Monday, March 12, 2018


Scott, a Republican who has received high praise from the NRA in the past, said he was signing the legislation because it’s a “time for all of us to come together, roll up our sleeves and get it done.” The law raises the minimum purchasing age for buying a rifle from 18 to 21, invokes a three-day waiting period on purchases and enables school employees and many teachers to be armed. It also allows law enforcement to temporarily seize guns from the mentally ill and fund measures like bulletproof glass and metal detectors at schools. Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family:
NRA Sues Florida Over Gun Age Restrictions
The NRA, like other patriots, have put the squeeze on Florida Lawmakers for passing unconstitutional gun control laws. Watch as Millie Weaver and Michael Zimmerman discuss the new attempt patriots have made to guarantee their rights in America.

Guns Taken Away From Women, Victims Of Violence & Still Under Threat

Across the US, women who merely have a permit to carry concealed are being fired from their jobs, evicted from housing, even though some are still under threat from men in their lives who have been convicted of murder and severely beaten them - but been released by the government. And, There were heroic SWAT team members that have been suspended for disobeying orders and responding to the Florida High school massacre, while a social worker has been fired for having a gun permit! In Florida the madness continues with Gov. Rick Scott signing a $400 million gun control bill.
NRA Files Suit Challenging Florida Gun Control Law

Fairfax, VA – -( The National Rifle Association today announced that it has filed a lawsuit challenging the State of Florida’s newly-enacted ban on the purchase of firearms by young adults between the ages of 18-21.

Florida’s ban is an affront to the Second Amendment, as it totally eviscerates the right of law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 21 to keep and bear arms.

The ban is particularly offensive with respect to young women, as women between the ages of 18 and 21 are much less likely to engage in violent crime than older members of the general population who are unaffected by the ban. Despite this fact, the State of Florida has enacted a sweeping law banning all young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 from purchasing any firearm from any source.
Chris Cox, the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, stated, “Swift action is needed to prevent young adults in Florida from being treated as second-class citizens when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
We are confident that the courts will vindicate our view that Florida’s ban is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.” The case is National Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. Bondi, and it has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:
The National Rifle Association has filed a lawsuit to try to block a Florida school safety bill that puts new restrictions on guns. Florida’s governor says the bill balances individual rights with a need for public safety.

