  The classifier will be shot as a second gun.   Walk Through at - 9:30am   $10.00 - For MSSA Members $12.00 - For Non-Members   There may be a cost for the Classifier also.  I will check and post later.  Thanks

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/24/this-double-barreled-handgun-folds-up-to-look-like-smartphone.html?intcmp=hpff Published March 24, 2016 Digital Trends Created by a Minnesota company called Ideal Conceal, the first product created by the startup is a handgun that can be disguised as a smartphone inside a case. Built into a single frame, the grip of the double barreled, .380 caliber pistol folds down and locks into place when opened. When closed, the trigger and trigger guard are completed covered by the grip, thus offering up the appearance of a standard smartphone case. There's also a clip to attach the handgun to a belt, but in the disguised smartphone form. Similar to the size and shape of a smartphone, the folded Ideal Conceal can be easily slipped into a pants pocket or purse when not in use. Of course, anyone carrying the pistol will need to check state and local laws related to concealed carry regulations. All 50 states have passed regulations regarding carrying concealed firearms, some of which require a permit from the government. Detailed on the company site, the creator of the pistol writes "The idea for Ideal Conceal follows the present-day demand for handguns that people can carry on a day to day basis, in a manner that makes carrying a gun easy to do. From soccer moms to professionals of every type, this gun allows you the option of not being a victim." At this time, the pistol is still being developed by Ideal Conceal and isn't in production as of yet. The creator of the smartphone-styled handgun, Kirk Kjellberg, believes the the pistol will be available by mid-2016 and has set a $395 MSRP for the weapon. Detailed within an interview with CNNMoney, Kjellberg has already received roughly 2,500 emails from people that want to purchase the pistol. Assuming all interested parties purchase at least one pistol, that would generate nearly one million in sales for the company in 2016.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/21/supreme-court-stun-gun-second-amendment/76313848/     WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously reversed a Massachusetts court that had upheld banning stun guns, giving proponents of gun rights at least a temporary victory. The justices ruled that the state court's reasons for upholding the law conflicted with the Supreme Court's 2008 decision upholding the right to bear arms for self-defense -- a ruling written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008. The challenge, filed by a woman who was arrested for carrying the weapon in her purse for protection, now gets new life. But rather than hearing the case themselves and potentially striking down the ban, the justices sent it back to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. They reasoned that their own landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were meant to protect even firearms "that were not in existence at the time of the founding." However, they stopped short of a blanket endorsement of stun guns. That did not satisfy Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who complained in a 10-page concurrence that the court's "grudging" decision to send the case back may not be enough to save Jaime Caetano and citizens like her "who must defend themselves because the state will not." "If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe," Alito wrote.   The high court ruled in Heller that Americans can keep handguns in their homes for self-defense, and it made clear in McDonald that state and local governments cannot stop them. But the court limited its initial ruling to weapons that were commonly used at the time the Constitution was written. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously in March that stun guns didn't fit that definition. It noted the first patent for a stun gun was filed in 1972, and the weapons were not sold commercially until the early 1990s. "We therefore conclude that stun guns were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment," Justice Francis Spina wrote. "Without further guidance from the Supreme Court on the scope of the Second Amendment, we do not extend the Second Amendment right articulated by Heller to cover stun guns." The case dates back to 2011, when Caetano was arrested in a supermarket parking lot. She said she carried the stun gun for protection against an abusive former boyfriend who she previously had sought to avoid through restraining orders. In seeking the high court's intervention, Caetano's lawyers argued that stun guns and Tasers are not lethal, unlike the types of firearms already permitted under prior Supreme Court rulings. They noted that Scalia's 5-4 ruling in Heller specified it could be applied to modern weapons. "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way," Scalia wrote. "The Second Amendment extends ... to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Caetano's petition also contended that just seven states ban stun guns, while hundreds of thousands have been sold to private citizens across the United States. A Michigan court, it noted, ruled in favor of possession in a 2012 case. Although Caetano was carrying the weapon in a parking lot, she was homeless at the time. For that reason, the case was unlikely to resolve the next major question on gun rights -- whether those permitted in the home can be carried in public.

