Posted today on Guns and Ammo site,,, 

The # rating of states for their ranks on gun laws and rights,,, with an explanation  

Great article, couldn't get it too post so go check it out,, 

Arizona came in #1,, Wonderful KY #5  and my home state of JOISEY #49,,,, 

have to get out of here!!!!!!!!!!!!

Family’s Home Raided over Facebook Photo of Child’s Rifle

Mar 19, 2013
By Todd Starnes

New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.

“Someone called family services about the photo,” said Evan Nappen, an attorney representing Shawn Moore. “It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids.”

Moore was not arrested or charged.

Click link at end of article to see photo that led to police raid.

“The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline,” spokesperson Kristen Brown said. “We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry.”

Moore, of Carneys Point, is a certified firearms instructor for the National Rifle Association, an NRA range safety officer and a New Jersey hunter education instructor.

He recently posted a photograph of his son wearing camouflage and holding his new .22 rifle. The child has a New Jersey hunting license and recently passed the state’s hunter safety course.

“If you look at the picture, his finger isn’t even on the trigger – which is proper,” Nappen told Fox News. “If half of Hollywood could follow that rule we’d be thankful.”

Brown said their role is not to go out and search Facebook for photos of children holding weapons.

“In general our role is to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect,” she said.

The family’s trouble started Saturday night when Moore received an urgent text message from his wife. The Carneys Point Police Dept. and the New Jersey Dept. of Children and Families had raided their home.

Moore immediately called Nappen and rushed home to find officers demanding to check his guns and his gun safe.

Instead, he handed the cell phone to one of the officers – so they could speak with Nappen.

“If you have a warrant, you’re coming in,” Nappen told the officers. “If you don’t, then you’re not. That’s what privacy is all about.”

With his attorney on speaker phone, Moore instructed the officers to leave his home.

“I was told I was being unreasonable and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe,” Moore wrote on the Delaware Open Carry website. “They told me they were going to get a search warrant. I told them to go ahead.”


Moore took this photo of police outside his home.
Nappen told Fox News the police wanted to inventory his firearms.

“”We said no way, it’s not happening,” he said. “This is a guy who is completely credentialed and his son is also credentialed.”

The attorney said police eventually left and never returned.

“He has a Fourth Amendment right and he’s not going to give up his Fourth Amendment right or his Second Amendment right,” he said. “They didn’t have a warrant – so see you later.”

Brown told Fox News that it’s “prudent and wise to protect children.”

“In many cases we may follow up on something and we don’t find any problems and the case is closed,” she said.

But the person who reported the false allegations of abuse cannot be held liable, she noted.

“You can’t be prosecuted for making an allegation of child abuse –even if it’s false,” she said.

Nappen said what happened to the Moore family should serve as a warning to gun owners across the nation.

“To make someone go through this because he posted a picture of his son with a .22 rifle on his Facebook page is pretty outrageous,” he said. “Does that mean that anyone who posts a picture like that has to consent to a home inspection and a gun inspection? I don’t think so.”

Nappen said they are considering taking legal action against the state for the late night raid.

Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity say you need to get Todd’s latest book – Dispatches From Bitter America. Click here to get your copy!

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top...ilds-rifle.html

If They Come for Your Guns

Please everyone read this in it's entirety.
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? 
This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly. I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists. God help us all if it ever does happen.
PS: Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author: Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan, grew up in Indiana, Illinois, and Texas, and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan. Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan. His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name of "D.H. Garrison, Jr." 
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights. 
About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights. If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable. 
Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution. Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt. I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. 
In simple terms, just because most (voting)Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.
Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution? "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." This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here. For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson. "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." -George Washington. 
"The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms". -Samuel Adams.
I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement. We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple. A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us. Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment. It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. 
What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over. If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights. Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. 
I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play. I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is you right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution. Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list. I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave. If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2013 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference. This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed.
If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos. I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this. I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I cannot tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery. You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react. I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so. For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side. Are you willing to die to take my guns? --------------------------------- Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning. 

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford

Such a nice thing that a little "rack" can bring us all back to life , here on Deerspace!!!! 

Nice seeing everyone jump back on again and catch up!!!!! 

See you all on the "rack" trail!!!

DEAR ARCHERY & SHOOTING SPORTS FRIENDS: 

This is VERY important…HELP MAKE THIS INFORMATION GO viral…. 
The Old Town Archery Center just received a notice, WITHOUT ADVANCED NOTICE OR QUESTION from THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY THAT OUR BUSINESS & LIABILITY INSURANCE WOULD NOT BE RENEWED… 

We have had family/business insurance with the Traveler’s in some way or form since 1971….without a single clain….of any kind! 

