The Legion

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/22/virginia-to-end-recognizing-concealed-carry-gun-permits-from-25-states.html?intcmp=hpbt3     Published December 22, 2015 Associated Press RICHMOND, Va. –  Concealed handgun permits held by residents of 25 states will no longer be valid in Virginia, the state's attorney general said Tuesday, drawing swift criticism from GOP lawmakers. Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, said the state will revoke its reciprocity agreement with the states because their concealed weapon laws don't meet Virginia's standards. Those states hand out permits to people who are barred under the Virginia law, like fugitives, convicted stalkers and drug dealers, which undermines the state's law and puts residents at risk, he said. "Evenly, consistently and fairly enforcing Virginia's concealed handgun permit law, as we are now doing, means that it will be more difficult for potentially dangerous individuals to conceal their handguns here in Virginia and that will make Virginians safer, especially Virginian law enforcement," Herring said. The move means that Virginians will no longer be able to use their concealed handgun permits in six states that require a mutual reciprocity agreement: Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming. John Whitbeck, chairman of the Virginia Republican Party, said Herring's announcement was further proof that Democrats have "declared war on the Second Amendment." The top Republican in the GOP-controlled House of Delegates said that Herring is "damaging the integrity of the office he holds." "Despite promising to take politics out of the attorney general's office, Mark Herring consistently seeks to interpret and apply the law of the Commonwealth through the lens of his own personal, political opinions," House Speaker William Howell said. Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said concealed handgun reciprocity agreements between states have ended before, but his organization is unaware of another state ever implementing a change of this magnitude. States are currently being notified about the change, which goes into effect on Feb. 1, Herring said. The only states that have tough enough laws to maintain their reciprocity agreement with Virginia are: Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, he said. The states whose permits Virginia will no longer recognize are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/23/judge-upholds-seattle-gun-violence-tax-despite-challenge-from-gun-rights-groups.html?intcmp=hpbt3     Published December 23, 2015 Associated Press SEATTLE –  A judge upheld Seattle's so-called gun violence tax Tuesday, rejecting a challenge from the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson dismissed arguments that Seattle's tax, adopted last summer, exceeded the city's authority under state law. The measure — one of only a couple of its kind in the nation — adds $25 to the price of each firearm sold in the city, plus 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition, depending on the type. Officials expect it to raise up to $500,000 a year to help offset the costs of gun violence. The measure is set to take effect next month. "The NRA and its allies always oppose these commonsense steps to shine light on the gun violence epidemic," said City Council President Tim Burgess, who sponsored the law. "Judge Robinson saw through the NRA's distorted efforts to put gun industry profits ahead of public safety." The NRA did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment, but another plaintiff, the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, promised an immediate appeal. The groups have argued state law puts responsibility for regulating firearms solely in the hands of the Legislature, not local governments. "It is unconscionable for Mayor Ed Murray and the City Council to codify what amounts to social bigotry against firearms retailers and their customers," Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb said in a written statement. But the judge found the measure falls within the city's taxing authority and is not an impermissible regulation. The City Council modeled the tax after a similar one in Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago; the NRA has said Chicago is the only other city with such a measure. The revenue would be used for gun safety research and gun violence prevention programs. Between 2006 and 2010, there were on average 131 firearms deaths a year in King County, according to Public Health-Seattle and King County. An additional 536 people required hospitalization for shooting injuries during that time. Officials say the direct medical costs of treating 253 gunshot victims at Harborview Medical Center in 2014 totaled more than $17 million. Taxpayers paid more than $12 million of that. City officials estimate the new tax would bring in $300,000 to $500,000 a year, but gun shop owners told council members those numbers were inflated. They said the law would cost them customers and sales and could force them to move out of the city. "Guns now kill more people in the United States than automobiles," Seattle's mayor said. "Our community will not stand by as so many in our city, particularly young people of color, continue to pay the highest price for inaction on gun violence at the national and state level."

Here is a link that may help you with Complete disassembly/assembly. http://www.olegnikitin.com/news/complete-disassembly-assembly-of-cz-75-sp-01-shadow

