Posts

Springfield_Holster_-_Concealed_Carry_HD

Concealed-Carry Permit Surge Could Play Decisive Role in These 2016 Battleground States

The number of concealed-carry permit holders has skyrocketed over the last four years, noticeably in key battleground states and among women, according to a new report.

Two swing states have the highest number of permit holders in the country, with 1.58 million in Florida and 1.2 million in Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, 549,000 have permits in Ohio, another 556,136 in Michigan, and 530,092 in North Carolina. Indiana has issued 728,976 permits. These are all states that President Barack Obama—who supports gun control—carried at least once in his presidential election campaigns.

Fifteen percent of Indianans have concealed-carry permits. Pennsylvania has 12.2 percent of the population holding permits, and another swing state, Iowa, has 11.5 percent of the population carrying concealed-carry permits.

Depending on how significant guns are in the election, the increase in women permit holders and minorities could also be significant. Women have traditionally broken for Democrats in past elections.

“In eight states where we have data by gender, since 2012 the number of permits has increased by 161 percent for women and by 85 percent for men,” a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center says.

In Florida, women had 18 percent of permits in 2012. That rose to 24.1 percent in 2016. The rise went from 18 percent to 22.7 percent in Indiana from 2012 to 2015. In North Carolina, the number of permits for women went from 21.3 percent in 2012 to 27.5 percent in 2015. The study was based on the most recent available data for each state.

The increase among women with permits is even pronounced in the very blue state of Washington, the report said. Between 2005 and 2014, in Washington, “the growth rate for women getting new permits [was] twice as fast as that of men.”

“Women benefit more from having a gun than a man because of the large strength differential between a male-to-woman attacker compared to male-to-male attacker,” Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott, a noted economist and researcher, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Women with a gun would be able to better resist an attack from men. There has been a lot of fear about guns that have caused people to make the wrong decisions about guns, but that is changing.”

Lott is the author of the new book, “The War on Guns.”

From 2007 through 2015, permits issued by state and local governments increased by 215 percent, to more than 14 million Americans. Much of that increase was among minorities, with permits increasing about 75 percent faster among nonwhites than whites, according to the report. Lott said this is similar to the argument for women having guns.

“People who live in poor urban areas are less likely to be victims of a crime if they can protect themselves,” Lott said.

The Second Amendment will likely play a paramount role in the 2016 election for gun owners because of a Supreme Court vacancy, said John Malcolm, director of judicial studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“The Second Amendment will be on the minds of gun owners who vote because of the Heller decision, and the Supreme Court,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Antonin Scalia was the author of the Heller decision. Now we have a four-four split and the next president will appoint the justice to decide if Heller is good law.”

Heller was the 2008 case that affirmed the Second Amendment guaranteed the individual right to bear arms.

Gun rights are likely to play a role in the Ohio vote and in other swing states, but it might be limited if single-issue voters already know how they’ll vote, said Paul Beck, a political science professor at Ohio State University.

“Reaction from voters toward the candidates and their stances is largely already baked in,” Beck told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “This is one issue that really separates the two parties.” (For more from the author of “Concealed-Carry Permit Surge Could Play Decisive Role in These 2016 Battleground States” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nursing_home

Obama Admin. Under Fire for Scheme to Disarm Seniors

A legal team already fighting the Veterans Administration over bureaucratic procedures that arbitrarily deprive veterans of their Second Amendment rights now is warning the Social Security Administration, which is proposing the same process, that it still isn’t constitutional.

“As is the case with the VA’s so-called ‘adjudication process’ the proposed SSA regulations contain confusing and ambiguous definitions of who constitutes a ‘representative payee,’ the criteria for appointing such a payee, and why the appointment of such a payee automatically classifies a Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiary as mentally defective for the purpose of NICS,” said a comment letter submitted to the SSA.

It comes from Michael Connelly of the United States Justice Foundation.

“It also appears that the adjudication of a recipient as being mentally defective can be made by any federal bureaucrat working for the SSA, and they can make the decision without any medical professional being involved. The often vague and sometimes generalized criteria for this adjudication process described in the proposed regulations clearly denies the basic elements of due process to the affected social security beneficiaries.

