The Legion

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/texas-open-carry-laws-blurred-lines-between-suspects-and-marchers.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0 DALLAS — As a demonstration against police shootings made its way downtown here on Thursday, it differed from others around the country in one startling way: Twenty to 30 of the marchers showed up with AR-15s and other types of military-style rifles and wore them openly, with the straps slung across their shoulders and backs. In Texas, it was not only legal. It was commonplace. The state has long been a bastion of pro-gun sentiment and the kind of place where both Democrats and Republicans openly talk about the guns they own and carry, on their person, in their vehicles, at their offices, at their homes and even in the halls of the Texas Capitol. And in recent years, as gun rights continued to expand, activists have exploited a decades-old freedom to openly carry a rifle in public by showing up at demonstrations with their so-called long guns. Advocates have carried their rifles at the Alamo in San Antonio and outside mosques in the Dallas suburbs. But city and county leaders said the presence of armed protesters openly carrying rifles on Thursday through downtown Dallas had created confusion for the police as the attack unfolded, and in its immediate aftermath made it more difficult for officers to distinguish between suspects and marchers. Two men who were armed and a woman who was with them were detained, fueling an early, errant theory by the police that there was more than one gunman. Mayor Mike Rawlings of Dallas suggested in an interview on Sunday that, in the wake of the attack, he supported tightening the state’s gun laws to restrict the carrying of rifles and shotguns in public. “There should be some way to say I shouldn’t be bringing my shotgun to a Mavericks game or to a protest because something crazy should happen,” said Mr. Rawlings, a Democrat. “I just want to come back to common sense.” The state’s open-carry culture, the mayor said, had imperiled people on the streets of Dallas. “This is the first time — but a very concrete time — that I think a law can hurt citizens, police and not protect them,” he said, adding that he was not anti-gun and that he owned a shotgun himself. “I think it’s amazing when you think that there is a gunfight going on, and you are supposed to be able to sort who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.” According to the authorities, Micah Johnson, 25, opened fire on police officers who were accompanying marchers protesting policing practices. Mr. Johnson, who had been in the Army Reserve, used a rifle to fire from a parking garage and while on foot on the streets below, killing five police officers. The Dallas police chief, David O. Brown, described to CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday the amount of confusion the armed protesters initially caused. He said the event had attracted “20 or 30 people” who “showed up with AR-15 rifles slung across their shoulder.” “They were wearing gas masks,” Mr. Brown said. “They were wearing bulletproof vests and camo fatigues, for effect, for whatever reason.” When the shooting started, “they began to run,” he said. And because they ran in the middle of the shooting, he said, the police on the scene viewed them as suspects. “Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests, they are suspects, until we eliminate that.” “Doesn’t make sense to us, but that’s their right in Texas,” he said. He did not say whether he supported restricting the carrying of rifles on the streets. On Saturday, President Obama also told reporters that one of the challenges for the Dallas officers who were being shot at was that Texas was an open-carry state. “Imagine if you’re a police officer and you’re trying to sort out who is shooting at you and there are a bunch of people who have got guns on them,” Mr. Obama said. One of the state’s most prominent open-carry activists, C. J. Grisham, the founder and president of Open Carry Texas, disputed the extent of the confusion caused by marchers carrying rifles. In videos from the scene, he said, “you can see that police are walking right past people who are open-carrying rifles and it’s not a problem. So obviously it’s not that difficult to tell who the good guys and the bad guys are.” It was unclear what effect the comments from Mr. Rawlings, Chief Brown and Mr. Obama would have on Texas gun laws. Pro-gun Republicans control the governor’s office, the State Legislature and all but one of the nearly 30 statewide elected offices. Alejandro Garcia, a spokesman for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, said that Mr. Patrick was “not surprised the president and anti-gun forces are once again attempting to use a shooting tragedy to score points for their own political agenda.” The Rev. Terry Holcomb, an open-carry leader and a pastor of the Crossroads Baptist Church in Oakhurst, Tex., said he and others would oppose any efforts to ban the open carrying of so-called long guns as a result of the Dallas attack. “You would expect something like this in New York or California, but it will not see the light of day in Texas,” Mr. Holcomb said. “Let’s just call it for what it is: The liberal left is anti-Constitution and anti-liberty.” Even Democrats said they were not optimistic that substantial changes to Texas gun laws were in store. “From my perspective, I don’t see anything changing in Texas,” said Representative Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat, who represents El Paso. The legality of carrying a rifle on the streets is just one element of a gun culture that continues to define and divide the state. It is not just that many Texans are armed. It is that many are allowed to display the fact that they are armed, and more now do so than at any point in modern Texas history. Beyond the carrying of rifles in public — a tactic used by a small group of pro-gun advocates — more than one million Texans have state-issued permits to carry concealed handguns. Last year, the Legislature voted to give those with concealed-carry licenses the option of carrying their weapons unconcealed, in holsters on their hips or on their shoulders. That law, which is now in effect, did not affect the carrying of rifles in public. Lawmakers also allowed students and faculty members at Texas’ public and private universities to carry concealed handguns into classrooms and other campus buildings. The law, which has drawn fierce opposition at many universities, takes effect on Aug. 1. Amid the confusion on the scene, the Dallas police on Thursday released a picture on social media of one of the armed marchers. The police called the man “a person of interest” and asked for the public’s help in identifying him. That man, Mark Hughes, turned himself in and was later released. The other armed man was not allowed to legally carry a gun, and the police arrested him on a misdemeanor charge. He appeared to still be in custody on Sunday. A woman who was with the two men and who was detained was later released. A lawyer for Mr. Hughes said that his client was simply exercising his rights in Texas when carrying his rifle at a demonstration. The lawyer, Michael C. Campbell Jr., said, “He’s within the parameters of the law.”

