Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

A Poke In The Eye for all the Gun-Control Chicken Littles

Paul Valone’s gun rights group Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) issued an alert yesterday pointing out the fact that the 2013 NC General Assembly’s House Bill 937 was implemented just one year ago today.  From the text of the alert:

House Bill 937, which became effective on October 1, 2013, dramatically expanded North Carolina’s concealed handgun law into restaurants where alcohol is sold and consumed, assemblies of people for which admission is charged, parades and funerals, further into state and municipal parks, and even to a limited extent into educational properties.

As always when we expand concealed handgun laws, opponents and media naysayers predicted shootings in bars, guns stolen from vehicles at schools, and various other sorts of mayhem using platitudes like “guns and alcohol don’t mix.”

GRNC explained endlessly that concealed handgun permit-holders, by virtue of background checks and training, had proven themselves sane, sober and law-abiding since 1995, with a rate of permit revocation on the order of three tenths of a single percent.  We explained that permit-holders in restaurants would still be prohibited from imbibing alcohol.

But the dire predictions persisted.  Editorials ridiculed legislators.  UNC president Tom Ross sent UNC police chiefs to testify against the bill, claiming it would hamper their ability to protect students.  Gun control activists pushed restaurants to post against concealed carry.

It has now been one year since HB 937 became effective.  So what has happened?  Nothing.  GRNC monitors clipping services for gun-related incidents.  Just like Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee and other states which adopted restaurant carry, however, we have been unable to find a single instance of a concealed handgun permit-holder misusing a gun in a restaurant or educational property.

So, congrats, all you CCL and Open Carry practitioners, for keeping your cool.

For Gun Sellers, Square Is Out

Everyone is familiar with the Square debit and credit card reader (pictured at right) sold for use with smartphones, are they not?  Well, due SquareCreditCardReaderto a change just over one year ago in their Terms Of Service agreement, Square has now joined PayPal in prohibiting the use of their service for transacting payments for firearms or ammunition.  This, of course, has put a crimp in the business model for many smaller gun dealers and sellers, particularly those that sometimes transact business off-site, such as at gun shows.

Jennifer Kerns has up an article at the Daily Signal blog with the details. An excerpt:

Last summer, around the same time the U.S. Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point began pressuring banks to drop customers who buy or sell firearms, tobacco and other goods considered “not acceptable” by the Obama administration, Square quietly changed its terms of agreement.

The new terms stipulate that users of the Square card reader:

… will not accept payments in connection with the following businesses or business activities: …sales of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury.

Kern goes on to note that:

Today, the Square’s terms prohibit gun-shop owners from using the credit-card processor not only when they are conducting gun sales at their brick-and-mortar stores but even more so when they are offsite, representing their stores at gun shows where they often need the wireless Square Reader to ring up sales on smartphones or tablets.  Gun shows have been a target of anti-gun activists for nearly 20 years.

The full article is HERE.  And for those interested in alternative payment methods, check into the NRA Business Alliance, PistolPay, and PhoneSwipe services.

Why does the ATF want to know if a Gun Buyer is Hispanic?

Earlier this week, Kelly Riddell of the Washington Times reported on a little-noticed change, dating back to early 2012, in which the Obama administration’s ATF changed the 4473 form to require a gun buyer to declare whether or not he/she was Hispanic.  For decades, the form has included a block in which the buyer was to declare their race, but the requirement for self-identification as to Hispanic origins is relatively new.

Some excerpts from Riddell’s article:

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say.  And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

“This issue concerns me deeply because, first, it’s offensive, and, secondly, there’s no need for it,” said Evan Nappen, a private practice firearms lawyer in New Jersey.  “If there’s no need for an amendment, then there’s usually a political reason for the change.  What this indicates is it was done for political reasons, not law enforcement reasons.”


During the time ATF revised its 4473 form to include Hispanic or Latino as an ethnicity, the Obama administration was building gun control cases by saying U.S. firearms dealers were supplying Mexican gangs with weapons and that violence related to the sales was seeping across the border.

In March 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico City and gave a speech against American gun stores and owners — blaming them for the drug cartels’ violence.  Mrs. Clinton subsequently told CBS News that “90 percent” of the “guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and military” actually “come from America.”

About a week later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made the same points at a gun trafficking conference outside of Mexico City.  In April, the president himself flew down to Mexico to inform President Felipe Calderon that Mr. Holder was going to review U.S. law enforcement operations, according to a 2011 report by the American Thinker.