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151211/gun-control-supporters-unhinged-new-republic-says-ban-guns-all-of-them     Inspired by last week’s New York Times front-page editorial calling for the confiscation of “large categories of weapons and ammunition,” a new article in the progressive-agenda magazine, New Republic, says that banning only some guns, but not all, is not enough. “It’s time to ban guns. Yes, all of them. . . . Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. . . . Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.” Objectionable though they are, there’s nothing new about the Times’ and New Republics’ anti-gun opinions per se, however. It’s not news that some gun control supporters want all guns banned. It’s been that way for years. The difference is, gun control supporters used to pretend they were interested only in “reasonable” and “commonsense” gun control restrictions. Now they are telling everyone what they have always really wanted. Things sure have changed. Consider the difference in the tactics of Democrat presidential candidates over the last several elections. When they were running for president, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and even Barack Obama tried to assuage voters’ concerns about their positions on guns by posing for photographs holding shotguns. In 2008, Hillary Clinton did the same sort of thing in her run for the Democratic presidential nomination. CNN reported Clinton saying at the time, “You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl.” But running for the Democrat nomination today, Clinton says that gun control opponents are like terrorists and shouldn’t be allowed to have their opinions. Asked during a debate with fellow Democrat candidates “which enemy are you most proud of,” Clinton responded, “the NRA,” along with “Republicans” and several others. Time magazine notes, Clinton is “calling for a ‘national movement’ to ‘stand up to the NRA’ and lambasting Republicans for voting against gun control legislation.” It quotes Clinton saying, “What is wrong with us, that we cannot stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby, and the gun manufacturers they represent? We need to act and we need to build a movement.” It’s easy to see how things have changed. But why have they changed? For one thing, since his reelection, President Obama has dropped his pro-gun pretenses, coming out strongly for banning “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, requiring background checks on private sales, and banning the purchase of firearms by anyone on secret government lists.  Where an anti-gun president will go, his anti-gun adherents will certainly follow. However, Time says the reason for the change in anti-gun tactics is even bigger than that. “The Democratic Party at large has shifted,” it says. Moreover, “gun control advocates are more organized and better-funded than at any time in at least the last two decades. Groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, bankrolled by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and Americans for Responsible Solutions, former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ super PAC, are spending millions to counteract the NRA.” Anti-gun college professor Adam Winkler adds, “Democrats are starting to believe that a strong statement on gun control will motivate the [Democrat] base.” Apparently, gun control supporters think this is their time in history, that they have the momentum, and that their victory is inevitable. Then again, something on the order of 100 million American adults, living in just under half of American households, own well over 300 million guns, including well over 100 million handguns and easily well over 10 million detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, which gun control supporters call “assault weapons.” And FBI data indicate that the annual number of gun purchases has been greater during the last four years than ever before. If gun control supporters are unhinged now, imagine the state they will be in if that many gun owners come together to defeat Hillary Clinton and awake them from their anti-gun dreams on Election Day 2016.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/11/obama-administration-reportedly-readies-executive-order-expanding-background-checks.html?intcmp=hpbt3     FoxNews.com Advisers to President Barack Obama reportedly are finalizing a proposal to expand background checks on would-be gun buyers without congressional approval. The Associated Press reported that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told a Wednesday night vigil for victims of the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. that Obama had asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review "in short order." After October's mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore., Obama said his team was looking for ways to tighten gun laws without a vote in Congress. White House officials have said they're exploring closing the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check. Obama has repeatedly called for tighter gun control measures in the wake of mass shooting during his administration. In the wake of last week's terror attack that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif. Obama called on Congress to approve legislation to keep people on the no-fly list from buying guns. Gun rights advocates oppose the proposal because they say it violates the rights of people who have not been convicted of a crime. On Thursday, the House rejected an attempt by Democrats to force a vote on the issue. A Senate version of legislation preventing suspected terrorists from being allowed to buy firearms from licensed gun dealers was voted down last week. Also Thursday, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy proposed Thursday to use an executive order to ban gun sales to those on federal no-fly watch lists. However, despite repeatedly calls for gun control by Democrats at the state and federal level, gun sales have repeatedly spiked after mass shooting incidents.  The FBI said last week that it processed a record number of firearms background checks on Black Friday, the busy shopping time the day after Thanksgiving. The agency processed 185,345 background checks. roughly two per second. The previous record for the most background checks in a single day was Dec. 21, 2012, about a week after the Newtown shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were shot to death. The week following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary saw the processing of 953,613 gun background checks.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-gop-blocks-latest-dem-effort-to-force-gun-curb-vote/ar-AAgh2Be?li=BBnb7Kz     WASHINGTON — House Republicans thwarted the latest attempt by Democrats on Thursday to force a vote on curbing gun purchases by suspected terrorists as the two parties continued testing the political impact of last week's mass shooting in California. By a near-party line vote of 242-173, the House turned aside an effort by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to hold an immediate vote on the legislation. The bill is sponsored by one of the few GOP lawmakers who support gun restrictions, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. Thursday's vote was no surprise. Congressional Republicans heavily oppose gun curbs, and with the backing of the National Rifle Association have resisted Democrat attempts to force what amount to symbolic votes on the issue. "Public sentiment demands actions," said Pelosi, adding that it is time to "close the outrageous loophole." Republicans said little in response. Last week, the GOP-led Senate rejected its version of legislation preventing suspected terrorists from being allowed to buy firearms from licensed gun dealers. Republicans argued that federal lists of terror suspects are riddled with errors that people should be allowed to contest before losing their right to own a weapon. Democratic efforts to restrict guns have gained a new urgency since last month's attacks in Paris and last week's shootings in San Bernardino, California, in which 14 victims died. The California massacre was carried out by a married couple who federal authorities say embraced extremist views. Republicans have reacted to those attacks by seeking to curb Syrian refugees and visa-free tourism to the U.S. House Democrats are also addressing the issue by insisting that a government-wide spending bill Congress plans to consider next week lift curbs against federal research on gun violence.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/24/dc-police-chief-who-advocated-taking-down-mass-shooters-has-approved-few-gun/?intcmp=hpbt4   Published November 24, 2015 | FoxNews.com Despite her call on Sunday night for civilians to “take the gunman down” in a mass shooting scenario, Washington DC’s chief of police has approved just 48 concealed carry licenses in the past year and nearly 80 percent of all applicants have been rejected. Of 233 applications sent for review since the Metropolitan Police Department began accepting permits on Oct. 23, 2014, 185 licenses had been denied as of Nov. 14, a department spokesperson told FoxNews.com on Monday. That low approval rate is seemingly at odds with remarks Chief of Police Cathy Lanier made on Sunday night’s episode of “60 Minutes.” “If you're in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it's the best option for saving lives before police can get there,” Lanier said. “And that's – you know, that's kind of counterintuitive to what cops always tell people, right? We always tell people, ‘Don't, you know, don't take action. Call 911. Don't intervene in the robbery.’ We've never told people, ‘Take action.’ It's a different – this is a different scenario.” Lanier did not respond to requests for comment, but a department spokesperson told FoxNews.com she has the final approval on all applications received. By her own account, a prospective victim's best chance in a mass shooting might be to have a gun. “Your options are run, hide, or fight,” Lanier said on “60 Minutes.” “What we tell them is the fact of the matter is that most active shooters kill most of the victims in 10 minutes or less, and the best police department in the country's going to be about a five-to-seven minute response.” Washington DC has particularly strict laws for carrying concealed weapons, which conservative legislators, judges and citizens have challenged. A federal appeals court is currently in the early stages of deciding one case on whether a visiting judge from upstate New York had the authority to suspend a provision of the District’s laws requiring people to state a “good reason” to carry a firearm. A November poll conducted by The Washington Post found 51 percent of D.C. residents favored reinstating a ban on gun ownership that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 2008. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Thursday he planned to introduce a bill designed to expand concealed carry in the District. Despite her personal record on allowing concealed carry licenses in her jurisdiction, Lanier’s statements echo similar calls from other police chief’s around the nation. Detroit Police Chief James Craig has been a particular advocate of concealed pistol licenses. “I think it's a deterrent,” Craig said in April 2014. “Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction, too.”