I will give an update when Dillon returns my 550.

No added pressure on the handle just normal reloading over the years. Looking back I could feel this coming on over the last week or so. Thank goodness I have a lot of ammo built up.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ryan-suggests-house-wont-vote-on-dems-gun-curb-proposals/ar-AAi7OvD?li=BBnbfcL WASHINGTON — The House won't vote on proposed Democratic gun curbs, Speaker Paul Ryan suggested Tuesday as the rekindled election-year clash over firearms showed no sign of resolution. Ryan, R-Wis., said Democrats' plans to broaden required background checks for gun buyers and to bar firearm sales to terror suspects were unconstitutional. And though he did not directly say he would block votes on the Democrats' bills, he said Republicans had no intention of rewarding Democrats for their lengthy House floor sit-in two weeks ago to demand gun-control votes. "Win elections and get the majority, then you can set the agenda," Ryan said on the "Midday with Charlie Sykes" show on WTMU radio in Milwaukee. The House plans to debate GOP legislation this week that would let federal authorities block gun sales to suspected terrorists, but only if they could prove in court within three days that the suspect was planning to engage in terrorism. Democrats call that an impossible legal standard that makes that proposal ineffective. The Republican measure would also create a new office within the Department of Homeland Security to focus on battling what it calls "radical Islamist terrorism" in the U.S. Ryan planned to meet Tuesday evening with two leaders of the sit-in, Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and John Larson, D-Conn., to discuss the House's plans. Ryan said the Democratic bills would violate the Constitution's rights for people to bear arms and to have legal processes to protect themselves. Separately, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said he was looking into reports that Democrats treated the House's professional staff disrespectfully and even damaged House furniture in the course of taking over the floor for nearly 24 hours. He said he and Ryan would be meeting with the sergeant at arms later Tuesday to discuss what happened. McCarthy suggested House leaders hoped to take action to prevent any recurrence and potentially punish some people involved, but said for now they were still collecting facts. "You cannot continue that behavior on the floor of the House of Representatives. I'll leave it at that," McCarthy told reporters at the Capitol. "That will not be tolerated." As the House came back into session Tuesday following a Fourth of July recess, Democrats took turns delivering speeches demanding action on the issue, but it was uncertain whether they would renew their more aggressive floor tactics. The gun issue flared anew after the June 12 mass shooting in Orlando in which 49 victims died.

