The 1,800 Rounds-Per-Minute Burst-Firing AN-94 #Guns

Posted by Bob Owens on May 17, 2016 at 5:59 pm

The Russian AN-94’s 2 shot hyper-burst is so fast that two shots are downrange before the shooter can respond to the recoil.

Tags: AN-94, Video

Author: Bob OwensBob Owens is the Editor of BearingArms.com. He is an alumnus ofGunsite Academy, is an instructor with Project Appleseed, and is the author of the short e-book, So You Want to Own a Gun. He can be found on Twitter

Liberals Begin The Great #Gun Grab #Obama #GUNS

SHARE    

 ALEX MILLER , MAY 3, 2016 / 114 1

Liberals Extinguish 2nd Amendment In Connecticut (Image: CTPost)

• Connecticut lawmakers have made it legal for law enforcement officers to confiscate guns from citizens.
• Connecticut residents who have been accused of domestic abuse now only have 24 hours to surrender all firearms.
• The bill was approved by a 23-13 vote.

Connecticut lawmakers have passed legislation to permit law enforcement to confiscate guns and ammunition from anyone accused of domestic abuse. The bill is headed to the desk of Gov. Dannel Malloy and he’s expected to sign it.

Under the legislation, suspects would have 24 hours after being accused to surrender all firearms.

 

After nearly three hours of debate, the bill was approved with a 23-13 vote amid a failed attempt by Republicans to amend the bill.

The Connecticut Post explains the intention behind the legislation:

The goal is to protect women from the increased lethality at a critical point in a relationship: when they are trying to leave their abusers. About 14 domestic homicides occur annually in Connecticut, half of which are caused by guns.

Liberals Extinguish 2nd Amendment In Connecticut (Image: TheSleuthJournal)

While 5,000 temporary restraining orders are issued annually, about half result in permanent orders. The bill, which was approved last week in the House, would require court hearings within seven days and if judges decide against extending the orders, weapons would be returned within five days later. Currently, court hearings are held 14 days later.

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney argued the “possible inconvenience to gun owners” should not come at the “expense of the great danger to victims of domestic violence.”

“That’s why this bill is exactly what we should be doing in this area,” he added.

Though there was some opposition to the bill due to gun rights concerns, the Post reports “there was little evidence of gun-rights activists in the Capitol on Monday.”

“I do believe we have to honor the Constitution, we have to honor the Second Amendment and we have to honor the rights of individuals,” Republican Sen. Rob Kane said.

Multiple attempts to contact Democrats in the Connecticut Senate were unsuccessful.

March Sees Record #Gun Sales @Arms #Guns

Latest figures indicate eleven straight record-setting monthsEM

AP

      

BY: Stephen Gutowski  
April 4, 2016 1:40 pm

Gun sales broke records yet again in the month of March.

The FBI performed 2,523,265 firearms-related background checks between March 1 and March 31, according to the agency’s records. That’s a new record for the month. It’s nearly 35,000 more checks than the previous record set in March 2014.

Despite the new record, March saw the fewest checks of any month so far in 2016.

The March record is the eleventh straight monthly record for background checks. The unprecedented streak, which began in May 2015, has included all-time records for both monthly and yearly sales. With 7,682,141 checks processed through the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System, 2016 is currently on pace to set another all time yearly sales record.

FBI background checks are widely considered a reliable gauge for gun sales because all sales conducted through federally licensed firearms dealers must include one. Some states also require private sales between non-dealers to include a background check. However, many states do not.

Many states also require FBI background checks as a part of the process for obtaining a gun carry permit. The FBI does not consider background checks a perfect record for the exact number of guns sold each month. “Based on varying state laws and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale,” the agency noted on their background check report.

The sustained gun sales records coincide with increasingly aggressive gun control rhetoric from many Democrats, including President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

President Obama has tried to enact new gun control through executive actions. The most consequential of those actions could require somebody who sold a single gun on the used market to obtain an expensive in federal license. However, the official guidance issued the action’s aftermath is at odds with much of what the administration said publicly.

Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president, has courted gun control advocates throughout the campaign. She has publicly called for the United States to consider adopting an Australian-style gun confiscation scheme. In private she has criticized the Supreme Court for affirming an individual right to own firearms.

Alan Gottlieb, who founded the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation, said the political rhetoric combined with recent acts of terror and economic uncertainty have driven gun sales. “These ongoing new monthly records reflect the concerns Americans have about crime, terrorism, economic turmoil and the political class gun prohibition attempts to disarm them,” he said.”They are voting with their checkbooks and buying more firearms and ammunition.”

“People have a real fear about where we are headed.”

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Guns. Bookmark the permalink.

Second Amendment Supporters Drown Out MSNBC Report With Gunfire #Obama

SHARE

TWEET

EMAIL

      

BY: David Rutz  
February 23, 2016 12:41 pm

MSNBC reporter Kerry Sanders, for reasons unknown to people besides him and his producer, chose to do a live feed from inside the Reno Guns & Range in Nevada on Tuesday, and he found his report on the Donald Trump campaign being almost completely drowned out by gunfire.

Host Andrea Mitchell threw to Sanders to discuss Trump’s lead in the Nevada polls heading into Tuesday night’s caucus.

“Well, there’s a lot of attention. I’m actually right now at Reno Guns & Range, and I put myself here because as you’ll see over my shoulder here, there’s lots of folks here who believe that the Second Amendment in this country is under attack,” Sanders said, as he put on safety goggles and earphones.

At that moment, multiple people at the range began firing different guns behind Sanders, making it almost impossible to make out what he was saying.

The following is a rough transcription of what Sanders said next.