Thanks for the information on this holster.  I saw this on facebook and was interested in getting one.

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — When to shoot and when not to shoot?  Follow the link to see the video.   http://wishtv.com/2015/11/11/to-shoot-or-not/     It’s a question that every police cadet is asked while in the academy. It’s a topic that is picked apart by the public every time an officer fires their gun. 24-Hour News 8 took a trip to IMPD’s Police Academy to find out how they train for these types of situations. It was a part of our Citizens Academy class and it was, to say the least, eye opening. Once there, IMPD Veteran Jeff Patterson explained how one of his jobs is to train cadets on the use of force, including firing their weapon. “What we’re going to prove now is if he decides to shoot you, he will win,” Patterson said, referencing a mock situation with a fake suspect. 24-Hour News 8’s Phil Sanchez stood there with his plastic gun in hand and pointed at the “suspect” who held his gun by his side. “As fast as he can he’s going to go bang, and the bang is the indicator that he pulled the trigger” Patterson said. Every time, Sanchez lost. Even when they didn’t fire, he lost. “Oh my God, why did you shoot me? I was going to run away. Decision making. That’s what we deal with as police officer every day,” Patterson said. The class was a game changer for some of Sanchez’s Citizens Academy classmates. People like Norma Evans Bruce. ‘I have a new respect for them, a new found respect, for them now,” Evans Bruce said. She said that prior to taking the class she was quick to blame the police for anything and everything. But not anymore. “There are different sides to every story, and until you understand what a person does, then you really can’t comment on it,” Evans Bruce added. Sanchez did that exercise at least 10 times — every time he lost. Now imagine if that was real? What would you do? The folks at the Police Academy urge you to sign up for the Citizens Academy and take part in these exercises.

Interesting video from WMC ActionNews5 out of Memphis on self-defense training.  Follow the link.   http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/clip/11989275/fbi-style-self-defense-training-now-available-to-mid-southerners    

Published November 10, 2015 | FoxNews.com An Oregon county has approved a controversial measure giving the local sheriff discretion to ignore gun laws he deems unconstitutional -- potentially putting the sheriff in the middle of a Second Amendment battle and raising legal questions that may have to be resolved in court.  While overshadowed by high-profile ballot measures elsewhere on marijuana and other issues, residents in Coos County, Ore., overwhelmingly passed the gun rights measure last week with more than 60 percent support.  The central reason for the initiative was to prevent enforcement of the state's new background check law. Sheriff Craig Zanni already was steering clear of actively enforcing the law, but the ballot measure puts additional pressure on him to defy state and federal gun laws.  It bars the county from using government resources to enforce any "unconstitutional" laws that infringe on the right to bear arms -- and declares "it shall be the duty" of the sheriff to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not.  Even Zanni has voiced concerns over what he's legally allowed to do.  Zanni told The Oregonian he is a strong supporter of gun rights, but predicted before the vote that the matter would end up in court.  "I'm not sure the courts would agree with that concept," he said. "I would just bet there would be some legal challenges to it."  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/10/oregon-county-directs-sheriff-to-ignore-unconstitutional-gun-laws-raising-legal/?intcmp=hpbt1     At the time, Zanni said he didn't plan to change his approach if the measure passed. One commissioner told the newspaper that passage would put the local government in an "awkward spot."  When reached by FoxNews.com on Monday, Zanni declined to comment in depth about the next steps. He stressed only that "this was an initiative put together by citizens of this county to address what they felt is a constant attack on their rights."  The vote came after the mass shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College, about 60 miles east of Coos County.  Ballot initiative sponsor Rob Taylor, a retired optician, told The Daily Signal they're hoping for a court challenge.  "One of the reasons we enacted this measure is that we wanted to challenge [the state's] background check law through the judicial process," he said.  While analysts question whether any local jurisdiction can really decide what's constitutional, the measure itself calls for a maximum $2,000 fine for violating it.  This isn't the first time a county's tried to pass similar ordinances, though the Coos County "Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance" lays out a detailed set of guidelines.  It prohibits enforcement of measures ranging from registration requirements for legally owned guns to restrictions on semi-automatic weapons.  But the main target of the measure is the state's new background check law. According to The Oregonian, Zanni to date has said he's not actively looking for violations of that law -- but also has not ruled out the possibility a resident could be prosecuted for breaking it.  It's unclear whether the new ballot measure might compel the sheriff to rule out that possibility entirely.  Andrew Kloster, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that a sheriff has to follow state law -- but at the same time, citizens could pursue a lawsuit if a state law requires local officials to violate the Second Amendment.