This political worldview may have fueled decision-making at ATF, Mr. Nappen suggests.


Although gun advocates speculate on the reasoning behind changing the form, on one thing they are clear: Requiring ethnicity and race to purchase a gun is a clear government overstep, violating Second Amendment rights.

For the full article, click HERE.

Target May Be Having Second Thoughts

Most readers are probably aware that early this month, Target Stores, bending under the weight of criticism from gun control advocates, adopted a policy of continuing to permit concealed carry on their store properties while simultaneously asking people not to do so.  They apparently thought this would be a good compromise, but it meant, of course, that if a person with a CCL opted to comply with Target’s preference, they could be at risk of being unable to defend themselves while on Target properties.

Well, that didn’t take long.  ABC-News affiliate ABC7 in Los Angeles reported on Tuesday of this week the fatal shooting of what appears to be a crime victim on the parking lot of a Van Nuys Target store in the early morning hours, around 5am.  From their short article:

A suspect was arrested, and a weapon has been recovered.  He was also taken to a local hospital because police suspected he was under the influence of drugs.

The circumstances of the shooting remain unknown.  Authorities say the suspect is a known gang member, but the victim is not believed to be involved with gangs.

In a not surprising aspect, the shooter disregarded the wishes of Target Stores management.  Obviously, then, had he been a CCL holder, the victim might still be dead, but at least he would have had a chance of rehabilitating the gang member in the process.

Massie Makes An Effort

According to a report from Moriah Costa of Reuters news service, a Republican member of Congress has poked the District Of Columbia hornet’s nest by introducing legislation that would nullify the District’s draconian firearms laws.  The legislation was in the form of an amendment to the current spending bill that is intended to support the local D.C. government.  An excerpt:

A 2008 Supreme Court decision struck down the district’s ban on handgun possession.  Residents now must register handguns every three years, complete a safety course and be fingerprinted and photographed.

The amendment sponsored by Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky would do away with those provisions.  In a statement, Massie criticized Washington gun laws as harassment of law-abiding citizens.

The bill will now go to the Senate where the offending provision will no doubt be deleted.  But at least Massie tried.  For the full article, click HERE.


And in a somewhat related Second Amendment legislation development, Democratic freshman Representative Robin Kelly of Illinois has introduced a bill to restrict the advertising of firearms to those under 18 years of age.  According to this WaPo article, the bill would:

    • prohibit the use of cartoon characters in firearms marketing;
    • prohibit branding of firearms products on tee-shirts and hats;
    • require warning labels on any firearms products specifically designed and marketed to children.

This last would presumably include such products as the Crickett and Chipmunk lines of 22-caliber rifles from Keystone, some of which are offered with pink stocks.

Constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh has some thoughts, HERE, on Representative Kelly’s bill.

CALL TO ACTION on Pending NC Gun Legislation — UPDATED

This call to action relates to a Second Amendment issue.  It came to my attention first via an e-mail alert from Grassroots North Carolina (GRNC), and concerns pending NC General Assembly legislation that will make the penalties more severe for carrying a firearm into a space, public or private, in which they are prohibited.  As most will know, such spaces typically include most buildings owned by the Federal, state, county, or municipal governments, as well as any privately owned building or open space on which the owner has posted a sign advising the public that concealed or open carry is not allowed.  In addition, in many instances, the prohibition extends to the building’s parking lot or parking structure, even when the prohibiting sign is not visible until the individual enters the adjacent building.

Unfortunately, some folks will occasionally violate the law unintentionally regardless of whether they have a valid CCL.  In recognition of this, the original CCL legislation made a first offense a Class 2 misdemeanor, and the subsequent offenses a Class 1 felony.  The revised penalties, incorporated at the last minute by the NC-House, make the first offense a Class A1 misdemeanor, and subsequent offenses a Class H felony.

The GRNC alert did not give much in the way of detail, but this afternoon Paul Valone, who heads up Grassroots North Carolina, was kind enough to fill in some gaps for me.  The essence of it is — JAIL TIME!  The original Class 2 misdemeanor did not involve jail time, but the proposed change to a Class A1 misdemeanor may very possibly mean jail time for granny if she fails to lock her glove box when her pistol is inside!