Red Flag Warning: States Confiscating Guns 

by Ignoring Fourth Amendment

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

An assortment of new restrictions on the Second Amendment in Florida also launched an attack on the Fourth Amendment, as well. As The New American noted last week, Florida’s new “red flag” law abrogates the Fourth Amendment on the way to violating the Second Amendment:
Simply put, someone who thinks someone else might be a danger to himself or others can present his arguments to a judge who then, based upon those arguments, is free to decide whether the state (police armed with guns and badges) can forcibly remove privately and legally owned firearms from that person’s possession. The “red flag” provisions do not allow the person charged to defend himself or even to know who his accuser might be. Further, he must prove his innocence in order to get his confiscated firearms returned to him. He is “guilty until he proves himself innocent.”
All in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Jonas Oransky, deputy director of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, was delighted, calling the adoption of such laws a “new frontier” in the long war against private gun ownership in America:
We think of this as a new frontier. We don’t have a perfect system in this country, and we can’t stop every act of gun violence. This is a way for states to take some care and be somewhat nimble when there is a dangerous case.
Keeping governments from being “somewhat nimble” was the primary reason the Founders added the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, without the Bill of Rights that contains it, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The reason why was perfectly described by Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, then, let no man be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
But, goes the argument, there was a chance, perhaps even a good chance, that had local police had such power, they might have been able to head off Nikolas Cruz before he unleashed his attack in Parkland, Florida on February 14. After all, Cruz killed squirrels with a pellet gun, trained his dogs to attack a neighbor’s piglets, posted on Instagram about guns and killing animals, and eventually threatened a local teenager. In addition, he showed signs of depression and had been treated at a mental health clinic.
Joshua Horwitz, executive director of another rabidly anti-gun group, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said, “This morning [four days after the massacre] I heard the sheriff [in Parkland] lament the fact that he did not have the tools to remove the firearms from the shooter. Had he [the shooter] lived in one of those states where this law is in place, he [the sheriff] would have had the tools, and this shooting might have been averted.”
Momentum currently favors adoption of such “red flag” laws as pressure from those wanting to confiscate firearms builds on legislators who are increasingly being urged to do something — anything — to curb such violence. Florida is the seventh state to adopt such laws, along with California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon, Washington, and Rhode Island. At least 24 other states are considering such legislation including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.
The law in Indiana doesn’t even require a judge. Law-enforcement officers can decide on their own to confiscate weapons from someone guilty only of a “pre-crime.”
That term is familiar to viewers of the 2002 film Minority Report. Set in Washington, D.C. in 2054, PreCrime, a specialized police department apprehends potential criminals before they have committed a crime based on “foreknowledge” provided by three psychics called “precogs.” In Seattle, Washington, the group is called the “Crisis Response Squad” — a division of the Seattle Police Department — and has already pre-identified pre-criminals before they committed atrocities and seized their legally owned firearms. On March 1, one of those identified as a “pre-criminal” didn’t comply with the court order and made the headlines when police entered his residence and forced him to relinquish his weapons. covered the incident, informing its readers that the 31-year-old man hadn’t committed a crime but was guilty of “escalating behavior," whatever that means. Some workers at a local restaurant, according to KOMO News, said the defendant “harassed” them while he was carrying a holstered firearm (which is legal there). KOMO News added that this man’s “pre-crimes” included a history of police seizing a shotgun from him “in a different incident.” After entering his residence with the so-called warrant (based not on “probable cause” but on the much lower standard of “reasonable cause”), the police not only retrieved a .25 caliber handgun but then entered the residence of one of the man’s family, where they hoped to find some other firearms belonging to him. in Seattle covered the same incident, shedding additional light on the man’s “pre-crimes”: "Neighbors said he had been intimidating people for the past year — even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side…. Mental illness is suspected."
KATU unearthed even more incriminating evidence that the man was about to commit a crime. A man living in the suspect’s apartment complex stated, “He was roaming the hallways with a .25 caliber automatic. And it created a lot of fear [in me] obviously because I didn’t know if he was coming after me or gonna just start shooting the place up.” When he learned that the police were able to seize the man’s firearms without a “probable cause” warrant, as required under the Fourth Amendment, but instead use an ERPO (Extreme Risk Protection Order) or GVRO (Gun Violence Restraining Order) warrant, he was able to breathe more easily. The pre-criminal had been deprived of his firearms. Said the neighbor: ”I’m very supportive of this law. This is a perfect case in point where it’s had some efficacy. It was an immediate crisis and law enforcement was able to remove his firearms, so it very well could have save lives.”
It’s “a perfect case in point” that illustrates why there’s a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: to keep police from willy-nilly entering anyone’s dwelling on the thinnest of excuses and confiscating his firearms.
Here’s a summary of ERPO law from Washington State: It may be filed against any “person who poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having firearms.” The petition can be filed “by a law enforcement agency, a law enforcement officer, or a person who is a family or household member of the respondent [the precriminal].” Family members include “dating partners,” “persons who reside or have resided with the respondent within the last year,” and “stepparents or stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren.” No crime has been committed. Just suspicion by these honorable folks that said “respondent” might commit one in the future.
The judge makes his ruling without the “respondent” being present, although he will be invited into the judge’s courtroom after the warrant has been issued. At that time the “respondent [will] immediately surrender all firearms and concealed carry license to the [police] officer.” If he resists, he has 48 hours to comply. Otherwise said “officer” will make a visit to the “respondent’s” residence to confiscate them, by force if necessary.
Freedom lovers have been put on notice. These “red flags” are flying all over the country, threatening Second Amendment rights through the deliberate abrogation by states of precious Fourth Amendment rights. For readers who live in one of those 24 states where such bills are pending, it’s past time to let legislators know of your strong opposition to them. Do it now, before an ERPO is issued in your case for being mentally deficient for not knowing in advance what’s good for you. 
Related article:

Trump Softens Gun-control Plan, Enrages Anti-gun Liberals

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

So much softer were the president’s gun proposals released Sunday night than were expected that liberals started howling immediately. They were expecting President Trump to push for a raise in the age to purchase rifles, possibly a ban on so-called assault rifles, support for universal background checks, and the NICS “fix” promoted by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Instead they got this tweet from the president: “Very strong improvement and strengthening of background checks will be fully backed by White House. Legislation moving forward. Bump Stocks will soon be out. Highly trained teachers will be allowed to conceal carry, subject to State Law. Armed guards OK, deterrent!”
Sorting it out, the president’s “gun plan” consists of assisting the states in providing training for school staff in the defensive use of firearms, $50 million a year in federal grants under his proposed STOP School Violence Act, pushing for a NICS “fix” that has gotten bogged down in Congress, approving the banning of so-called bump stocks that the Department of Justice had already announced, improvements to the FBI “tip line” following the apparent failure of that service to warn of the possible threat from the Florida shooter, and a commission to come up with additional suggestions over the next 12 months. In addition, the president lent support for “red flag” laws by the states.
Anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was outraged that the president had walked back some of his earlier promises: “The White House has taken tiny baby steps designed not to upset the NRA, when the gun violence epidemic in this country demands that giant steps be taken. Democrats in the Senate will push to go further, including passing universal background checks, actual federal legislation on protection orders [“red flag” laws], and a debate on banning assault weapons.”
Anti-gun Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said Trump’s plan is “weak on security and an insult to the victims of gun violence. When it comes to keeping our families safe, it’s clear that President Trump and congressional Republicans are all talk and no action.” Kirk Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign, weighed in as well: “President Trump has offered only drips [sic] of water in response to a five-alarm fire.”
Missing from Trump’s proposals were any mention of raising the age to purchase long guns from 18 to 21 and any suggestion that so-called assault rifles be banned as they were under the Clinton administration. Instead what they got was a commission to study the matters.
Also missing was any mention of expanding background checks to include private sales and those done at gun shows between attendees.
Gun rights supporters were appalled at the president’s support for the states to write “red flag” laws, which The New American addressed on Monday here. This is an “end run” around the Fourth Amendment to get to ending Second Amendment guarantees in the Bill of Rights, and it’s gaining momentum. Those supporters were also chagrined to learn of the president’s support of the “fix NICS” bill being pushed by “conservative” Republican John Cornyn and liberal anti-gun Democrat Chris Murphy.
The idea behind the “fix NICS” bill is simple: There are allegedly large gaps in the current NICS database, leaving out mental cases and convicted felons. Opponents of the bill argue that making more intrusive the present database will not have any impact on gun violence. They claim that criminals will get guns some how, while tracking those belonging to law-abiding citizens raises the specter of national gun registration followed by confiscation.
Second Amendment supporters were disappointed that nothing about “national reciprocity” appeared in Trump’s proposals. That bill has passed the House but is now languishing in the Senate where it is likely to remain without the president’s support.
On balance Trump’s gun proposals are not as intrusive as many feared, thus enraging anti-gun liberals while alerting pro-gun Americans especially to the dangers of “fixing” the background check system and pushing for “red flag” laws by the states.
Related articles: 
Antigun Politicians Aim for America’s Most Popular Guns With Expansive Ban
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Fairfax, VA – -( Hoping to capitalize on tragedy, ignorance, and hysteria, 174 opportunistic anti-gun Democrats – led by Rep. David N. Cicillinie (RI) – introduced legislation last week proposing perhaps the most sweeping gun ban in U.S. history. The bill, H.R. 5087, is dubbed the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.”
Yet its scope is so vast, and its drafting so poorly executed, that that the only semiautomatic firearms it clearly doesn’t reach are those listed in an appendix of what the authors consider permissible guns (many of which will be unknown or unavailable to the average consumer, if they’re available at all).
The bill would ban firearms by name, “type,” and generic formulae. Rifles and pistols would be included if they are semiautomatic, can accept a detachable magazine, and have – or perhaps merely can accept – any of various listed features. Semiautomatic shotguns would need only one listed feature to be banned.
The disqualifying features include threaded barrels.  All pistol grips and folding, telescoping, and detachable stocks would be prohibited without limitation. This may mean, although it’s not clear, that only straight stocks would be permissible on semiautomatic long guns.