http://wreg.com/2015/10/27/los-angeles-council-oks-measure-on-locking-away-handguns/   LOS ANGELES — Handgun owners in Los Angeles will be required to store their firearms in locked containers or disable the weapons with trigger locks under a law unanimously approved Tuesday by the City Council. The council voted 14-0 in favor of the ordinance that also says owners must keep the guns on their person or within reach if they are not locked away or disabled. The measure applies only to handguns and not to larger firearms such as rifles. It was championed by Councilman Paul Krekorian and backed by activists who say it will help prevent children from harming themselves with guns. Councilman Mitch Englander said before the vote that the intention was not to take rights away from responsible gun owners. “It’s really about having controlled access and securing that weapon,” he said. “This is less about gun control, and simply more about controlling your gun.” The storage law is one of two gun-related measures the city of Los Angeles has tackled in recent months. Earlier this summer, the city adopted a ban on possessing ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That law, which goes into effect next month, is currently being challenged in a lawsuit filed by a pair of law enforcement groups, more than two dozen county sheriffs, and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association. The magazine ordinance mirrors rules in Sunnyvale and San Francisco, which moved to further tighten its gun controls on Tuesday. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors gave first approval to an ordinance requiring firearms dealers to make video recordings of all sales and submit weekly reports to police identifying buyers along with the type and amount of ammo sold. A second board vote of approval is expected. The law may be moot, however. The city’s only gun shop, High Bridge Arms, announced last month that it will close rather than subject customers to new requirements.                