http://www.gunowners.org/alert03172016.htm John Kasich: Anti-gun “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” Comes word, from the Center for Responsive Politics, that Leftist billionaire George Soros, through his Soros Fund Management, is one of John Kasich's top financial contributors. This can hardly be a surprise. Kasich and Soros share two important traits: (1) their desire to mess up the Republican selection process for devious motives, and (2) their absolute hatred for the Second Amendment. Kasich’s antipathy towards gun rights is no secret to anyone who’s watched his career. Make no mistake about it: When we are winning by a large margin -- when we don't need John Kasich’s vote -- he's usually there to give us a big, wet “Don Corleone kiss.” But when the vote is close and the future of the Second Amendment is at stake, “Godfather John” usually leaves us a severed horsehead in our bed. Thus, Kasich famously joined a gaggle of fellow-RINO’s and cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms. For this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton. Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system where roughly 95% of denials are “false positives.” Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if you’re illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, you can never get your record corrected. In 1999, Kasich voted to retain restrictive gun ban in Washington, D.C. Not only that, Kasich joined the effort to pass 90% of Clinton’s anti-gun agenda as a form of “gun control lite.” Elements of the Kasich/Clinton agenda included: (1) Provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms; (2) A gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and (3) Mandates to require you to “lock up your guns.” Had Clinton been successful in passing his post-Columbine anti-gun agenda, it would have provided a legislative platform which could easily have eviscerated the Second Amendment over the last decade-and-a-half. But Kasich's efforts to outlaw guns -- drip-by-drip -- continues to this day. Kasich continues to be a chief advocate of actual or de facto amnesty, claiming that enforcing our immigration laws would be “inhumane.” Of course, if Kasich gets his way, the legalization of 11 million illegals will have the same effect on the American electorate that the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty had on California. The country as a whole would become deep “anti-gun blue.” And, of course, Kasich was one of the first RINO’s to legitimize the anti-gun ObamaCare program by bringing its massive Medicaid segment into his state. Now, all it will take is for Obama to do a computer search of Kasich's Medicaid beneficiaries for “PTSD,” “Alzheimer’s,” and other “mental defectives,” and the gun rights of tens of thousands of law-abiding Ohioans could be jeopardized. And all of this was done by Kasich’s particularly nasty form of politics which he is now trying to morph, incredibly, into his “Mr. Nice” act. These actions, of course, reflect the hatred for guns by Kasich’s patron, George Soros. You may remember that, when Soros launched his campaign of “exposes” designed to destroy the conservative movement piece-by-piece, his first target was Gun Owners of America -- which Soros viewed as even more dangerous than the Koch brothers. But perhaps as bad as Kasich’s anti-gun record is his determination to destroy the GOP selection process for personal gain. Surely, even the vainglorious Kasich understands that, the longer he stays is the race, the longer the “divided field” makes it easier for an establishment candidate to hijack the process at the convention. Polls have shown -- here and here -- that Ted Cruz would beat Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup. But by becoming the REAL “chaos candidate,” Kasich helps destroy the Republican Party by throwing the nomination to someone who is despised by the grassroots. In so doing, Kasich does the bidding of his master, George Soros. Ted Cruz would be the natural one to aggressively call out anti-gunner John Kasich for his anti-gun record. Please contact Ted Cruz and urge him to expose Kasich. Let’s not let Kasich pull the wool over the eyes of American voters. Sincerely, Tim Macy Chairman Gun Owners of America P.S. While you cannot use GOA’s Legislative Action Center to email Senator Ted Cruz -- unless you are a constituent of his -- you can easily contact him through his webform. So simply copy-n-paste the pre-written letter below into Senator Ted Cruz’ webform and urge him to expose Senator John Kasich’s anti-gun record. ----- Pre-written letter for Sen. Ted Cruz ----- Dear Senator Cruz: Thank you so much for your strong defense of the Constitution -- and in particular, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Gun Owners of America has informed me that John Kasich has a long record of supporting gun control, including the following: 1) Kasich cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms, and for this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton. See: tinyurl.com/hp4ucsp 2) Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system which is now blocking a percentage of legal gun purchases. Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if someone is illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, they can never get their record corrected. See: tinyurl.com/hp4ucsp 3) In 1999, Kasich voted to retain restrictive gun ban in Washington, D.C. See: tinyurl.com/zyljbep 4) Also in 1999, he voted for provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms; for a gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and for mandates to requiring people to “lock up their guns.” See: tinyurl.com/jq84rcd With John Kasich deciding to remain in the presidential race, I think it’s important for someone on the national level to expose his anti-gun votes. I hope you will continue to point out Kasich's anti-gun positions. Sincerely,