“The burden of proving they are competent and/or not mentally defective falls squarely on the Social Security beneficiary. This means the bottom line for Social Security recipients is the same as that for veterans. They are being denied their right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment without due process of law. (Read more from “U.S. Under Fire for Scheme to Disarm Seniors” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5845079921_895762ce36_b

FBI Flagged This Congressman as a Terrorist. Here’s Why He Opposes a New Gun Ban.

Waiting on a routine flight from Sacramento back to Santa Barbara, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., discovered he was a terrorist. Or at least that’s what the FBI thought.

McClintock was clearly more of a frequent flyer than radical extremist. But a classic case of mistaken identity, not ties to terrorism, landed him on the FBI’s no-fly list.

A well-known state senator at the time, McClintock was left stranded at the Sacramento International Airport about 10 years ago. He couldn’t fly home under his own name.

Pointing to gaffes like the one that grounded McClintock a decade ago, Republicans now warn of serious constitutional consequences that could occur if Democrats ban suspects on the no-fly list from purchasing guns.

“If your fundamental constitutional rights can be withdrawn at a bureaucrat’s whim” without due process, McClintock argues, “then the Bill of Rights means nothing.”

Democrats in Congress disagree.

After an Islamist-inspired gunman murdered 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando, Democrats launched an effort to close what they characterize as “the terrorist loophole.” They want to block suspected terrorists on the no-fly list from buying guns—legal purchases that President Barack Obama describes as “insane.”

“Congress has become complicit in these murders by its total, unconscionable, deafening silence,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said after a filibuster topping 14 hours. “This doesn’t have to happen, but this epidemic will continue without end if Congress continues to sit on its hands.”

Branding their legislation as the “no fly, no buy” bill, Democrats have already held multiple press conferences, filibustered the Senate, and hijacked the House floor. That effort has quickly raised questions about the little understood no-fly list, which is not public information.

After 9/11, the FBI became responsible for monitoring the Terrorist Screening Database, commonly known as the terrorist watch list. The anti-terror database includes records of individuals known or reasonably suspected to have engaged in terrorism.

It splits into two subsets with different travel implications at the airport, the selectee list and the no-fly list. After undergoing additional security, a selectee still may travel within the U.S. An individual on the no-fly list, however, cannot board a plane.

The government keeps the size of the list secret and won’t say who’s on it, arguing that increased transparency would be counterproductive to counterterrorism.

“Disclosure of an individual’s inclusion or non-inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Database or on the no-fly list,” a spokesman for the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center told The Daily Signal, “would significantly impair the government’s ability to investigate and counteract terrorism, and protect transportation security.”

That secrecy left McClintock flightless. But when he tried to find out more, the conservative recalls, “that’s when the experience got really weird.”

He describes his exchange with officials as something surreal out of a Kafka novel:

McClintock: “Why am I on the list?”

Official: “We can’t tell you.”

McClintock: “Well what criteria did you use?”

Official: “That is classified.”

McClintock: “How can I get off that list?”

Official: “You can’t.”

Eventually he managed to remove his name from the list but only after the California Senate spent months working with federal officials to clear his name.

The government had confused him, McClintock later learned, with a known terrorist in the Irish Republican Army.

McClintock has never visited Ireland, though. And, the California conservative adds with a laugh, he is “not now and never have been” associated with any insurgent Irish independence movement.

But he’s not the only lawmaker who has been marked as a potential terrorist.

Then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., was famously flagged by the no-fly list in 2004 while trying to travel from Washington back to Boston. It took weeks, The Washington Post reported, for officials to fix the error.

For anyone who lacks the connections enjoyed by members of Congress, getting off the no-fly list can be even harder. That requires starting a redress process with the Department of Homeland Security to petition the FBI to reexamine its records.

But that can take years, warns Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It can be very hard for people who lack resources and knowledge of the system to even begin to know how to challenge it when it is so unfair,” she told The Daily Signal.

The ACLU argues that the FBI’s no-fly list violates constitutional due process safeguards because the government does not provide individuals the reasons for their placement on the list, the basis for the decision, or an appeal in a court of law.

While the group supports “reasonable gun regulation,” Shamsi explained, the ACLU opposes tying gun control to “an unfair, error-prone, and discriminatory watch list system.”