I have been wanting to post this for awhile, but keep forgetting to. This is a sign that is posted on the front door of a local BBQ restaurant around the corner from my home in Bartlett, TN. The name of the restaurant is Brad's BBQ. If you are in the Memphis area stop by and say thanks.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/26/packing-at-lunch-restaurant-robbery-triggers-discount-for-gun-owners/?intcmp=hpbt4   Published October 26, 2015 | FoxNews.com   Art Bouvier is giving the next person who tries to rob his Indianapolis Cajun-style eatery something to think about - by dangling a 25 percent discount for pistol-packing patrons. After a man claiming to have a gun robbed Papa Roux Saturday night, the New Orleans native announced that customers with a valid a concealed handgun permit will get a quarter off their tab. Bouvier told FoxNews.com he hopes it will send a strong signal that it's a bad idea to pull a gun with bad intentions in his restaurant.   "I just want the criminals to wonder whether customers have a gun," Bouvier said. "I don’t want a shootout but I also don't want people coming in here thinking I have a given them leverage over my employees and customers." Bouvier 46, cooked up the plan after a man walked into the restaurant and told the cashier he had a gun and demanded money. The suspect -- who is still being sought -- made off with cash from a tip jar and no one was hurt. Bouvier said a customer approached him shortly after the hold-up and said he had a gun and was prepared to use it if things got out of hand. But Bouvier, who already offers a 50 percent discount to police officers, noted that no one knew there was a law-abiding gun owner in the restaurant when the robbery occurred. That got him thinking. "What if criminals recognize my restaurant as a place where legal and responsible gun owners come to dine?" he said. "They would think twice about what they're doing. "I don't care if they bring in a gun or not," Bouvier said of his customers. "The 25 percent discount is simply for showing you have a carry license, meaning you have a clean criminal record." Bouvier first made the announcement Sunday in a Facebook post that has since gone viral. "If thugs are going to come in and threaten OUR extended family with guns, you'd better believe I will use every trick I know to protect our family," he wrote. Loyal customers left messages of support for Bouvier and his response to the robbery. "Exercising my 2nd Amendment Right and Eating the best Cajun grub north of Lake Pontchartrain!" wrote customer Brian Alvey. "Love Art Bouvier's reaction to being robbed!" wrote another. "Just an honest man trying to keep his business and customers safe while they dine, and I think it's awesome! Indy, we need to take back our streets/homes/businesses from these punks!" But not all customers are happy about the discount, according to Bouvier, who said he's received a few angry phone calls from people. "Some have called saying, 'You've lost a customer,'" said Bouvier.  "Are you telling me you're more comfortable with a thug in line with a gun than a dining room full of people with no criminal record and a legal license to carry a gun?" asked Bouvier, a self-described libertarian. When asked for their opinion on the matter, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department said in an e-mail Monday, "It is not against the law to carry a handgun with a permit and for a business to offer a discount. The department encourages responsible gun ownership." Bouvier added he's not concerned about what his insurance company might think of the discount, saying, "I’m simply recognizing a legal document." He said his message to would-be diners is simple: "Are you legal? Let me know." "I want to reward the fact that my customers are that type of citizen," he said.  Bouvier opened Papa Roux eight years ago with great success. Diners pack the restaurant at lunch time, ordering from a variety of Cajun-style items -- with the hand-breaded catfish po' boy in greatest demand. The eatery is also a longtime favorite among local police officers, who receive a discount each time they order. "Police always have a 50 percent discount here, so I already told them they can't stack the discount," Bouvier quipped.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/19/top-california-official-pushes-ammo-background-checks/?intcmp=hpbt1   Published October 19, 2015 | FoxNews.com   Gun control advocates are launching a new regulatory push in California to impose first-in-the-nation instant background checks for ammunition sales, a move that comes as gun violence surfaces as a lightning rod issue in the 2016 presidential race.  Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democratic candidate for governor in 2018, joined with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in announcing the initiative last week.  The November 2016 ballot initiative, which already is being slammed by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would make changes on several fronts.  It would require owners to turn in "large-capacity" magazines -- those holding 11 rounds or more -- and report when their weapons are stolen. Perhaps the most controversial provision would handle ammo sales like gun sales by requiring "point-of-sale background checks" for ammunition purchases; dealers also would need a license similar to those required to sell firearms.  As New York has backed off a similar initiative, California would be the first state to enact such background checks, if the initiative is successful. Four states -- Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey -- require ammunition purchasers to obtain permits ahead of time, according to the initiative's supporters.  The proposal comes in the wake of high-profile killings nationwide and three in the San Francisco Bay Area that were tied to stolen guns.  "Stuff doesn't just have to happen," Newsom said last week, responding to comments by Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush about a recent mass shooting on an Oregon college campus. "We have the ability to step in with some common sense. We have the ability to protect our families."  But the National Rifle Association said Newsom's effort would chip away at Second Amendment rights.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapon-ban-u-s-supreme-court-n442056   The U.S. Supreme Court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear a challenge to a suburban Chicago law banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons. If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings. Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The ban also lists certain specific rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms. Semi-automatic weapons are capable of shooting a single round with each pull of the trigger and, consequently, can fire rapidly. Large capacity magazines reduce the need to reload as often. A federal district judge upheld the law, and so did a federal appeals court panel by a 2-1 vote. Central to the dispute is the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that, for the first time, said the Constitution's Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense. While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be restricted. The firearms banned by the Highland Park ordinance may be common, the appeals court said. But it added that "assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in the aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?" The opinion, written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said that "a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs." The Illinois State Rifle Association, which is challenging the law's constitutionality, says the weapons are in no way unusual. The AR-15, the group says, is the best-selling rifle type in the nation. Between 1990 and 2012, the group says, more than 5 million AR-type rifles were manufactured for sale in the U.S., and 3.4 million more were imported. As for the magazines, the gun rights group says they are "ubiquitous," with nearly 75 million of them in possession of gun owners. In a friend of court brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case, lawyers for 24 states say the weapons banned by the Highland Park ordinance are not only commonly used, but are also protected by state laws that forbid local communities to restrict them. A ruling striking down the city ordinance would undercut similar bans in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and in Chicago and surrounding cities.

This is a video on the Fox News Website:  Katie Pavlich talks reality of gun laws, breaks down gun violence statistics.   http://video.foxnews.com/v/4548324108001/seven-gun-control-myths-that-need-to-be-put-to-rest/?intcmp=hpff#sp=show-clips  

http://www.localmemphis.com/news/local-news/gun-shop-offers-discounts-to-christians   KINGSTON, TN   Are you Christian? Then you can get a discount on a gun at an east Tennessee store. The owner of Frontier Firearms in Kingston says the last week’s deadly mass shooting in Oregon prompted the sale. Last week, after the shootings, Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey encouraged Christians who are serious about their faith to think about getting a handgun carry permit. So Brant Williams says he's offering 5% off any new handgun if you say you're a Christian. "If Christians are going to be targeted, we need to protect ourselves, and the best way to protect yourself is with the best weapon available, and that happens to be a hand gun," said Williams. While Christians get the discount, Williams says he's never refused to sell anyone a gun and welcomes customers of all religions.

I was able to find some BlueDot at Bass Pro and it seems to work well so far.

That is a great looking handgun.  I want one!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-unveils-gun-control-plan/ar-AAf7X2S?li=AAa0dzB     Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton announced new gun-control measures on Monday in the wake of the mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. Clinton's gun-control proposal, announced in New Hampshire, calls for closing the so-called gun show loophole on private gun sales, potentially through executive action, and allow victims of gun violence to sue weapon manufacturers by proposing a repeal of legislation. During a pair of town halls in New Hampshire, Clinton also called for eliminating the "Charleston loophole," a reference to the June shooting at a church in Charleston, S.C., by barring those with felony records from buying guns if results of a federal background check aren't returned within three days. "I really do want to push hard to get more sensible restraints on gun ownership in the wrong hands, and then to try and keep track of people who shouldn’t have guns," Clinton said during the first event aired on NBC's "Today Show." "I want to work with the Congress – we got very close. There was a bipartisan bill, it didn’t go all the way, but I will also look for ways as president to tighten some of these checks, to get more of the background checks done on more of the sales at gun shows and online than we currently have," she added. The measures Clinton announced Monday build on other measures she has already called for, including universal background checks, withholding guns from domestic abusers and renewing an assault weapons ban. The measures come as Clinton seeks to shore up support among those on the left from rivals amid a surge for Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has yet to unveil a gun-control plan. Sanders continues to lead Clinton in the Granite State, according to a poll released over the weekend.