Ask Your Lawmakers to Oppose Gun Control

Contact your members of Congress and state lawmakers today and ask them to oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.
Take Action Button
Any firearm magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds, or that can be “changed” to accept more than 10 rounds, would also be banned.
How some models or features made the cut and others didn’t is a mystery to anyone with the most elementary knowledge of firearms technology. Clearly, however, two of America’s most popular defensive firearms – the AR-15 and the Glock 17 – would be prohibited under the Act. The former is banned by name (“[a]ll AR types”) and the latter as a “semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm” (i.e., the Glock 18). That alone puts the bill at odds with existing Supreme Court precedent, which makes clear the Second Amendment protects the sorts of firearms in common use for lawful purposes.
So what wouldn’t be banned? Well, the Cabanas Phaser Rifle would still theoretically be available, as would the Russian made TOZ Model H–170. Yet it’s cold comfort to one who loses his horse to be told he can have a unicorn. Other exempted firearms are more common, but the emphasis – again clearly contrary to Supreme Court precedent – is on models used for hunting, competition, or recreation, rather than for personal defense.
People who have the banned firearms could keep them, but they could only be transferred or loaned to others through an FFL. Firearms borrowed at a range would have to be “kept within the premises of the … facility” at “all times,” perhaps suggesting that the only guns that could be used by multiple people at a range would have to belong to the facility itself and be kept on site.
Bans of this sort are among the gun control lobby’s most ambitious efforts, but even staunch gun control advocates admit they are the least likely to materially contribute to public safety.
The logic of gun control, however, demands that the innocent must be punished for crimes they didn’t commit. And you can be sure that as expansive as H.R. 5087 is, its proponents see it only as a “good step in the right direction” on a road that inexorably leads to the end of your right to armed self-defense.
That’s why your U.S. Senators and Congressional Representative need to hear from you TODAY. Please tell them you, as a law-abiding gun owner, do not accept the blame for the criminal acts of a deranged individual. Please tell them your fundamental rights are non-negotiable. Most of all, please tell them not to trade real Second Amendment rights for the false promises of gun control. And finally, please tell them that you, and millions of fellow NRA members like you, will hold them accountable for their decisions at the ballot box. To identify and contact your legislators in Washington, D.C., you can use our “Write Your Reps” feature or you can reach your member of Congress by phone at 202-224-3121.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

This appeasement and pandering has no business being in the Trump State Department. Drain the swamp, already.
“Top State Official: Taliban Jihadists Have ‘Legitimate Grievances,’” by Edwin Mora, Breitbart, March 9, 2018:
WASHINGTON, DC — The United States is willing to address the “legitimate grievances” of Afghan Taliban terrorists during peace negotiations, a top U.S. State Department of State (DOS) official told reporters.
During a press briefing this week, Alice G. Wells, the principal deputy assistant secretary for DOS’ Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, said:
We believe that the intensified efforts under the South Asia strategy to put military pressure on the Taliban are important, that these military efforts help shape the conditions for talks and help to underscore that there is no military victory for the Taliban, that ultimately their legitimate grievances will have to be addressed at a negotiating table. We’d like to see them come to this table sooner rather than later.
She also acknowledged that Pakistan, an ally of the Afghan Taliban, has a significant role to play in the Afghan war peace process.
Wells also told reporters: We believe that Pakistan can certainly help to facilitate talks and to take actions that will put pressure on and encourage the Taliban to move forward towards a politically negotiated settlement. And our engagement with Pakistan is on how we can work together, on how we can address Pakistan’s legitimate concerns and Afghanistan’s stability through a negotiated process as well.
 Obviously, as Pakistani officials have underscored, they see a variety of issues, whether it’s border management or refugees or terrorism that emanates from ungoverned space in Afghanistan, as important issues, and we would agree that all of these need to be resolved during the course of a reconciliation process.
U.S. President Donald Trump has suspended an estimated $2 billion in security aid to Pakistan over Islamabad’s reluctance to take decisive action against the terrorists it harbors on its soil, namely the Afghan Taliban and their Haqqani Network allies who are fighting American troops and their allies in neighboring Afghanistan….


Owen Shroyer and Lee Ann McAdoo break down the latest liberal insanity coming out of
Stockholm Syndrome Sweden.