That’s made the traditionally liberal ACLU an unexpected ally of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Republicans last week defeated a measure, in both the House Appropriations Committee and on the Senate floor, that would have prohibited the sale of guns to suspected terrorists. GOP lawmakers insist that Congress should focus efforts on equipping law enforcement to fight terrorism instead.

“People have due process rights in this country,” Ryan scolded Democrats afterward, “we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.”

Before the House went into recess for the Fourth of July break, Ryan warned that he would block any vote on legislation that he believes strips away constitutional rights without due process.

Still, Democrats are promising to renew their push for the “no fly, no buy” legislation when Congress returns July 5. (For more from the author of “FBI Flagged This Congressman as a Terrorist. Here’s Why He Opposes a New Gun Ban.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Modified_AR-15

Undercover Reporter Who Purchased an AR-15 May Have Broken Federal Law

The CR Wire reported Thursday that CBS News was SHOCKED at how easy it was for an American citizen to purchase a firearm legally – as if there was no constitutional right to do so.

Well, it appears the CBS reporter who tried to ridicule gun laws may have committed a federal crime in unlawfully purchasing the gun, at least according to the gun store who sold it. The store, SpecDrive Tactical, contacted Virginia State Police and the ATF to report the possible crime.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

SpecDive said that when CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased the rifle she told the store’s general manager the gun was for her own use. However, when CBS reported on the story they revealed the gun was purchased for the story and transferred to a third party a few hours later. “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it,” the report said.

“Ms. Paula Reid came into the shop with cash, claiming she wished to purchase an AR-15 to, ‘undergo training,’” Ryan Lamke, SpecDive’s general manager, told the Washington Free Beacon. “She refused basic, free instruction of firearms safety under the pretense that she was using the firearm for training with a NRA certified instructor.”

“Due to the information provided in the CBS News report filed today, I suspect Ms. Reid committed a straw purchase and procurement of a firearm under false pretenses.”

If Ms. Reid did, in fact, mislead the store about her intentions to give the gun over to a third party immediately after purchase it is “in clear violation of the law,” SpecDrive owner Jerry Rapp made clear.

ATF told the Free Beacon that they are aware of the situation and considering opening an investigation. CBS News remains steadfast that their employee did not break any federal law.

Of course, we don’t wish any evil on people, but if Ms. Reid and CBS News were to be punished for their hit piece it would be something like poetic justice. (For more from the author of “Undercover Reporter Who Purchased an AR-15 May Have Broken Federal Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

9mm_Yarygin_pistol_PYa_09

Taking Away Constitutional Rights at the Discretion of the Government

If the news reports are correct, the latest “gun control” proposal being put forward by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is a “measure that would block people on the Transportation Security Administration’s no–fly list from buying firearms,” according to ABC News.

There is one major problem with that proposal: It is potentially unconstitutional since it would take away a constitutional right—your Second Amendment right to bear arms—at the discretion of a government official in a secret, nontransparent process that has no adequate due process protections.

Let’s be clear—we don’t want terrorists buying guns in this country. Nor do we think that they have a Second Amendment right to do so. But this blunt instrument is not the right solution.

The Terrorism Screening Database is the official name for the “Terrorist Watchlist” maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. This database is the U.S.’s central repository of foreign and domestic known and suspected terrorists. How individuals get onto this list is classified, as is the process for individuals getting from that list onto the no-fly list maintained by TSA.

We don’t know what evidence is required by the government or what the standards are for the government having a “reasonable suspicion” that would place any American citizen on the no-fly list. And more than one court has held that the procedures for an American who may have mistakenly gotten onto the list to get off are inadequate. The ACLU complains that the government often fails to “provide meaningful notice“ and to explain why an individual is listed

We certainly know that the government makes mistakes. Rahinah Ibraham was a scholar and doctoral candidate at Stanford University with a valid student visa who ended up on the list through a clerical error by an FBI agent. As an alien, she would not be entitled to purchase a gun, but the mistake that landed her on the list and the ten years of litigation she went through to get off of the list shows the problem with the lack of transparency and due process involved in the maintenance of the no-fly list.

Another well-known case is that of Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard and a regular on Fox New (and a former Heritage intern). He also was put on the no-fly list with no notice to him; the first he knew about it is when he showed up at the airport for a trip to Minneapolis.