I have had my Dillon 550 for 7 years and estimate I have reloaded close to 200,000 plus rounds on it. Today while reloading my machine broke down. I called Dillon and they had me mail back the 550 and they said it will take about 3 weeks to get me a new one back.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Jerry Brown signed six stringent gun-control measures Friday that will require people to turn in high-capacity magazines and mandate background checks for ammunition sales, as California Democrats seek to strengthen gun laws that are already among the strictest in the nation. Brown vetoed five other bills, including a requirement to report lost or stolen weapons to authorities and a limit of one gun purchase per person per month. The Democratic governor's action is consistent with his mixed record on gun control. Some of the enacted bills duplicate provisions of a November ballot measure by Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Some of the vetoed measures also appear in Newsom's initiative. "My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners," Brown wrote in a one-sentence message to lawmakers. Gun control measures have long been popular with the Democratic lawmakers who control the California Senate and Assembly. But they stepped up their push this year following the December shooting in San Bernardino by a couple who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group. Advocates on both sides of the gun-control debate say California has some of the nation's strictest gun laws. It is one of six states to get the highest grade from the pro-gun control Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The state's move to tighten them further comes amid years of gridlock at the federal level, which spawned a tense clash in Washington last week as Democrats camped out on the floor of the U.S. House and shouted down Republicans. The bills angered Republicans and gun-rights advocates who say Democrats are trampling on 2nd Amendment rights, creating new restrictions that won't cut off the flow of guns to people intent on using them for nefarious purposes. "On the eve of Independence Day, independence and freedom and liberty in California has been chopped down at the knees and kicked between the legs," said Sam Paredes, executive director of the advocacy group Gun Owners of California. Lawsuits challenging the new laws are likely once they take effect next year, Paredes said. Brown's action will require people who own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to give them up. It extends a 1999 law that made it illegal to buy a high-capacity magazine or to bring one into the state but allowed people who already owned them to keep them. In an attempt to slow gun users from rapidly reloading, the governor signed a bill outlawing new weapons that have a device known as a bullet button. Gun makers developed bullet buttons to get around California's assault weapons ban, which prohibited new rifles with magazines that can be detached without the aid of tools. A bullet buttons allows a shooter to quickly dislodge the magazine using the tip of a bullet or other small tool. People will be allowed to keep weapons they already own with bullet buttons, which are often referred to as "California compliant," but they'll be required to register them. Brown also endorsed a bill making another attempt to regulate ammunition sales after a law passed in 2009 was struck down by a Fresno County judge who said it was too vague. The new law will require ammunition sellers to be licensed and buyers to undergo background checks. Transactions will be recorded. He also opted to require a background check before a gun can be loaned to someone who isn't a family member. "Strong gun laws work. ... What we're doing in California is a better job of keeping guns out of dangerous hands," said Amanda Wilcox, a spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, whose daughter was killed by a shooter using a high-capacity magazine. The governor vetoed an effort to expand a six-month-old program that allows courts to temporarily restrict gun ownership rights for people suspected of being dangerous and decided against restricting all firearm purchases to one per month, a limitation that already applies to handguns. Another bill he vetoed would have asked voters to strengthen penalties for stealing a gun, which voters will already be deciding through Newsom's initiative. The ballot measure also will ask voters to require reporting of lost and stolen firearms — an idea Brown rejected Friday and has rejected at least twice before. "I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not; it is not likely that this bill would change that," he wrote in a veto message. Newsom's initiative has put a spotlight on the lieutenant governor as he campaigns for governor in 2018. He's been at loggerheads with Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat who tried unsuccessfully to persuade Newsom to drop the ballot measures in favor of legislative action. Brown's vetoes protected Newsom's initiative from becoming moot. A spokesman for Brown, Evan Westrup, said voters "will have a chance to go even further in November, if they choose."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/01/fbi-considered-alerts-on-buyers-multiple-guns-but-was-scrapped-over-legal-concerns.html?intcmp=hpbt2 Published July 01, 2016 The Wall Street Journal The Federal Bureau of Investigation considered creating an alert system seven years ago to tip off agents to multiple gun purchases like those made by the Orlando, Fla., nightclub gunman, but abandoned the idea over legal concerns, according to multiple officials. Law enforcement officials who study mass shooters say that multiple firearm purchases can be a key indicator that a troubled individual is taking concrete steps toward violence, much like Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, who bought a handgun and a rifle in the days before he killed 49 people. The Orlando attack has prompted calls for changes in surveillance and gun control laws, but it isn’t clear any of them would have flagged the gunman. Separately, FBI and Justice Department officials are evaluating if it would be legal or practical to create an alert system to warn investigators when gun purchases are made by people who, like Mateen, were once investigated for terrorism, according to officials familiar with the discussions. An internal FBI document and interviews with current and former law enforcement officials show that authorities debated the prospect of flagging buyers of multiple guns as far back as 2009 and 2010, when a series of high-profile mass shootings raised questions about better ways to track potential attackers. Agency officials set out to see if their data on background checks could help prevent shootings, according to the internal FBI memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The memo, written for an intelligence unit in the FBI in 2010, cited “the rise of the recent lone gunmen such as the Holocaust Museum shooter; the Pittsburgh fitness center shooter; and the Fort Hood shooting.’’ The memo said that officials “were asked to review the National Instant Criminal Background Check System information to determine if any of the sharable information would be of value to the law enforcement or intelligence communities.’’ FBI analysts “also conducted additional research on individuals who attempted multiple purchases in the same month,’’ the memo said. Starting in 2009 and continuing into the following year, FBI officials also began an experimental notification system for people who were prohibited from buying guns but made multiple attempts to buy them anyway. That pilot program was deemed so successful that it is now a national program, generating about 200 investigative leads a year, according to officials. That notification system is one of what FBI officials call their “tripwires,’’ alerts designed to notify agents of activity that may suggest ongoing or planned terrorism or crimes. Other tripwires include notifications when an non-traditional customer buys chemicals that can be used to build bombs. In 2010, FBI officials discussed creating a notification system for people who legally purchased more than one weapon in a short period of time, officials said. That system, if adopted, could have alerted them to the Orlando gunman’s purchase of a rifle and a handgun in the week before the massacre, among the many multiple purchases by other people during that week. But the idea of a multiple-purchase alert system was discarded on legal grounds, officials said. The law that created federal gun background checks specifically barred officials from retaining that data, in order to prevent the government from creating a registry of gun owners. FBI officials concluded that even a subset of that data, involving those who made multiple purchases in a short period, would constitute a kind of gun registry. The Orlando shooting hasn’t changed FBI leaders’ minds about the legality of creating a multiple-purchase alert system, officials said, but they are looking at alerts for gun purchases by people no longer on a terrorism watch list.

