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.


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.


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 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.

Lawmaker Looking to Ban Silhouette Targets (+video)

As if we don’t have enough silly stuff to deal with right now with Sharon Watts calling for her followers to assault people legally carrying weapons. Now it looks like a lawmaker is pushing a bill to ban the use of silhouette targets.

Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland (D) wants people to know that life is precious, all life. Including the poor guy printed on the target I guess. But what he fails to realize is that they are used for a purpose, to train citizens and law enforcement to gun fight. They teach the person shooting what they are going to likely see in the event of a self-defense shooting. They build muscle memory and help shooters train for the possibility that they may one day need to put their training to use.

Rep. Kirkland recommends that they switch to animals that are hunted, asking “Why not use a deer, why not use an animal that folks are hunting and not a human silhouette?” (Read more about the attempt to ban silhouette targets HERE)


New Documents Show David Gregory Not Prosecuted Because He Was “Too Nice a Guy”

By William Jacobson. This is likely the final chapter in the saga of our two-year long fight to obtain important documents regarding the non-prosecution of David Gregory for possessing on Meet the Press an illegal high-capacity ammunition magazine.

The short version is that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department warned NBC News that it could not possess an actual high-capacity magazine, but NBC News went ahead and did it anyway. The MPD recommended a warrant for Gregory’s arrest, but that request was nixed by the D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan because — my paraphrase — Gregory was just too nice a guy and had no other criminal intent.

That attitude stood in stark contrast to the D.C. Attorney General’s vigorous prosecution of other lesser-known people who also were nice people and had no other criminal intent, but violated D.C.’s gun laws. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lawsuit Filed Against Washington’s Gun Control Initiative

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

By Leah Barkoukis. The Second Amendment Foundation has never been one to let the rights of law-abiding citizens get trampled on without putting up a fight. It should come as no surprise, then, that they’ve taken Washington state’s gun control Initiative 594 to court. Well, parts of it at least.

Via SAF:

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Tacoma, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of portions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that took effect Dec. 4, alleging that “portions of I-594…are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand their scope,” and that other parts violate the Second Amendment outright.

Joining SAF in this action are the Northwest School of Safety, Puget Sound Security, Inc., the Pacific Northwest Association of Investors, the Firearms Academy of Seattle, six individual citizens including SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb and the Gottlieb Family Trust. They are represented by Seattle attorneys Steven Fogg and David Edwards, and Bellevue attorney Miko Tempski.

Named as defendants are Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste, in their official capacities.

“We took this action due to the confusing and arbitrary language and nature of I-594,” Gottlieb said in a statement. “Three of our plaintiffs, including my son, are residents of other states and cannot legally borrow handguns for personal protection while traveling in Washington. Under I-594, all transfers must be done through federally-licensed firearms dealers, but under federal law, dealers cannot legally transfer handguns to residents of other states. I-594 also essentially prohibits our non-resident plaintiffs from storing their own firearms here. (Read more about the lawsuit on Washington’s gun control initiative HERE)


Governor McAuliffe Vows to Stick to His Gun Control Measures

By Tommie Mcneil. Despite criticism from gun-rights advocates and GOP legislative leaders, Governor McAuliffe is not retreating on a package of gun-control measures that he has proposed for the upcoming General Assembly session. McAuliffe says this was one of his campaign promises, so no one should be surprised.

Conservatives say the Governor is catering to the anti-gun agenda of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose Super PAC donated to his campaign. But McAuliffe says this is about keeping people safe.

The Governor proposes prohibiting anyone subject to a protective order or convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses from owning a gun. Those include brandishing a firearm, domestic assault, and stalking.

But Philip Van Cleave with the Virginia Citizens Defense League says that’s not how the law should be interpreted. . .

The Governor also proposes reverting back to Virginia’s “One-Handgun-a-Month” law, which was recently repealed. He says criminals exploit it and run guns out-of-state. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Children Encouraged to Steal Parents' Guns and Deliver to Teachers in PSA

child stealing gunA startling new anti-gun ad released by a San Francisco-based production company encourages children to commit a series of crimes by stealing their parents’ guns and turning them over to school officials, The Daily Caller reported Monday.

Sleeper 13 Productions released the controversial video on Dec. 13. It shows a pouty, young boy wandering into his parents’ bedroom, stealing a handgun out of their dresser drawer and then shoving it into his backpack

The boy then carries what is presumably a loaded weapon into his classroom. After class, he approaches the teacher, takes the gun out of his backpack and slams it onto her desk.

“Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house,” the boy says.

“Our children deserve a safe world,” the ad says. “Stop gun violence now.” (Read more from this story about children encouraged to steal parents’ guns HERE)