Guns

Trump Releases His Plan for 2nd Amendment… Leaves Millions Furious

One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues. That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, after Trump released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

Advertisement – story continues below

In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.

Trump’s bold and fearless defense of the Second Amendment earned him the coveted endorsement of the National Rifle Association. His warning that Hillary Clinton wants to “abolish the Second Amendment” sounded the alarm to millions of Constitution-loving patriots who want their rights protected.

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment.

Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to help spread Donald Trump’s official policy position on the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms.

Do you agree with Donald Trump’s position? Scroll down to comment below!

Source

Guns

Second Amendment Foundation Sues Seattle Over Public Records Act Request

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on Wednesday sued the City of Seattle, alleging a violation of the state Public Records Act for refusing to disclose revenue data related to the city’s controversial “gun violence tax” that was adopted last year.

The complaint stems from a PRA request earlier this year by the senior editor ofTheGunMag.com (TGM), a print and online monthly magazine owned and operated by the foundation. He is also a plaintiff in the case.

In April, TGM filed a public records request, seeking information about the first-quarter revenue from the gun tax. That tax is being challenged in court by SAF, the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation, along with two local retail gun shops. They contend that the gun tax is really a gun control effort disguised as a tax in order to skirt Washington State’s 33-year-old state preemption law.

“When Seattle hastily adopted this tax last year,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “then-Council President Tim Burgess sold it as a means of raking in between $300,000 and $500,000 annually by taxing the sale of firearms and ammunition. But now the city is refusing to turn over revenue information on the flimsy grounds that it may violate the privacy of retail gun dealers in the city.”

Gottlieb also serves as TGM publisher. The magazine covers a variety of firearms-related news ranging from politics to firearms and equipment reviews. It is based in Buffalo, N.Y. with a Western Bureau at SAF’s headquarters in Bellevue, a city located on the east shore of Lake Washington opposite from Seattle.

The gun violence tax was set up to charge $25 on the sale of each firearm, plus five cents per round of centerfire ammunition and two cents per round of rimfire ammunition. It is very similar to a tax created in Cook County, Illinois with similar goals: to provide funding for intervention and gun violence education efforts.

When the city refused to divulge its first-quarter gun tax revenue, citing individual taxpayer confidentiality concerns, Senior Editor Dave Workman modified his request “to accommodate the city’s concerns about taxpayer privacy,” according to a Thursday morning SAF news release.

Julie Moore, communications director for the city’s Department of Finance and Administrative Services, responded in a July 14 e-mail to Workman that she had been “communicating with reporters on this same topic.”

The Seattle Times had earlier reported that the Outdoor Emporium, one of the two retailers involved in the gun tax lawsuit, had “paid about $21,000 in first-quarter gun and ammo taxes according to owner Mike Coombs.

In that e-mail to Workman, Moore explained, “The City’s position is we will not release any information about taxes collected/reported for the firearms and ammunition tax at this time due to the limited amount of information received to date and legal requirements for protecting taxpayer confidentiality.”

She also asserted that “Taxpayer information is exempt from public inspection” under the state law.

Workman maintains that “the citizens of Seattle and every gun owner in the state deserve to know whether the city’s revenue prediction was even remotely accurate, or way off base.” He said the case is “clearly a First Amendment issue.”

“The city simply cannot be allowed to adopt a tax on the exercise of a constitutional right and then stonewall the public and the press about that,” Gottlieb said.

The initial gun tax lawsuit was rejected in King County Superior Court, but SAF, NRA and NSSF appealed. Arguments in that case were originally scheduled later this month in Division I of the State Court of Appeals, but were moved back to November.

SAF is represented by Seattle attorneys Steven Fogg and David Edwards with Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner, Fogg & Moore. Fogg and Edwards also represent SAF, NRA and NSSF in their challenge of the Seattle gun tax. The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court.

Source

Guns

If Guns Are ‘Designed for Killing’, So Are These

In a discussion about gun control and gun rights, the one thing anti-gunners hate the most is the car analogy. Oh man, they hate it. They hate the car analogy the same way vampires hate bright lights, because it exposes them. They’ll try to shut down the conversation faster than Chase’s oversensitive fraud alerts shut down my debit card after making a purchase at Best Buy and then Bed Bath & Beyond.

Now, stay in a conversation long enough, and the anti-gunners will likely hit you with, “But guns were designed to kill.” Well cars weren’t designed to kill people, but they kill more people than guns do. And I don’t hear anyone advocating for an assault car ban. Cars are a vital part of our lives and if you live in California or Houston, it is your life.

But let’s face it: Cars are deadly. Period. Cars have killed scores and scores of people. A car took my cousin’s life when he was only in high school. Yet, I still get in my car every day with the understanding of what it was designed for and what it’s capable of. I approach the gun the same way; I understand what it initially may have been designed for and I’m fully aware of what it’s capable of: protecting my life and those I love.

Watch Colion Noir explore the car analogy and why guns are not inherently evil based on their design:

Source