It is not clear at the moment, but it looks as if this started out as a omnibus (everything but the kitchen sink) Senate bill that went to the House, where the objectionable amendments were added.  Representative Larry Pittman tried to add an amendment that would have nullified the penalty escalations, but his amendment was defeated (and Pat McElraft voted to defeat it).  The House went on to pass the bill with the stronger penalties (and McElraft voted for it), and it has now moved to the Senate.  The Senate will vote first on the amendments that the House made to the bill, then on the revised bill a few days later.

What we must do now is to let our NC-Senators know that we do not want the Senate to agree to these penalty escalations that were incorporated by the House at the last minute.  Since the Senate may vote as early as Wednesday, please contact your Senator immediately, by e-mail and/or phone, to say some variation of this:

Please Do Not Approve The House Amendments to SB-594

Please do not vote to approve the provisions added by the House to SB-594, the “Omnibus Justice Amendments”, as the provisions include harsher penalties for violated the prohibited spaces measures in North Carolina’s concealed and open firearms carrying statutes.  I ask you to act so that inadvertent, first time violations do not result in well-meaning citizens becoming eligible for jail time upon conviction.

Thanks for your attention to this constituent contact.

Name, address, etc..

Senator Norm Sanderson’s e-mail is, and his office phone number is 919/733-5706.  I think it would also be helpful if Representative McElraft were copied on any e-mail messages that are sent.  Her e-mail address is

Please respond to this call to action, and if you wish, you may also copy me on any e-mail messages with the address



I sent Senator Sanderson an e-mail, and followed by calling to leave a message on his Raleigh office phone.  When I hung up a couple of minutes ago, his message box was NOT YET FULL.  Get cracking, tea partiers.



When I briefed the members attending our Tuesday night meeting on this issue, some wanted to know who among the General Assembly legislators was responsible for initiating this new penalty provision in the House and/or Senate bills.  As it happens, the folks at GRNC have put up an informative timeline, HERE, which I would commend to all who value common sense gun laws.  And it is NOT TOO LATE to let your voice be heard.  If you haven’t done so, send your elected representatives in the House and Senate an e-mail message to communicate your views.

Pat, Pat, Say It Ain’t So

As I remarked at our CCTPP meeting in Morehead City tonight, some members have heard me say lately that I think our Representative Pat McElraft has cast some votes that are not consistent with Tea Party principles, and at least two of them were cast in the last two weeks.  However, I have also said that I think we should remember that Representative McElraft owes some deference to Representative Thom Tillis (who is continuing in his final term as Speaker of the House), since Tillis appointed her as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee (budget committee) for the short session.  Stated plainly, if Tillis strongly supports a bill, then it would be prudent if Rep. McElraft would support it as well.

That said, House committee chairmen serve at the pleasure of the Speaker.  Since Tillis will not be Speaker in the next session of the General Assembly, there is a good chance that McElraft will be displaced by whomever the new Speaker favors.  Therefore, I think it is fair to ask now long Representative McElraft’s gratitude should persist, especially when it constrains her to vote against the interests of the people in Carteret and Craven counties who worked so hard for her re-election.

Obviously, I am giving Representative McElraft the benefit of the doubt in postulating a scenario in which she acts in accord with Tillis’ leanings rather than her own.  Frankly, I hope that to be the case.  If not, then we conservatives may have misjudged her ideological inclinations.

An NRA for Ka-nife Owners

I welcome this development and have for a long time, ever since Mrs. Saunders confiscated my high-quality German-made switchblade in the seventh grade.  Darned ole’ busybody.  I paid five bucks for that knife, and it was the envy of every other boy on the schoolyard.

Below is the full text from the article that appeared on Brietbart:

With gun control defeated in 2013 and unlikely to make any headway with the 2014 elections, forcing Democrats to tack to the center, many citizens are lining up to push back laws restricting knife ownership.

The battle is being led by Knife Rights, an organization Doug Ritter founded in 2006 after realizing “there was not an NRA for knife owners.”

According to, Ritter has already succeeded in seeing “knife preemption laws” enacted in Arizona, Utah, New Hampshire, Georgia, Kansas, and Alaska.

Moreover, the National Journal reports that a knife bill which repeals the carrying and sale of switchblade knives has been passed in Tennessee, and Governor Bill Haslam (R) is expected to sign it.

The bill repeals the state’s ban on switchblade knives and the 4-inch blade limit heretofore placed on knives carried by those “with intent to go armed.”  The legislation “also preempts any city or town ordinance that regulates knives.”

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre fully supports the work of Knife Rights, calling them “the premier grassroots organization protecting our right to own knives.”  He adds: “Those who love freedom need Knife Rights.”

