Terry Goddard, Arizona AG

 

 

If your AG is on this list, write a letter of thanks.  This is the boldest move to preserve your rights that has been taken within the system in a long time.

This blurb is from the NSSF, National Shooting Sports Foundation.

ATTORNEYS GENERAL OPPOSE SEMI-AUTO BAN

Twenty three (23) state attorneys general have signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing their opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms. “The high court’s landmark decision (District of Columbia. v. Heller, et al.) affirmed that individual Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms,” the letter stated. “We do not believe that further restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to certain semiautomatic firearms serves any real law enforcement purpose” The letter concluded, “… we do not believe that reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban will solve the problems currently facing the United States or Mexico.”

Here’s the letter. Read it, it’s very informative and does not mince words!

Eric Holder, Your AG and Obama, Your President

State Attorneys General
A Communication From the Chief Legal Officers of the Following States:
Alabama * Arkansas * Colorado * Florida * Georgia
Idaho * Kansas * Kentucky * Louisiana * Michigan * Missouri
Montana * Nebraska * Nevada * New Hampshire
North Dakota * Oklahoma * South Carolina * South Dakota * Texas
Utah * Wisconsin * Wyoming

June 11, 2009

The Honorable Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Attorney General Holder:
We the undersigned Attorneys General respectfully write to express our pposition to the reinstatement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’s semi-automatic firearms prohibition, which is commonly referred to as the assault weapons ban.

As the states’ top law enforcement officials, we share the Obama Administration’s commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting lawabiding Americans’ access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems. So, we were pleased by the President’s recent comments indicating his desire to enforce current laws – rather than reinstate the ban on so-called assault weapons.

As you know, the 1994 ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ did not apply to machine guns or other fully automatic firearms. Machine gun ownership was first regulated when the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. And more than twenty years ago, Congress took additional steps to ban fully automatic weapons. Because fully automatic machine guns have already been banned, we do not believe that further restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to certain semiautomatic firearms serves any real law enforcement purpose.

Recent public statements by congressional leaders reflect that same view. On February 26, 2009, The Hill newspaper quoted the Senate Majority Leader’s spokesman saying: “Sen. Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban.” When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was recently asked whether she supports reinstating the 1994 ban, the Speaker reportedly responded “No…I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now.” We agree with the Speaker and the Majority Leader.

The same sentiment has also been expressed to you by sixty-five (65) Congressional Democrats in a letter dated March 17, 2009. In that letter, they astutely noted, “It is hard to believe the ban would be…effective in controlling crime by well-funded international drug traffickers, who regularly use grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, and other weapons that are not available on the civilian market in the United States.”

Under Title 18, Section 924 of the U.S. Code, knowingly transferring a firearm to an individual who will use that firearm to commit a violent or drug-related crime is already a federal offense. Similarly, it is also a felony to possess a firearm for the purpose of furthering drug trafficking. At a recent Congressional hearing, Kumar Kibble, the Deputy Director of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s Office of Investigations, testified that the Patriot Act included changes to Title 18, Section 554 of the U.S. Code, which improved federal authorities’ ability to investigate and prosecute illegal smuggling.

As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending our constituents’ constitutional rights – including their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. This duty is particularly important in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision, which held that the Second Amendment “elevated above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The high court’s landmark decision affirmed that individual Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are staunch defenders of that right and believe that it
should not be encroached upon without sound justification – and a clear law enforcement purpose.

We are pleased that the Administration appears to conform with the Congressional leadership’s position on this very important issue. Importantly, the White House website no longer calls for the reinstatement of the 1994 ban. In fact, it expressly acknowledges “the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters.” We share that appreciation for hunters and are committed to defending our Second Amendment rights—which is why we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to enforce laws that are already in place.

As Attorneys General, we look forward to working with you and President Obama on commonsense law enforcement solutions to transnational crime. We stand ready to cooperate and collaborate on crime prevention and law enforcement initiatives that will protect our constituents, crack down on transnational crime, and help reduce narcotics consumption in the United States. But, for the reasons explained in this letter, we do not believe that reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban will solve the problems currently facing the United States or Mexico.