Another Democratic candidate, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, on Sunday touted a package of gun-control measures passed during his tenure and called on the two candidates leading the Democratic field to adopt initiatives on the national level.

 Clinton called for new action on gun control following last week's shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., which left nine people dead. The latest mass shooting has led to President Obama and many Democrats to renew calls for action.

"This epidemic of gun violence knows no boundaries, knows no limits of any kind," Clinton said Monday. "How many people have to die before we actually act? Before we come together as a nation?" asked Clinton, who later choked up when speaking about the grief felt by parents of those killed during the Sandy Hook shooting. She also reiterated a challenge initiated last week to promote an alternative to the National Rifle Association, calling on gun owners to "form another organization and take back the second amendment from these extremists." Many leading Republican presidential candidates have pushed back on calls for gun control following last week's shooting, instead focusing on issues such as mental health. Clinton bashed those responses as an "admission of defeat."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/01/gun-control-groups-accused-swatting-open-carry-permit-holders-putting-lives-at/?intcmp=hpbt2     Second Amendment groups are accusing the gun control lobby of putting law-abiding owners of firearms in danger by urging people to call the police on anyone carrying a gun in public. As more states relax rules about open-carrying of guns, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has taken to social media to urge the public to assume gun-toters are trouble, and to call the cops on anyone they feel may be a threat. “If you see someone carrying a firearm in public—openly or concealed—and have ANY doubts about their intent, call 911 immediately and ask police to come to the scene,” the group wrote on its widely followed Facebook page. “Never put your safety, or the safety of your loved ones, at the mercy of weak gun laws that arm individuals in public with little or no criminal and/or mental health screening.” That approach, according to a blog post by Ohio-based Buckeye Firearms Association, could give rise to needless, tense confrontations between police and gun owners. The association and other similar groups liken the tactic to “swatting,” or the act of tricking an emergency service into dispatching responders based on a false report. Many online harassment campaigns have been known to participate in the practice. “This practice is exactly what they [Coalition to Stop Gun Violence] are doing,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for Virginia-based Gun Owners of America. “It’s one thing if someone is using a gun in an illegal or unlawful manner. No one is questioning that. But this clearly sounds like swatting.”   Pratt adds that it may be a move of desperation by those looking to get guns off the streets. “Anti-gun advocates are clearly frustrated. They want guns banned,” he said. “But they have been thwarted in the past, so they are looking for alternative means. “They are inciting their radical base to turn their own neighbors in.” It is not the first time supporters of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control advocates have pressed for the public to call cops on legal gun owners. An October 2014 National Review article found that the Facebook pages and websites of groups including the coalition, Moms Demand Action and GunFreeZone.net included numerous comments from the public advocating that people call the police and intentionally exaggerate what they see in the hopes of getting cops to stop those open-carrying guns. Open carry rules, in one form or another, are legal in every state except for five—California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina, as well as the District of Columbia. However, many states that do permit open carry have put in place stringent laws that require some sort of permit or license.   The main issue that gun advocates have with the Coalition’s tactics is the potential of putting law-abiding citizens in real danger. Officials for the anti-gun group say that this is not the case. “In an era in which individuals are being allowed to carry loaded guns on our streets with no permit, background check or required training, it is common sense for concerned citizens to call 911 when they see an armed individual whose intentions are unclear,” Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “These [open carry] laws guarantee that we—and law enforcement—will have no idea about the criminal and/or mental health background of these individuals until they actually commit a crime; and by then it could be far too late.  We have full confidence in our men and women in blue to assess these situations.  “Gun-toters who are truly law-abiding and mentally competent have nothing whatsoever to worry about. Their conversations with law enforcement will be brief and professional,” he added. “As for those who are dangerous and have something to hide which would not withstand the scrutiny of a background check or permitting process, they should expect to face some tough questions as a result of these 911 calls. And that makes us all safer.” But the Buckeye Firearms Association believes the effort amounts to "conspiring to obstruct legal justice.” Pratt agreed, and said people who call the police without legitimate reason should be charged. “They would likely be the ones arrested for filing a false report,” he said. “And we are certainly hoping that would be the case.”