And yes, there is a Second Amendment issue here.  After all, the one-armed, gun averse folks among us have the right to concealed carry also, don’t they?

When In San Francisco, Wear Your Pistol To Bed

That wacky 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again come up with a doozy of a ruling, this time on a Second Amendment case arising out of a San Francisco ordinance that requires gun owners to keep all their firearms either disabled (via use of a trigger lock) or locked in a gun safe EXCEPT WHEN BEING CARRIED ON THEIR PERSON.  The ordinance applies to all residents, even those without children or those living alone.

A key excerpt from the Court’s ruling:

Thus, even when a handgun is secured, it may be readily accessed in case of an emergency.  Further, section 4512 [of the San Francisco ordinance] leaves open alternative channels for self-defense in the home, because San Franciscans are not required to secure their handguns while carrying them on their person.  Provided San Franciscans comply with the storage requirements, they are free to use handguns to defend their home while carrying them on their person.

Yeah, right.  Pajamas with a holster pocket, coming to San Francisco area Wal-Marts soon.  Check out Eugene Volokh’s analysis of the silliness at the Volokh Conspiracy, HERE.

The CPAC Poll and Doctor Ben Carson on Gun Rights

Yesterday I posted the results of the informal poll taken of his readers by Professor Glenn Reynolds at his Instapundit blog.  Comparison with the CPAC poll, below, is interesting.  Rand Paul won at CPAC, of course, as CPAC attracts a very libertarian crowd.  Senator Ted Cruz faired very well in both polls, as did Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  The standout differences seem to be with the results for Governor Chris Christie, Senator Marco Rubio, and Doctor Ben Carson.

CPAC_2014_PrezPollDr. Ben Carson may have done well simply because he was a featured speaker at CPAC, and conversely, he may have done poorly in the Instapundit poll because Professor Reynolds’ readers may be inclined toward conservatism rather than libertarianism, and conservatives do not like Dr. Carson’s squishy-ness on Second Amendment rights.

For those not aware of Dr. Carson’s views on gun rights, most of what is known stems from an interview he did with Glenn Beck about a year ago during which Beck asked him if citizens should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons.  Dr. Carson’s reply is quoted as “It depends on where you live.  I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it.”  Oddly, this view corresponds fairly closely to the dissent filed by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in the DC v. Heller case, which suggested that an individual had a more legitimate right to own a firearm for hunting purposes than for self-protection.  Lastly, the phrasing of his response suggests to me that Dr. Carson may not realize that virtually all firearms now in the hands of civilians are semi-automatics, from your run-of-the-mill revolver up to the legal AK-47 versions.

Recently, however, Tony Lee has reported at Breitbart that Dr. Carson now says:

… he does not believe in gun registration because America’s massive debt could transform the nation into a third-world country in which martial law may be imposed.

Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who has been getting buzz in conservative circles, said that he changed his mind and was against gun registration because of the “sinister internal forces” that could surface in that scenario.  He said he “used to think they needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns.”

That seems to me to be a weak rationale for getting to where he needs to be on the issue, but still, maybe Dr. Carson has been boning up on the history and justification for the Second Amendment.  I hope so, for the sake of any future political ambitions he may have.

The Last Limey — CNN’s Piers Morgan Bites The Dust

Coming less than three months after MS-NBC dumped fellow English commentator Martin Bashir, Piers Morgan is now out at CNN.  Morgan’s show, which had replaced Larry King’s upon King’s retirement three years ago, will end soon, probably within a month or so.  CNN’s experiment with having a Brit constantly trashing America’s gun culture, along with persistently advocating for more strict gun control laws, did not go well for some reason.  The full New York Times story is HERE.

Ninth Circuit Federal Court Panel Rules in Peruta versus San Diego, a Second Amendment Case

In the wake of the SCOTUS decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases, most federal courts have begun to assess second amendment (2A) cases in two stages.  In the first stage, they seek to determine whether the case at hand involves the 2A right.  If they decide that it does, they move on to stage two, which is to consider whether the state law (or county law, city law, etc.) under which the defendant was charged effectively destroys the defendant’s 2A right.  If they decide that it does (i.e., has the demonstrable effect in practice of making it impossible or inordinately difficult to exercise the right), then the law is struck down as being plainly unconstitutional.  Stage three is invoked if the judges decide that the law merely restricts the right rather than destroys it, and then other considerations come into play.