Or Abe Mashal, a 34-year-old Marine veteran who also got put on the no-fly list and was part of a lawsuit against the government by the ACLU, in which a federal judge said that the current redress system for getting off of the secret list was “wholly ineffective” and fell far short of the due process required by the Constitution.

No one questions that we need a no-fly list to prevent suspected terrorists from being able to take over airplanes and repeat the type of horrendous attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

But there are literally tens of thousands of individuals on that list today and the “reasonable suspicion” standard for getting on that list is not a very stringent legal test; keep in mind that apparently in many of these cases there is not enough evidence to actually arrest the individual and prosecute him for supposed terrorist activities. And while one might assume that it is suspicion of terrorist activity that will get you on the list, some reports indicate that other factors such as just traveling to certain countries or having a similar name to someone on the list can get you on the no-fly list.

If a member of Congress proposed taking away your right to criticize the federal government under the First Amendment or your right to vote in the upcoming election because you are on the government’s secret no-fly list, people would be shocked at the very idea of taking away such fundamental rights based on mere suspicion; without requiring the government to prove its case against you in a court of law; and without any of the due process rights we are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights as citizens of the United States.

But so many liberals would like to write the inconvenient Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights, that they see no problem with treating it as simply a privilege that the government can take away at will.

If Congress truly wants to bolster our counter-terrorism efforts, they should concentrate on strengthening the investigative tools that can be used by law enforcement, as well as increasing the prosecutorial resources and war-fighting ability needed to stop the murderous acts of jihad being perpetrated against Americans.

That means focusing on the terrorists themselves, and not on measures that take away the constitutional rights of Americans at the discretion of government bureaucrats. (For more from the author of “Taking Away Constitutional Rights at the Discretion of the Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

8697303502_f2a78886b8_o

Which Presidential Candidate Has the Longest Record Fighting for Gun Rights?

It’s easy to forget the cold, dark days of winter, 2013.

The horrific tragedy of Newtown had touched the hearts of the nation, and every news outlet — every one — was blaming the Second Amendment community for what happened there.

GOA was receiving death threats — not only against us, but against our children. Even Fox News was opining that the battle against Bloomberg’s gun control was hopeless, as every news outlet spent every hour of the day predicting that our organization — and the “gun manufacturers’ lobby” [sic] in general — would be absolutely and totally destroyed.

It was in this context that Senator Ted Cruz agreed to lead a team of senators to defeat every word — EVERY WORD — of Bloomberg/Obama gun control.

Working with us, Cruz implemented a brilliant strategy which used the complex rules of parliamentary procedure to send Barack Obama and Harry Reid running with their tails between their legs.

And the Cruz/GOA victory emboldened gun owners to take the Senate away from the anti-gun crazies in 2014 and return it to pro-Second Amendment principles.

Make no mistake: Had Ted Cruz not done what he did, the gun rights community would have been completely demoralized and defeated.

We would have been unable to achieve the electoral victories that we won in 2014, and instead, we would have been fighting desperately to fend off the succession of follow-up gun control measures that Bloomberg and Obama promised.

But that’s not the way history unfolded.

Because of Cruz, the efforts to enact gun registration and gun and magazine bans were stopped in the Senate.

And with Gun Owners of America supporting Cruz’ strategy, the liberal media blasted GOA for helping him defeat gun control in the Senate:

“Democrats Blame ‘Gun Owners of America’ for Gun Control Setback.” — TPM, April 8, 2013

“The group [GOA] has already been successful in both freezing senators, particularly Republicans, who have appeared to be on the fence about supporting bills to expand background checks.” — New York Times, April 3, 2013

“When Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, backed away from bipartisan talks to expand background checks earlier this year, he did so after Gun Owners of America and its members flooded the senator’s office with e-mails and phone calls.” –Slate, April 4, 2013

But that’s not all.

Cruz rapidly followed up our victory over gun control by leading the effort to kill Marco Rubio’s anti-gun Gang of Eight amnesty bill.

Cruz did that by arranging to have the Senate-passed bill “blue-slipped” in the House as an unconstitutional Senate-initiated revenue measure.

Furthermore, Cruz put a “hold” on the Senate calendar to prevent Harry Reid from secretly trying to stick the unconstitutional Senate measure onto a minor House-initiated revenue bill.