‘Anti-gun stupidity’: Honolulu destroys $575G worth of police firearms http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/31/anti-gun-stupidity-honolulu-destroys-575g-worth-police-firearms/?intcmp=hpbt3   By Hollie McKay Published August 31, 2015 | FoxNews.com Second Amendment advocates are firing away at a decision by Honolulu officials to destroy $575,000 worth of perfectly good handguns in a move one critic called the “height of anti-gun stupidity.” Some 2,300 Smith & Wesson 9 mm handguns, including at least 200 that are brand-new and in unopened boxes, were issued to the city’s police department. But with the 2,200-member force upgrading to lighter and less expensive Glock 17s, the guns were set to be permanently holstered. While it is customary throughout the country for departments to auction the guns to law-abiding citizens, including the police who once carried them, or donate them to another department, Honolulu opted to destroy them. “Mayor Kirk Caldwell and the Honolulu Police Department agreed that they would not allow the guns to be sold to the general public and end up on the streets of Honolulu,” Honolulu Police spokeswoman Michelle Yu told FoxNews.com. “The same goes for selling the individual gun parts that could have been used to assemble a gun.”   Selling the guns, with mandatory background checks to ensure they were only purchased by legal owners, could have netted the city $575,000, according to Hawaii News Now. Several police officers reportedly were interested in buying old service weapons for personal use, and the department has previously sold phased-out weapons to its staff, but this time opted to melt them down two weeks ago. Yu said no other police departments were interested in the guns. “Law enforcement in American Samoa initially expressed interest in acquiring some of the guns, but there was a change in administration and the new administration is no longer interested,” she said. “The local sheriff’s department recently replaced their guns, and other county police departments (Kauai, Maui and Hawaii) are looking to replace their Smith & Wessons in the future.” A representative for Smith & Wesson declined to comment, stating that the company does not provide any information regarding their customers in law enforcement. Despite Yu’s claims, the Hawaii state sheriffs division – which uses the same gun manufacturer – told Hawaii News Now that no offer for donation was made to them. Hawaii’s Department of Public of Safety recently replaced its Smith & Wesson firearms with different SIG Sauer models and received a credit of more than $150,000 for trading in its old guns. But Yu no trade-in discount was available and insisted “the only remaining option was to destroy the guns so they don’t end up on the street.” Destroying working firearms, as well as valuable taxpayer property, was “the height of anti-gun stupidity and will not stop one criminal from getting a weapon,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “These guns in the hands of lawful civilians could provide an important means of self-defense, especially for low income people who can’t afford them,” Gottlieb said. “Or the sale of them could help pay for much needed law enforcement equipment to help keep the public safe.” Any city the size of Honolulu could use $575,000, said Amy Hunter, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “There is no reason why these firearms couldn’t be used by law enforcement or sold to law-abiding citizens, the proceeds of which could go to much-needed infrastructure, programs, training, etc,” she said. The Hawaii Rifle Association’s President Harvey Gerwig, together with safety training non-profit Lessons in Firearms Education President Bill Richter wrote directly to Caldwell over the issue, emphasizing that “in these times of lean budgets and continual cost cutting to needed city services, to throw away a half a million dollars seems senseless.” “The reason your office and HPD gave for not selling to the public seemed to be a slight on those legal gun owners who would have purchased them and who supported you during your election,” the letter continued. “You should be ashamed for suggesting that the good citizens of Hawaii cannot be trusted with buying HPD’s surplus guns for fear of them falling into criminal hands when record numbers of firearms have been bought by those same citizens for the last ten years without any such problems.” Over the last 15 years, the number of guns registered in Hawaii increased dramatically. Data released by the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office shows that 420,409 firearms were registered from 2000 to 2014, in addition to the already existing one million firearms in a state that has an estimated population of 1.4 million. Hawaii has one of the lowest gun death rates in the nation, which some attribute to its spike in ownership per capita, while others claim it is a result of its strict gun control laws. Caldwell’s office declined to elaborate on Yu's comments. The Hawaii Police Officers Union, did not respond to requests for comment. But while the destruction of the guns generated criticism from the gun rights community, others have welcomed it. “It beats putting those (guns) back on the streets,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “There are so many loopholes in federal law that dangerous people often get guns legally in this country. “There's a reason that Hawaii has the lowest gun death rate in the country,” he added. “They'd rather see guns destroyed than families.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/how-a-gun-in-a-purse-became-a-permanent-ball-and-chain/ar-BBmaXUg       At 27, Adele Langkil, mother of a 4-year-old son in Virginia, got her first extended break from her jobs as a single parent and waitress when her parents took the boy for a weekend. She spent a few days in New York. Refreshed, returning home to Virginia Beach, she checked her bag at La Guardia Airport. It was 1985 and airline screening was not as rigorous as it is today, but the authorities noted that there was a handgun in the luggage. “I was working as a waitress at night,” Ms. Langkil recalled Thursday. “A couple of people followed the girls home. I got a little gun. You didn’t have to have a permit in Virginia if it wasn’t concealed.”   For carriage of the gun, she was delivered to Rikers Island and charged with attempted criminal possession of a weapon and eventually posted a bail bond of $10,000. Appearing in court in Queens, she was told by a judge, she said, “‘This ain’t Texas; we don’t carry guns here.’” A lawyer advised her that she faced one to five years in prison if she went to trial, but that the Queens district attorney’s office would allow her to plead guilty and get a year on probation. For a mother with a small child, it was hardly a choice. Now 57 and a grandmother of two, Ms. Langkil to this day has been unable to outrun that arrest three decades ago. She attended community college, was a member of the honors society and has worked her entire life. She is a notary public who is able to certify legal documents in the commonwealth of Virginia, and is permitted to carry firearms. What she cannot do is fail to disclose her felony conviction. “I do clerical work and can’t advance, even when I’m qualified because of it,” she said. Hired by one shipping firm for its accounting department, she was told a few days later that the job offer had been rescinded after a background check uncovered her conviction. The Norfolk, Va., school system was recently prepared to hire her for its collections department, she said. At a final-round interview, she explained to the superintendent that she had been convicted but had successfully petitioned for the restoration of her civil rights under Virginia law. “He asked, ‘Did that mean you got a pardon?’ ” Ms. Langkil said. “I told him, ‘No sir, it did not.’ He said, ‘We can’t hire you.’ ” A granddaughter was going on a field trip with her class and the school was looking for chaperones. “The form asked if I was a convicted felon,” Ms. Langkil said. To keep from embarrassing her granddaughter, she pulled out. Virginia has a program of “simple pardons” that grants official forgiveness for past crimes to people who have finished their terms and proven themselves in various ways to be worthy citizens. Two Virginia governors were sympathetic to her, but said they could not help: They were unable to pardon her for a crime committed in another state. New York State offered her a “certificate of relief of disabilities,” which essentially restored her civil rights in New York State but says in bold type at the top, “This certificate shall NOT be deemed nor construed to be a pardon.” She has applied to three governors of New York for a pardon. Mercy is a risky proposition for politicians at every level. “Pardons are extraordinarily rare in New York State,” Donald D. Fries, director of the New York executive clemency bureau, wrote to Ms. Langkil in May, adding that they were considered “only when there is overwhelming and convincing proof of innocence.” That’s not law; that is policy, and it conveniently shields governors from having to consider exercising their absolute authority to grant pardons, which erase a conviction, or clemency, which can lessen punishment. For decades, prison and criminal convictions were national drugs that, it is now widely accepted, have been grotesquely overused. A number of federal judges are trying to untangle the knots that bind people for years after they got in trouble. In 1985, when Ms. Langkil was convicted, 32,000 other people were arrested in Queens. Over the next 30 years, at least 1.1 million people were arrested just in that one borough of the city. For a governor to fix one person’s needless problem by granting Ms. Langkil a pardon might, of course, mean that millions of others in the state could raise equally worthy claims. To ignore her and the others, though, is to let the dead hand of history continue to warp the daily lives of decent people.