Peruta versus San Diego deals with the California statutes that define the conditions under which California citizens may be granted a permit to carry a handgun.  At issue was a provision that requires permit applicants to have a “good cause” for wanting a permit to carry a handgun.

An edited excerpt from constitutional law professor David Kopel’s post earlier this week at the Volokh Conspiracy law blog:

California law … also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats.  (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.)  The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.


… the “good cause” requirement, as interpreted by San Diego, is a near-total destruction of the right to bear arms.  “Heller teaches that a near-total prohibition on keeping arms (Heller) is hardly better than a near-total prohibition on bearing them (this case), and vice versa.  Both go too far.”

The ruling was by a three-judge panel, not the full Ninth Circuit Court, and the next step may involve a re-consideration by the full eleven-member court (an en banc review).  Beyond that, the case may also be incorporated into a case before the Supreme Court, as there have been conflicting rulings among several Federal district courts on the base issue.

For more, click HERE to get to the Volokh Conspiracy blog, then search for “Peruta” to bring up all of their posts about the case.

These are the US Senators who Voted Against a bill Preventing the UN Gun Ban

Two independents no Republicans, the rest Democrats.

Over the weekend, we were four votes away from the United States senate giving our constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Statement of Purpose from the billread:

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has beenchampioned by the Obama Administration , would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 of our senators were willing to give away our constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.:

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Please note:  None are Republicans!

People, this needs to go viral.  These senators voted to let the UN take our guns.  They need to lose their next elections. We have been betrayed.

Senator Hagan Finally Revealing Her Position on Gun Control?

Sen. Kay Hagan favors expanding background checks for guns

2013-03-27T00:00:08 Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Updated 12:00AM

By Travis Fain

News & Record

GREENSBORO — U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan likes the idea of expanding background checks for gun purchases, but her vote on legislation nearing the Senate floor will depend on the details, her office said Tuesday.

Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, is also prepared to vote for increased gun trafficking penalties and new school safety measures widely expected to be part of a gun bill.

She’s “unlikely to support” a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban or limits on gun magazine sizes because of “the impact it could have on responsible gun owners,” said Sadie Weiner, a Hagan spokeswoman.

These comments come as rhetoric in the gun debate again nears fever pitch. The Senate is scheduled to take up a bill after it returns from Easter break April 8. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group is running $12 million worth of commercials in the interim.

The goal is to pressure key lawmakers to vote for the bill, and particularly for the new background checks. The group lists 15 senators it’s targeting — 10 Republicans and five Democrats, including Hagan. Continue reading

The So-Called Gun Show Loophole

The So-Called Gun Show Loophole: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

John G. Malcolm

February 8, 2013 at 10:12 am

J. Emilio Flores/La Opinion/Newscom

There is a lot of misinformation circulating about background checks for gun ownership.

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—all federal firearms licensees are required to conduct a background check for all firearms transactions, even if they sell the firearm at a gun show. This is to make sure that the gun isn’t being sold to a person who is prohibited from purchasing a gun under Section 922(g) or (n) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which would include convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated to be severely mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), and scores of others have repeated the mantra that approximately 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted through private sales at gun shows and are not subject to a criminal background check. This has become known as the “gun show loophole.”

At a recent Senate hearing, Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson went so far as to say, “Allowing 40 percent of those acquiring guns to bypass background checks is like allowing 40 percent of airline passengers to board a plane without going through airport security.”

What gun control proponents never say, though, is that this oft-repeated statistic is based on stale data that was grossly exaggerated even when it was fresh.

As The Washington Post has pointed out, this 40 percent figure comes from a 1997 report by the National Institute of Justice, a research agency within the Department of Justice, and was based on a telephone survey sample of just 251 people who acquired firearms in 1993 and 1994. This was years before the NICS system went into effect. Of the 251 participants, 35.7 percent said that they didn’t or “probably” didn’t obtain their gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Because the margin of error was +/– 6 percentage points, it was rounded up to 40 percent, although it could just as easily and legitimately have been rounded down below 30 percent.

In addition, if you subtract people who said they got their gun as a gift, inheritance, or prize, the number dropped from 35.7 percent to 26.4 percent. And, in terms of how many people actually buy firearms at gun shows, the data from this same survey indicated that in 1994, only 3.9 percent of firearms purchases were made at gun shows.