Had Cruz not implemented our successful strategy, up to 11,000,000 new anti-gun voters would have turned the entire country into an anti-gun “utopia” comparable to California.

Of course, none of this was a surprise to us. Cruz had helped argue the Heller case. And as a result of Cruz’ advocacy and the arguments of other top Second Amendment attorneys, the Supreme Court has now recognized this fundamental truth: The Second Amendment is a God-given individual right applicable to all Americans.

Marco Rubio is a good-hearted articulate young man who, as he gains more experience, could have a great future in the Republican Party.

But his inexperience in negotiating with Senator Chuck Schumer over the Gang of Eight amnesty bill almost cost us EVERYTHING. Had Marco succeeded in giving a path to citizenship for 11,000,000 anti-gun voters, we would have been on a glide-path that ultimately would have made our battle for gun rights hopeless.

Similarly, many of our good-hearted friends have been inspired by Donald Trump’s willingness to stand up to the feckless Republican establishment.

But, if he were to gain the nomination, we just don’t know where Trump would be on the Second Amendment.

In his autobiography, Trump endorsed the semi-auto ban and a longer waiting period on firearms purchases. And, caught unaware by a questioner, he endorsed Chuck Schumer’s plan to take away guns from anyone Barack Obama chose to put on a secret list — which suggests he doesn’t understand some of the seminal issues which face us.

And now Trump is bragging about the “deals he’ll make” specifically with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. That’s REALLY SCARY.

So, in short, that’s why we believe Ted Cruz is the ONLY REAL CHOICE for gun owners.

In head-on-heads, Cruz does well against Hillary Clinton — unlike the incendiary Trump. Thus, he has a better chance of uniting the base and winning the election — rather than going down in a burst of flames.

And, when he arrives at the White House on January 20, the entire wretched “legacy” of Barack Obama will be repealed — on Day 1.

For this reason, Gun Owners of America urges you, in the strongest possible terms, to support Ted Cruz for president.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Read the Gun ‘Seizure’ Bill Introduced by Democrats That Will Likely Send a Chill Down the Spines of Georgia Gun Owners

Six Democrats in Georgia’s state House of Representatives unveiled a bill on Jan. 11 that would “require seizure” of “certain weaponry and ammunition” that is deemed as contraband, effectively banning “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.”

HB 731, which is sponsored by Mary Margaret Oliver, Carolyn Hugley, Pat Gardiner, Stacey Abrams, Dar’shun Kendrick and Dee Dawkins-Haigler, would amend current law to “prohibit the possession, sale, transport, distribution or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.”

The text of the bill goes on to say that certain weapons would be required to be seized by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, with increased penalties for use and possession of machine guns, among other related regulations.

Photo Credit: The Blaze

Information posted to sponsor Oliver’s website clearly notes that HB 731, which was introduced on the first day of the 2016 session, would “ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” (Read more from “Read the Gun ‘Seizure’ Bill Introduced by Democrats That Will Likely Send a Chill Down the Spines of Georgia Gun Owners” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hollywood Megastar: ‘Of Course I Have Guns, and I Shoot Them’

‘Sure I believe in the right to bear arms, as guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the American constitution,’ explains 64-year-old Kurt Russell, Hollywood A-lister and long-term partner of Goldie Hawn . . .

‘This is what people need to understand,’ he continues when asked about gun reform after the most recent school shootings in the States and the terrorist attack in San Bernardino that left 14 dead and 22 injured.

‘Now is not a good time to lay down your weapons – how will you protect yourself?

‘I am a libertarian, a hardcore one, and of course I have guns. I shoot things with them. I hunt game.’

Lose the last three and they are words that could quite easily be escaping from beneath the unkempt but extravagant whiskers of his character John ‘The Hangman’ Ruth – a 19th-century bounty hunter handcuffed to his wretched female prize (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and trapped by a blizzard in a remote staging post with a rum collection of coves. It is the premise of the latest Quentin Tarantino epic, The Hateful Eight. (Read more from “Hollywood Megastar: ‘Of Course I Have Guns, and I Shoot Them'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Didn’t NRA Head Say Anything About Amnesty Danger to Gun Rights at CPAC?

In his speech Friday before the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md., National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre discussed a host of issues impacting gun rights, declaring they all depend on each other. Curiously absent from his speech was any acknowledgment of the danger amnesty for illegal aliens with a “pathway to citizenship” would pose to continued government recognition of the right to keep and bear arms.