(Bang) (Bang) (Bang) They say that the (Bang) short distance away (Bang) (Bang) Donald Trump (Bang) (Bang) (Bang) (Bang) (Bang) about protecting the Second Amendment (Bang) (Bang) (Bang) (Bang) All the Republicans (Bang) (Bang) support protecting the Second Amendment. Donald Trump (Bang) has said in speeches (Bang) the First Amendment and he supports the Second Amendment (Bang) (Large Bang) (Bang) (Bang) from the crowd when he says that. (Bang) (Bang) As we look at what Donald Trump has been doing (Bang) (Bang) Jeb Bush now, he’s focusing on Ted Cruz. (Bang) Saying in a tweet (Bang) Wow was Ted Cruz disloyal to his very capable director (Bang) used him as a scapegoat (Bang) like a dog (Bang) talking about (bang) fired his spokesman (Bang).

Mitchell laughed as Sanders’ report came to a close.

“Kerry, I’m afraid we could not hear most of that because the firepower was a little bit too great,” Mitchell said. “Sorry, we didn’t know you were going to be there today.”

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Andrea Mitchell, Donald Trump, MSNBC. Bookmark the permalink.

SHARE

#Trump2016 California law allowing seizure of guns without notice begins Jan. 1

By Andrew Blake - The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Gun control legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there is potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

#Illinois Resolution Seeks Seizure of Privately Owned #GUNS !

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

A resolution recently introduced in the Illinois state legislature threatens the natural and fundamental right of citizens of that state to keep and bear arms.

The non-binding measure — House Resolution 855  — would urge “the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, to adhere to the clear wording of the Second Amendment being a right afforded to state sponsored militias and not individuals.”

The text of the proposal recites a section of the dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens to the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in 2008:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. 

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

The author of the Illinois resolution has built his measure on the weakest foundation: a misstatement of the Founders’ intent regarding the Second Amendment, its application to individuals, its support of self-defense, and the role of the militia.

First, with regard to the enshrinement of the right of self-defense in the text of the Second Amendment, Justice Stevens must not have read much of the writings of the leading men of the Founding Era.

Take these few examples:

In his commentary on the works of the influential jurist Blackstone, Founding-era legal scholar St. George Tucker wrote:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

Writing in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton explained:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.

And finally, this from the Declaration of Rights included in the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776:

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state….”

In light of the foregoing, it is irresponsible for a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the clear and convincing evidence that the men of the Founding Era considered the natural right of self-defense to be one of the primary purposes, if not the primary one, of the protections included in the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

Next, the author of the Illinois resolution assumes (incorrectly) that the word “militia” as used in the text of the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves. There is no evidence to support this assumption.

In fact, the words of the Founders once again prove that the proposition soon to be considered in Illinois with regard to the Second Amendment’s use of the word “militia” is full of historical flaws and unsupported suppositions. 

In his book The Sword and Sovereignty, Dr. Edwin Vieira explains that “the term ‘[a] well regulated Militia, ’which the Second Amendment declares to be ‘necessary to the security of a free State,’ must have had a most definite meaning known to all among WE THE PEOPLE at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified — and a meaning which THE PEOPLE expected could not change absent an Amendment of the Constitution.” [Emphasis in original.]

What, then, is a constitutionally qualifying militia? 

Vieira provides historical and legal references that clear up any remaining controversy on the subject:

Even before the idea of the Constitution entered anyone’s head, “the Militia of the several States” (or, earlier, the Militia of the several American Colonies, with the partial, peculiar, and in any event not permanent exception of Pennsylvania) were established and maintained pursuant to statutes enacted throughout the 1600s and 1700s. In those Colonies and then all of the independent States, operations aimed at organizing, arming, and disciplining these Militia were conducted pursuant to these statutes. In those Colonies and States, the vast majority of the able-bodied adult free male inhabitants (other than conscientious objectors) personally possessed firearms, because those statutes imposed upon them a duty to keep and bear arms. 

And as a consequence of all this, throughout America in the pre-constitutional era existed “well regulated Militia” — the products of statutes which Americans had believed were so effective in achieving their ends that they had enacted them and reenacted them and reenacted them yet again, in form and substance, decade after decade and generation after generation.

T.J. Martinell echoed Vieira’s explanations in an article penned on December 22 for the Second Amendment advocacy group, ShallNot.org:

"Well regulated" had nothing to do with government regulations of what weapons they could use. Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, declared that "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." And then there’s George Mason, considered the father of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, who defined the militia as "the whole people, except for a few public officials."

“The whole people,” not people in a militia that is “state sponsored” as required by the proposed Illinois resolution.

The third significant flaw in the Illinois disarmament resolution is the assumption that the Second Amendment allows any restriction on the right of anyone to keep or bear a firearm.

As readers are aware, the Second Amendment imposes on the federal government an unqualified proscription on constriction of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The phrase that pays: shall not be infringed. That means “shall not,” not “shall not unless a gun is used in a high-profile crime,” or “shall not unless the president issues an executive order infringing upon it,” or “shall not unless the weapon is made out of plastic.”

Despite what many pundits, journalists, and activists — even those considered “conservative” — would have Americans believe, there is no “reasonable” exception to the “shall not be infringed” phrase. Our Founding Fathers understood this very well. They knew, from sad personal experience with the oppression of tyrants, that the right to keep and bear arms was the right that protects all the other rights.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22206-illinois-resolution-seeks-seizure-of-privately-owned-weapons

Please RT - THANKS

F**K YOU #OBAMA !!!

Oregon county lets sheriff ignore 'unconstitutional' gun laws, raising legal questions

Published November 10, 2015

FoxNews.com

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email

In this Oct. 9, 2015, photo, demonstrators wave flags and signs as President Obama's motorcade drives by in Roseburg, Ore. (AP)

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." 

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. 

FoxNews.com's Ross Powers contributed to this report.