Citing this data as evidence of how many firearms are currently purchased through private sales not subject to background checks is akin to citing data about current seat belt usage that is derived from a limited sample taken years before a mandatory seat belt law went into effect or before cars were even required to have seat belts. We all know that, according to a phrase popularized by Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Citing such limited and outdated data over and over again on a matter of this magnitude, however, is going too far.

via Heritage

Rove Declares War on Tea Party

Rove Declares War on Tea Party

The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party has begun. On one side is the Tea Party. On the other side stand Karl Rove and his establishment team, posing as tacticians while quietly undermining conservatism.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the “biggest donors in the Republican Party” have joined forces with Karl Rove and Steven J. Law, president of American Crossroads, to create the Conservative Victory Project. The Times reports that this new group will dedicate itself to “recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s effort to win control of the Senate.” The group points to candidates like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Richard Mourdock in Indiana as examples of Tea Party primary picks going sideways in major Senatorial battles.

But it is American Crossroads and its ilk that have run the GOP into the ground. Spending millions of dollars on useless 30,000-ft. advertising campaigns during the last election cycle, training candidates to soften conservatism in order to appeal to “moderates,” blowing up the federal budget under George W. Bush as a bipartisan tactic – all of those strategies led the party to a disastrous defeat in 2012. The Tea Party, which may nominate losers from time to time, also brought the Republicans their historic 2010 Congressional victory. If Tea Party candidates lose, it’s because they weren’t good candidates; if GOP establishment candidates lose, it’s because they weren’t good conservatives. The choice for actual conservatives should be easy.

But it isn’t. The Bush insider team that helped lead to the rise of Barack Obama insists that they, and only they, know the path to victory. As the Times reports, Conservative Victory Project won’t merely protect incumbents – it will challenge sitting Congresspeople of the Tea Party variety, including six-term Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who may run for Senate. “We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Law told the Times – with whom he seems far too friendly. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

Law claims he’s acting under the rubric of William F. Buckley, supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. But Law is no judge of that. Neither is Rove. Their advice led to the epic Romney defeat, in which conservatives were told to vote for Romney in the primary since he was the only candidate who could win.

Grover Norquist correctly points out that the Rove mission is nonsense. “People are imagining a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Norquist. “We’ve had people challenge the establishment guy and do swimmingly.” In truth, conservatism wins elections so long as the messenger doesn’t implode. Rove’s view, however, is that conservatism takes a back seat to the best quasi-conservative messenger.

But victory for conservatives isn’t Rove’s goal. He’s a political insider par excellence, and he’s playing for his political life in the aftermath of 2012. If that means declaring war on the Tea Party, so be it.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the book “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

Important 2nd Amendment Update





Organizing for Action (Obama’s campaign organization turned action network) has directed their members to “flood” the Capitol switchboard.  Our representatives must hear from us to balance their effort.

In addition, Republican Senators Tom Coburn and Mark Kirk are working with Democrat Senators Joe Manchin, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand on new legislation to “keep weapons away from criminals and the mentally ill.”

Grassroots NC’s position on potential bipartisan or Republican legislation: “None of this is acceptable.”

Many people are already being unfairly disqualified from owning a gun because of a diagnosis of PTSD or transient use of an anti-depressant in their past. Some legislators will want to compromise on this type of proposal, but it will infringe on the rights of the law-abiding.

Please call or email your US Representatives and US Senators on Monday and Tuesday, January 28 and 29. Ask them to SAY NO to any gun control measures.

House Reps are in their districts this week so use their local office numbers (while you’re calling, ask them when they will hold a town hall in the district):


Rep. G. K. Butterfield, Jr. (D-01) (252) 237-9816

Rep. Renee L. Ellmers (R-02) 1-877-645-8764

Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-03) 800-351-1697

Rep. David Price (D-04) 919.859.5999

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-05) (336) 778-0211

Rep. Howard Coble (R-06) (336) 333-5005

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-07) (910) 815-4959

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-08) 704-786-1612

Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-09) (704) 365-6234

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-10) 800.477.2576

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-11) 828-693-5660

Rep. Mel Watt (D-12) (704) 344-9950

Rep. George Holding (R-13) 919-856-9778

Senators are in DC this week:

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) 202-224-3154

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) 202-224-6342


Ask him where he stands on gun control in relation to President Obama’s agenda.

Email AND call Commissioner Steve Troxler  at and (919) 707-3000

“It’s been well over a week since The NC Department of Agriculture Commissioner fell in line with President Obama’s plan to ban the private sales of any firearms following a recent incident at a gun show. After a negligent discharge of a shotgun at a recent gun show at the NC Fairgrounds in Raleigh, representatives of Agricultural Commissioner Steve Troxler saw fit to declare that private sales of any and all firearms would be banned for the rest of the show, and possibly all gun shows held on NC agricultural property in the future.