http://www.localmemphis.com/news/local-news/mixed-reaction-to-loss-of-gun-rights-for-domestic-violence-offenders MEMPHIS, TN The national fight over gun control has made its' way to the Mid-South. Today, in wake of the new gun control bills failing to pass in Washington, a diverse panel in Memphis led by Congressman Steve Cohen outlined ideas to reduce gun violence across America and in the Mid-South. But the debate always come back to the same question. How do we protect people from guns and not violate citizen’s constitutional rights? Just this week the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of gun bans for anyone convicted of domestic violence. A misdemeanor domestic violence charge, whether or not you ever commit another crime, means you will never be able to legally own a gun. Some say that goes a too far while others say that's the least we should do. It's the stories that shocked the Mid-South. A woman shot multiple times outside of a Target by her ex-boyfriend in 2014. A woman gunned down at a Memphis daycare, allegedly by her husband who then turned the gun on himself. So when the Supreme Court upheld a long standing lifelong federal ban of guns for anyone convicted of a domestic violence charge, at least one advocate's reaction was, "Thank goodness. Thank goodness." Deborah Clubb, with the Memphis Area Women's Council, says Memphis has a serious domestic violence problem and the numbers back her up. According to a TBI report, in the past three years, there's been a 6.5% increase statewide in the number of homicides by domestic violence. Guns are often used. "That's the least that we as a culture can be able to do. Keep that out of his or her hands so we can at least stop the chances of an easy killing," said Clubb. "I do think it's important when you're talking about a constitutional right that you don't deprive people of them too quickly." Local attorney Jonathan Skrmetti says he knows domestic violence can quickly escalate to something more serious. But a misdemeanor charge can include hitting someone or throwing a plate and unintentionally injuring someone. Is that worth losing a constitutional right? "The biggest issue here is it's a lifelong ban, so if you're in a situation, and when you're younger and you do something bad, I mean, it could be something stupid or something evil, you're a different person 50 years later,” said Skrmetti. Clubb says Tennessee has even stricter domestic violence laws. Even if you have an order of protection against you, you're not supposed to have a gun. But she says the real problem is no one seems to be really enforcing it.