That’s because credible polling confirms it would add a massive influx of new Democrat and “gun control”- sympathizing voters to the rolls. And that tracks with warnings issued by Gun Owners of America, curiously alone among national gun rights advocacy groups in sounding an alarm.

GOA has warned that the “pathway” will provide for millions of new anti-gun voters with the electoral clout to undo all hard-won legislative and judicial gains gun owners have enjoyed in recent years. That the administration is working toward that goal is corroborated by what Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, the official behind so-called “executive amnesty,” told the United Conference of Mayors, when he maintained that “the approximately 11 million people who are in the country illegally have ‘earned the right to be citizens.’”

Despite knowing this, and knowing that that one of the supposed “pro-gun Democrats” who betrayed NRA and gun owner support has openly proclaimed immigration “will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years,” the NRA head talked about all kinds of other issues but didn’t breathe a word about amnesty.

LaPierre talked about threats from Russia and the Islamic State. He talked about the economy and the debt. He talked about pressures not to speak out and the loss of privacy to “Big Brother.” He talked about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He talked about hackers and identity thieves. He talked about tracking license plates, online health histories, economic fraud, Brian Williams and the untrustworthy media. He talked about a “weaponized IRS” and “politicians … pushing nanny state social schemes.”

The closest LaPierre came to taking on illegal immigration was a reference to “terrorists crossing our borders or embedded within our communities.” But he didn’t say a thing about the electoral polar shift that will take place when the “earned citizenship” plans of Sec. Johnson, who, incidentally, was confirmed by no shortage of Republican A-raters, become a reality.

“[T]o defend firearm freedom, we need more than just firearm freedom,” LaPierre admitted, reinforcing a recent NRA advertising campaign promoting the message that all rights are connected. “One right depends on another. They’re all cut from the same cloth of what it means to be free people.”

They’re also all the proper concern of NRA, regardless of what “single issue” apologists claim either out of ignorance or when trying to deflect from what they know to be a failing. That’s because NRA’s bylaws, which are not optional, require directors and paid staff to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense.”

That would be the same Constitution established with the express purpose and mandate to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

“So take our country back from the liars, the cheats, the press and political elites who want to take away our ability to define our own destiny,” LaPierre concluded, never once acknowledging that others may be trying to define that destiny for us while NRA is not lifting a finger to stop it, and is instead actively empowering those taking away our control.

Without knowing why, all we can do is speculate. Perhaps LaPierre has some special knowledge that contradicts all information that’s been made public to date, and he knows amnesty will not produce the feared results. If so, it seems bewildering — if not inexcusable — that he doesn’t share such knowledge, instead of exhibiting continued deliberate indifference and a directed NRA Media blackout. Only candid assurances backed by credible and provable reasons will allay these concerns and put to rest conjecture that money and access may be the underlying reasons behind his silence.

Unfortunately, the incentive to do that does not appear competitive with keeping on doing what he’s doing. (Read more about LaPierre’s failure to address amnesty danger at CPAC HERE; from Examiner.com. Reprinted by permission of author)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

TYRANNY ALERT: Obama’s ATF Moves to Ban Common AR15 Ammunition

Photo Credit: Guns BuzzThe work of anti-gun zealots is never done. When outright bans fail to materialize, the conversation soon shifts to backdoor methods of gun control. Those who abhor an armed citizenry never ever give up; they just retreat, regroup and find another route of attack.

In recent years, that has been working to reduce the availability of ammunition. After all, what good is one of those oh-so-scary “military-style assault weapons” if one cannot fire them?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has released a proposal to reclassify SS109/M855 5.56 NATO ammunition as “armor-piercing” and ban the import, sale or manufacture of the common rifle round used in AR15 rifles and pistols based on the AR15 platform.

The ATF claims that they can ban the M855 ammo under an obscure provision in the Gun Control Act of 1968 which deems that ammo can be marketed to civilians which is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

However, the move is clearly an effort to reduce the availability of ammunition to AR15 owners and to drive-up the cost of shooting, a position the NRA-ILA holds in a new press release who said that the move was “clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles.” (Read more about the ban on AR15 Ammunition HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.