That is exactly what I am afraid of happening.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/16/obama-supreme-court-pick-faces-conservative-heat-on-gun-votes.html?intcmp=hpbt3   Published March 16, 2016 FoxNews.com The NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups came out strongly Wednesday against President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, warning that Judge Merrick Garland would threaten gun rights while citing his role in a landmark firearms case.  “President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners,” Chris Cox, head of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement.  Senate Republican leaders already have said they don't plan to consider Garland's or any nomination. But conservative groups pressuring lawmakers to hold the line largely are focusing on the D.C. appeals court judge's votes related to the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which weighed D.C. residents’ right to keep handguns in their homes. The case reached the high court after a three-judge panel of the District’s U.S. Court of Appeals struck down parts of D.C.’s handgun ban. The heavily Democratic D.C. government opposed the decision and asked the full appeals court to reconsider. But the request was denied in a 6-4 vote. Merrick was among the four on the full court who voted to re-hear the case, though he took no formal position on the merits. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the individual right to self-defense, in an opinion delivered by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom Garland is seeking to replace. Still, critics saw Garland’s earlier vote to re-hear as a signal that Garland backed the D.C. gun restrictions. Cox said his group “strongly opposes” the Garland nomination “on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country.” “There is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right and four justices do not,” Cox also said. Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, argued Wednesday that Garland’s roughly 19-year record as a judge supports the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Scalia’s most important opinions. Beyond Garland’s 2007 vote on D.C. gun ownership, Severino points to his 2000 vote on the appeals court to allow the FBI to continue to retain gun-sale records to help with criminal background checks on firearms sales. The decision was a defeat for the powerful NRA, which filed the lawsuit. Severino argued Wednesday that while two cases might appear like too small of a sample, such gun cases rarely reach the D.C. court. “They are two good indicators, telling examples and adequate evidence,” she told FoxNews.com. “It’s impressive enough to have two cases that squarely address the Second Amendment.” Severino’s group says it will spend at least $2 million on advertising to oppose the 63-year-old Garland’s nomination, whom it says “has a very liberal view of gun rights.” Other conservative-leaning groups also have joined in opposing the appointment of Garland, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Clinton, then served during the Bush and Obama administrations. “We are one liberal Justice away from seeing gun rights restricted,” said Michael Needham, chief executive for Heritage Action. The group, the policy advocacy group for the influential Washington think tank the Heritage Foundation, is also backing the GOP-led Senate’s decision to hold no confirmation hearing. He argues that Americans in just seven months will pick a new president, who should make the decision about replacing Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the high court. Brian Rogers, executive director for the group America Rising Squared and a former spokesman for Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, said Garland’s vote to re-hear the D.C. gun law case “is deeply concerning to all who care about our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”  Obama, meanwhile, urged Republicans to reconsider their opposition.  “I hope they’re fair. That’s all,” Obama said Wednesday. “To give him a fair hearing and up or down vote.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/11/guns-in-america-know-case-for-background-checks-is-weak-if.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork     Published March 11, 2016 FoxNews.com Academic advocates of gun control apparently need to manipulate the data in order to argue for background checks on private gun transfers.  Even the prestigious medical journal, the Lancet, does not seem to be above publishing junk science on gun control.  There has been extensive, glowing media coverage from the Los Angeles Times, CNN, Reuters, and US News & World Report. Currently, background checks must be performed when a gun is purchased from a dealer.  “Expanded” background check laws would require that checks also be conducted on private transfers of guns (say between a father and a son or with a neighbor). These laws exist in 19 states.  Of course, previous public health researchers simultaneously carefully pick one state at a time to examine (Missouri or Connecticut), which years to look at, and what types of crime to study.  To do the matter justice, a researcher really must look at all of the states that passed the laws, and then compare the changes in crime rates between those states that passed the laws to those that didn’t.  Using data from 2010, the new Lancet study claims that these background checks on private transfers will reduce state firearms deaths (homicides plus suicides) by 57 percent.  Yet, few researchers would look at firearm deaths across states in one year. To put this in perspective, let’s look at another simplistic comparison.  A lot of people like to point to the UK’s lower homicide rate and fewer guns and attribute this to strict gun control laws. Many cite this as proof that gun control reduces homicides.  But there is a problem. The UK had an even lower homicide rate before the country banned handguns.  After the ban, homicide rates rose by 50 percent over for the next 8 years.  The point is that homicide or suicide rates can differ for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with gun control, and that simply looking across countries or states is often quite misleading. The most accurate option is to see how a place’s crime rates change after new laws go into effect and then compare that change with the changes that occurred in places where the laws didn’t change. Again, the cherry-picking of numbers is outrageous.  Gun laws for 2009 are used to evaluate firearms deaths in 2010.  Then 2013 is chosen as the year that firearm ownership is looked at.  No explanation is offered for why these different years are used.  The normal approach is to use all the available years of crime or suicide data.  One must have a very good reason for omitting certain years data, and there really is no good explanation for what was done in the Lancet study. There are many other problems with this study, such as looking at the impact of the different gun control laws in separate regressions instead of studying their impacts all at one time. When I did my own study in the 2010 edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press), I used data for all the states from 1977 to 2005. I found that these expanded background checks were associated with a very small and statistically insignificant 2 percent increase in murder rates. Expanded background checks have become this year’s hot political issue for Democrats.  After every mass shooting, President Obama has called for these new checks. Strangely, the recent shootings in Oregon, Colorado, California, and Paris are being used to push gun-control laws that already existed in those places and that evidently failed to prevent the attacks.  There’s already evidence that these attacks don’t decline in frequency as a result of expanded background checks. Public health research has become completely corrupt.  Too often, the conclusions seem to be more important than the accuracy of the research.  With money flooding in from Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and others, we are unfortunately going to be seeing a lot more of these types of studies in just the coming year.

I have several different guns I use for carry depending on were I am going or time of year.  My rotation consist of :   Ruger LCR .38 + P Glock 26 Gen 4 9mm Sig Sauer P226 Legion 9mm Glock 20 Gen 4 10mm

It is pretty bad in some areas around here. 

IDPA match has been canceled due to Flooding.

The crime is slowly moving into Bartlett.  We had a neighbor robbed in their driveway as they came home from the grocery store.