You might want to go to the Brazos the 1911Store.com. They have standard 2011 magazines at $63.00 a piece.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/20/gun-control-measures-fail-to-clear-senate-hurdle.html?intcmp=hpbt2 Published June 20, 2016 FoxNews.com A series of dueling gun control measures in the Senate were defeated Monday evening in the first proposed legislation in the wake of the Orlando terror attack. The four amendments all failed on procedural votes. The first vote was on the amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to enhance funding for an existing gun background check system which needed 60 votes to pass. The final vote tally was 53 to 47. The second vote was on a measure by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., to expand gun background checks and close the so-called gun show loophole where firearm purchases are not tracked. The final vote tally was 44 to 56. Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas pushed a measure that would allow the government to delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorrist for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause to block the sale permanently. The National Rifle Associated backed the legislation, but it failed in a final vote of 53 to 47. The fourth and final vote involved a measure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to keep people on a government terrorism watch list or other suspected terrorists from buying guns. The Justice Department endorsed her legislation, but it also failed with a final vote count of 47 to 53. The votes came after Murphy filibustered for almost 15 hours last week seeking action in response to the killing of 49 people in the gay nightclub Pulse by Omar Mateen, a Florida man who pledged his loyalty to ISIS in the midst of the rampage. “It’s hard to believe, but still true, that our Republican colleagues voted to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, in a statement after the votes. "We will keep pushing until they see the light.” Since lawmakers were unable to come together on a piece of compromise legislation, the individual bills faced long odds. Democrats helped block two Republican amendments, arguing that they fall short in controlling the sales of firearms. In turn, Republicans were able to block two Democratic amendments, contending they threaten the constitutional rights of gun owners. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Orlando attack shows the best way to prevent attacks by extremists is to defeat such groups overseas. "Look, no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns or explosives," McConnell said. He suggested that Democrats were using the day's votes "as an opportunity to push a partisan agenda or craft the next 30-second campaign ad," while Republicans wanted "real solutions." Cornyn said after the votes that he thinks there may be other votes on terrorism or guns later this week. Murphy said Sunday on ABC’s “The Week” that the passage of the measures was unlikely and focused on the response to the filibuster. "It wasn't just that 40 senators came to the floor and supported my effort to get these votes but there were millions of people all across the country who rose up and who joined our effort," he said. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told “Fox News Sunday” that she also supported Cornyn’s proposal. Lynch said such an amendment would give the federal government the ability to stop a sale to somebody on the terror watch list. However, she argued the federal government needs flexibility and the authority to protect the classified information used in denying a sale, if potential buyers exercise the constitutional rights to file an appeal. “The American people deserve for us to take the greatest amount of time,” Lynch said. The Pulse Orlando nightclub shooter was added to a government watch list of individuals known or suspected of being involved in terrorist activities in 2013, when he was investigated for inflammatory statements to co-workers. But he was pulled from that database when that investigation was closed 10 months later. Both the Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would have tried to ensure that individuals like Mateen who had been a subject of a terrorism investigation within the last five years are flagged. Grassley's would have required that law enforcement be notified if a person had been investigated in the last five years and attempted to purchase a gun. Last week, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted that he would meet with the NRA about "not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns." Exactly what he would support was unclear. Separately, moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is working with other Republicans, as well as talking to Democrats, on a bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — a smaller universe than targeted by Democrats — from getting guns. But her bill had not been blessed by GOP leaders and it was unclear if it would get a vote. In the GOP-controlled House, Republicans had no plans to act on guns and Democrats were unable to force any action, given House rules less favorable to the minority party than in the Senate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/20/supreme-court-leaves-state-assault-weapons-bans-in-place.html?intcmp=hpbt2 Published June 20, 2016 Associated Press WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has rejected challenges to assault weapons bans in Connecticut and New York, in the aftermath of the shooting attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that left 50 people dead. The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that upheld laws that were passed in response to another mass shooting involving a semi-automatic weapon, the elementary school attack in Newtown, Connecticut. The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to gun restrictions since two landmark decisions that spelled out the right to a handgun to defend one's own home. In December, less than a month after a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented when the court refused to hear an appeal to overturn a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons. Scalia died in February. Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said. Connecticut and New York enacted bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in response to the December 2012 massacre of 20 children and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The gunman, Adam Lanza, shot and killed his mother before driving to the school where he gunned down the victims with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Lanza then killed himself. In Orlando, gunman Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle and a pistol during the attack at Pulse nightclub. Mateen was killed in a shootout with police after killing 49 others.

I saw it. He did a great job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed

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

Removed

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

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