Sincerely,

Dustin McDaniel Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Arkansas Attorney General of Texas
Troy King John W. Suthers
Attorney General of Alabama Attorney General of Colorado
Bill McCollum Thurbert E. Baker
Attorney General of Florida Attorney General of Georgia
Lawrence G. Wasden Steve Six
Attorney General of Idaho Attorney General of Kansas
Jack Conway James D. Caldwell
Attorney General of Kentucky Attorney General of Louisiana
Mike Cox Chris Koster
Attorney General of Michigan Attorney General of Missouri
Steve Bullock Jon Bruning
Attorney General of Montana Attorney General of Nebraska
Catherine Cortez Masto Kelly A. Ayotte
Attorney General of Nevada Attorney General of New Hampshire
Wayne Stenehjem W.A. Edmondson
Attorney General of North Dakota Attorney General of Oklahoma
Henry McMaster Lawrence Long
Attorney General of South Carolina Attorney General of South Dakota
Mark L. Shurtleff J.B. Van Hollen
Attorney General of Utah Attorney General of Wisconsin
Bruce A. Salzburg
Attorney General of Wyoming

Here’s a link to a PDF version to send to your lame Attorney General.

Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard!

California Assembly Bill 962 and Senate Bill 585 are scheduled to be considered on Thursday, May 28.

AB962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), is in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

SB585 is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Introduced by State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), SB585 would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. In short, SB585 is a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California.

Please contact the members of the Assembly and Senate Appropriations Committees and respectfully urge them to oppose AB962 and SB585.

If you want to learn what the Second Amendment really means to modern Americans find out here.

Tim discusses his inspiration for creating Concealed Carry Magazine: Chapter 20 in Living with Glocks by Robert H. Boatman

I’d like to tell you a story. I hope it will inspire you. It all started for me about four years ago. It was a sunny, yet cool, October morning. I was sitting on an airplane reading an article called The Constitutional Right and Social Obligation to Carry A Gun, by Robert Boatman. A good friend of mine had given me the article and said, “Tim, you just have to read this!” I wish you could have been there with me. I couldn’t’t believe some of the things that I was reading. This Boatman guy had written words that were going straight to what matters most to me. His words were inspiring to say the least. You see, I was a new father at the time and the responsibility of taking care of my wife and new child were weighing heavily on me.
I shifted uncomfortably in my chair as I continued to read. Boatman wrote,

“Carrying a gun is a social responsibility.”

A social responsibility? Come on. I always thought that only cops were supposed to carry guns. Heck, I grew up around guns. My Dad had me shooting is .357 Magnum when I was 10… but carrying one everyday? Now that seemed a little intense. Well, I kept on reading.

Boatman:  “A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the
security of his community is little better than the
criminal who threatens it.”

Wow. What he was saying was astounding. I had never really thought that carrying a gun was really that important. And now this guy was telling me that I am “shirking my duty” if I’m not willing to arm myself? Hold on for just one second… Could It Be True? No one had ever told me I wasn’t responsible. Could it be? Was it possible that Boatman was pulling my head out of the sand? Heck, I live in a small town with almost no crime. We sometimes forget to lock our front door! The article went on to cite many interesting statistics regarding the effects of “good guys” carrying concealed guns.

Boatman:  “Even though most people do not carry guns, the
mere possibility that an intended victim could be
armed with a handgun eliminates millions of crimes
every year” “According to the FBI, states with “shall-issue” right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.”

“Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at
Florida State University, Gary Kleck, in Point
Blank: Gun Violence in America found that ‘robbery
and assault victims who used a gun to resist were
less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury
than those who used any other method of self-
protection or those who did not resist at all.’”

I sat in my chair utterly dumbfounded. The harsh words from Boatman, coupled with the mind- blowing statistics, had really opened my eyes. I’d always been fond of saying, “You’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.” It was pretty clear to me what side I was on.

Learn more about Living with Glocks.