Where does Commissioner Troxler stand?

After pronouncing that private sales were banned from State Agricultural owned property, Commissioner Troxler has gone silent. The big question now becomes: will a REPUBLICAN controlled state agency now jump on President Obama’s gun control policies without question? When accidents involving automobiles happen, we don’t ban private auto sales. When accidents involving house fires happen, we don’t arbitrarily ban private home sales. Why then, are our elected leaders so quick to ban private firearms sales when a negligent discharge happens?

Maybe we should just ask?

The citizens of North Carolina deserve to know where our leaders stand on this issue. Using the contact information provided and the suggested message (or one of your own), contact NC Agricultural Commissioner Steve Troxler and ask him personally where he stands on the issue of private firearms sales and President Obama’s gun control agenda. With the anti-gun crowd screaming loud these days, we deserve to know just where our leaders stand on the issue.”

Letter from Kay Hagan on UN Gun Treaty

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Second Amendment rights. I greatly appreciate your thoughts on this important matter.

As you know, in 2006 the United Nations (UN) began discussions regarding an Arms Trade Treaty. While the United States originally opposed these discussions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has more recently stated that the United States would support and participate in these talks. In October 2009, the UN adopted, by a vote of 153-1 with the United States in support, a resolution laying out a timetable for negotiations. However, even should a treaty be signed, it would require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before it would be considered ratified and in effect. Continue reading

Is the U.N. Trying to Strip Americans’ Second Amendment Rights?

Is the United Nations gunning for Americans’ second Amendment rights?

In an op-ed for Forbes, University of Houston professor Larry Bell rails against the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty.” Bell claims that the international body is passing the measure off as an effort intended to combat terrorists and insurgents. He says the measure has a very different purpose:


Read more …

Anti-gun physicians in Florida claim right to ask patients about gun ownership

by David Paulin

What’s happening to the medical profession? In Madison, Wisconsin, lefty pro-union physicians wrote bogus medical excuses to striking school teachers — so they wouldn’t be disciplined for failing to show up for their classes. Now in Florida, a coalition of physicians with an anti-gun bent are insisting they have the right to ask patients whether they own guns and are storing them safely.

To most gun owners, of course, the fact that they own firearms and how they store them is a private matter – and certainly not the business of their physicians. So it was not surprising that some Florida gun owners went ballistic when, not long ago, they went in for checkups – and had their physicians instead peppering them with questions about their guns and where they keep them.

“We pay doctors to be doctors and give us medical care,” Florida NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer told Capital News Service. “Instead, they are trying to be social workers and bring their gun-ban politics into the examining room.”

Complaints from gun owners and the NRA eventually reached Florida’s lawmakers. Last week, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, signed legislation restricting the ability of physicians to ask patients about guns in their home. Lawmakers passed the bill largely along party lines.

But the controversy isn’t over just yet. Now, the anti-gun physicians are fighting back. In an article about the controversy, the Orlando Sentinel reports:

“Attorneys with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and two other law firms are seeking to block enforcement of the law on behalf of three South Florida doctors as well as the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians.

The bill passed after lobbyists for gun-rights groups and the Florida Medical Association cut a deal that removed the original bill’s fine of up to $5 million and jail time for doctors and weakened other restrictions. But other physicians groups — most notably, pediatricians — have continued to fight it, saying that they ask about guns to ensure that parents keep them safely locked up and away from children.

By severely restricting such speech and the ability of physicians to practice such preventative medicine, the Florida statute could result in grievous harm to children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly,” according to the lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Miami.

Interestingly, some anti-gun physicians apparently considered their queries about gun ownership to be protected under the First Amendment – yet they did not consider that their patients had a First Amendment right not to answer their questions. Or as the Miami Herald reported: The legislation restricting physicians from inquiring about firearms ownership “appears to have originated after an Ocala couple complained that their doctor had told them to find another physician after they refused to disclose whether they owned guns and how they were stored.”

Some might call this an example of the Nanny State. But the more apt term for it is police state. How do you suppose these physicians feel about Obama care?

via AmericanThinker

Obama Administration Running Guns to Mexico!

CBS, yes CBS is breaking news that shows the Obama Administration has been running guns to Mexico!