Out of all the issues in the FOX GOP Debate (Can we even call it a debate? They have one minute for goodness’ sake) this week, there were a couple of Constitutional issues that came up. Rand Paul and Chris Christie got into it over the Fourth Amendment. Other candidates spoke about immigration, which is a Constitutional issue for Congress. They even spoke about spending, which is also Constitutional in limited spending, not balanced budgets. No one pointed to that though. The one thing interestingly missing from the debate was the Second Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So, why was there no talk about the Second Amendment? After all, we know the current Marxist administration is anti-gun ownership and we know that those in the Democrat Party are for some level of gun control. But what about those who were debating and asking you for your vote for the highest office in the land? For starters, we know Chris Christie is clearly not to be trusted with the rights of the people concerning guns. Christie has signed into law all sorts of infringements upon his people in New Jersey and when called out on it at a town hall meeting earlier this year, he said, “Send me a Republican legislature. And with a Republican legislature you’ll have a governor who will respect, appropriately, the rights of law-abiding citizens to be able to protect ourselves.” At least one woman is dead in his state because of infringement upon the people’s rights and Brian Aitken was imprisoned in New Jersey for having legally purchased guns. Then there was Christie’s appointment of anti-gun Jeffrey Chisea to fill the seat in the US Senate. Ben Carson has said he believes citizens have gun rights, but then has broken that up when it comes to whether or not you live in the city or the country. Governor Mike Huckabee is pro-Second Amendment supporter without restrictions. Senator Rand Paul has been in his words and votes a pro-Second Amendment supporter without restrictions. Senator Marco Rubio opposed the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. He opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms and was given a B+ rating by the National Rifle Association. He also claimed that the Second Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy (It’s a republic Marco). Senator Ted Cruz has also been a pro-Second Amendment supporter in his voting, except for the claim that arms “such as Machine guns, and weapons especially attractive to criminals, such as short-barreled shotguns, are not” to be considered as protected under the Second Amendment. Governor Scott Walker opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms, has said the Second Amendment is not optional and desires to see concealed carry recognized under the Second Amendment. Donald Trump has said he is against gun control, claims Republicans and Democrats are wrong on guns, but he is for an assault weapon ban, wants a waiting period and background checks, none of which are in the Second Amendment nor a part of the federal government’s authority. He recently stated that he also supports the arming of all military personnel and repealing “gun free zones” there. Governor John Kasich opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms and believes more parenting is better than more gun laws. Florida Governor Jeb Bush advanced stand-your-ground and concealed carry during his time as governor. Matthew Speiser also deals with a few other candidates’ positions on the Second Amendment, who were not allowed to participate in the prime time event. I want to hear from presidential candidates that there is no authority given to government to restrict any arms to its citizens in any fashion. That is the law. On top of that, as I stated on Friday on the Sons of Liberty radio show, I want them to be asked to enumerate the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution and their enumerated powers should they be elected to the White House. After all, that is what they job consists of, knowing their limitations and understanding the people’s freedom that is to be preserved. If they can’t answer those few things, they have no business anywhere near the White House.