Agent: I was ordered to let U.S. guns into Mexico

ATF agent says “Fast and Furious” program let guns “walk” into hands of Mexican drug cartels with aim of tracking and breaking a big case

By Sharyl Attkisson
  • Video ATF agent: It’s not overATF special agent John Dodson explained to Sharyl Attkisson that there is no telling where their gun exchange program will end.
  • Video ATF agent explains why he let guns “walk”Sharyl Attkisson spoke with ATF special agent John Dodson who explained the reasoning behind the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” program that guns “walk” into hands of Mexican drug cartels with aim of tracking and breaking a big case.
(CBS News)WASHINGTON – Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.

He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?

“Yes ma’am,” Dodson told CBS News. “The agency was.”

An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson’s job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.

Investigators call the tactic letting guns “walk.” In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.

Sharyl Attkisson’s original “Gunrunner” report

Center for Public Integrity report

Dodson’s bosses say that never happened. Now, he’s risking his job to go public.

“I’m boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we’ve been doing it every day since I’ve been here,” he said. “Here I am. Tell me I didn’t do the things that I did. Tell me you didn’t order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn’t happen. Now you have a name on it. You have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now, tell me it didn’t happen.”

Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

ATF named the case “Fast and Furious.”

Surveillance video obtained by CBS News shows suspected drug cartel suppliers carrying boxes of weapons to their cars at a Phoenix gun shop. The long boxes shown in the video being loaded in were AK-47-type assault rifles.


So it turns out ATF not only allowed it – they videotaped it.

Documents show the inevitable result: The guns that ATF let go began showing up at crime scenes in Mexico. And as ATF stood by watching thousands of weapons hit the streets… the Fast and Furious group supervisor noted the escalating Mexican violence.

One e-mail noted, “958 killed in March 2010 … most violent month since 2005.” The same e-mail notes: “Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during March alone,” including “numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles.”

Dodson feels that ATF was partly to blame for the escalating violence in Mexico and on the border. “I even asked them if they could see the correlation between the two,” he said. “The more our guys buy, the more violence we’re having down there.”

Senior agents including Dodson told CBS News they confronted their supervisors over and over.


Their answer, according to Dodson, was, “If you’re going to make an omelette, you’ve got to break some eggs.”

There was so much opposition to the gun walking, that an ATF supervisor issued an e-mail noting a “schism” among the agents. “Whether you care or not people of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case…we are doing what they envisioned…. If you don’t think this is fun you’re in the wrong line of work… Maybe the Maricopa County jail is hiring detention officers and you can get $30,000 … to serve lunch to inmates…”

“We just knew it wasn’t going to end well. There’s just no way it could,” Dodson said.


On Dec. 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down. Dodson got the bad news from a colleague.

According to Dodson, “They said, ‘Did you hear about the border patrol agent?’ And I said, ‘Yeah.’ And they said ‘Well it was one of the Fast and Furious guns.’ There’s not really much you can say after that.”

Two assault rifles ATF had let go nearly a year before were found at Terry’s murder.

Dodson said, “I felt guilty. I mean it’s crushing. I don’t know how to explain it.”

Sen. Grassley began investigating after his office spoke to Dodson and a dozen other ATF sources — all telling the same story.

Read Sen. Grassley’s letter to the attorney general

The response was “practically zilch,” Grassley said. “From the standpoint that documents we want – we have not gotten them. I think it’s a case of stonewalling.”

Dodson said he hopes that speaking out helps Terry’s family. They haven’t been told much of anything about his murder – or where the bullet came from.

“First of all, I’d tell them that I’m sorry. Second of all, I’d tell them I’ve done everything that I can for them to get the truth,” Dodson said. “After this, I don’t know what else I can do. But I hope they get it.”

Dodson said they never did take down a drug cartels. However, he said thousands of Fast and Furious weapons are still out there and will be claiming victims on both sides of the border for years to come.

Late tonight, the ATF said it will convene a panel to look into its national firearms trafficking strategy. But it refused to comment specifically on Sharyl’s report.

Statement from Kenneth E. Melson, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:


“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will ask a multi-disciplinary panel of law enforcement professionals to review the bureau’s current firearms trafficking strategies employed by field division managers and special agents. This review will enable ATF to maximize its effectiveness when undertaking complex firearms trafficking investigations and prosecutions. It will support the goals of ATF to stem the illegal flow of firearms to Mexico and combat firearms trafficking in the United States.”

© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

Click here for CBS link