The following notice was received by OLD TOWN ARCHERY CENTER ON FEBRUARY 23, 2013: 

“YOUR BUSINESS GENERATES REVENUE FROM THE MANUFACTING, SALES, SERVICE AND/OR DISTRIBUTION OF ARCHERY EQUIPMENT OR RELATED PRODUCTS. YOUR POLICY IS BEING NON-RENEWED EFFECTIVE 03/30/13 SINCE THESE PRODUCTS PRESENT A SEVERE BODILY INJURY EXPOSURE INCLUDING POSSIBLE DEATH.” 

This policy was first issued to us in 2005, without any claim ever being made! The company we purchased the policy from was recommended to us by the Archery Trade Association (ATA)! 

This is a spin-off of the firearms industry’s persecution as well! Archery equipment no also being considered a “weapon”. It appears that “THE TRAVELERS GROUP” IS CANCELLING INSURANCE FOR ANY & ALL ARCHERY RELATED BUSINESSES AS WELL AS FIREARMS…AND RELATED SPORTS. 

WE AT OLD TOWN ARCHERY now encourage all friends, associates, business to consider cancelling ANY & ALL insurance policies (life, car, home, business, etc….etc…) with THER TRAVELERS GROUP of insurance companies. 

More companies will follow the Lead of the TRAVELERS, the country’s largest insurance company. 

Please send a message to The TRAVELERS NOW! We understand from an insider friend in the industry, that individuals will be next, if you have any form of hunting license, participate in target archery, or other shooting sports…. 

We have NO DOUBT that the current Government trend is behind this….especially in view of the fact that Archery Sports are some of the SAFEST activities! 

We must have insurance coverage in order to maintain our commercial lease for Old Town Archery…we will have options…but all will cost significantly more! 

Read Todd’s open letter to Obama, below. 

    Mr. President, 

    As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives: 

    Universal Background Checks 

    First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens. 

    Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it. 

    Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time. 

    It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted. 

    Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons 

    The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke. 

    Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed. 

    10-Round Limit for Magazines 

    Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all. 
    Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?” 

    Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on? 

    Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose. 

    Selling to Criminals 

    Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.” 

    Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program? 

    Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops —  because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market. 

    Criminals and murderers will always find a way. 

    Critical Examination 

    Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others. 

    Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why? 

    You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual: 

    First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok. 

    Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line. 

    This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance. 

    Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals. 

    Respectfully, 

    Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

TO:       NRA Members and Friends 


FROM:  Marion P. Hammer 
              USF Executive Director 
              NRA Past President 

On February 13, 2013, the NRA sent a letter to members of  the U.S. Congress concerning the White House proposals to require background checks for all firearms purchases. 

The letter lays out facts that every concerned citizen needs to know -- just the facts, no fluff, no hyperbole, just simple, straight forward facts. 

To view a copy of the letter from the NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox to the U.S. Congress regarding so-called “universal background checks” click here.    

THESE ARE THE FACTS — READ THEM — LEARN THEM — SHARE THEM 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TALKING POINTS 

NRA and NICS 
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this day.  At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant.  The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 

Dealers 
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL).  All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur. 

Private Sales 
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. 

Mental Health Records and NICS 
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2] 

Gun Shows 
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows. 

A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.” 
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3] 

Prosecutions 
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616.  But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4] 

“Universal Background Checks” 
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different.   A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government.  In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives. 

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.[5]  In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

GOA exposes massive gun-grab scheme in Senate: here’s how to STOP IT

Gun Owners of America makes it easy for you to get involved in the CRUCIAL issue:

It’s time to talk strategy — that of the anti-gunners, and of ours, as well.

Within the next three weeks, we expect Senator Patrick Leahy’s Senate Judiciary Committee will move a national gun registry bill to the Senate floor.

The Judiciary Committee bill will probably not contain the Feinstein semi-auto gun ban, and it may or may not have a magazine ban which would render most of the nation’s guns unusable, at least for the foreseeable future.

But the Judiciary Committee bill will almost certainly ban all private sales of firearms — or any private exchange where the gun buyer does not first get permission from the FBI.  And it’s this background check requirement that will inevitably set up a framework for a universal gun registry.

The Leahy bill will most certainly have a “gun trafficking” section that is based on other legislation (S. 54) that he’s already introduced.  This would turn everyone who lives under repressive state gun laws into a federal “prohibited person,” as well.  Hence, if your state requires a license to possess a gun, you would also become a federal prohibited person.  Oh, and the Leahy bill would also send you to prison for 20 years for unknowingly selling a firearm to a marijuana user.  So, the next time you’re thinking of selling a gun, all we can say is:  “Are you felling lucky?”

Anyway, here’s Harry Reid’s strategy:  He has at least eleven Democratic senators running for reelection in pro-gun states in 2014 — and they don’t want to SEEM anti-gun.  The eleven Democratic senators in pro-gun states are:  Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mark Udall (Colorado), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Al Franken (Minnesota), Max Baucus (Montana), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Tom Udall (New Mexico), Kay Hagan (North Carolina), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), and Mark Warner (Virginia).

All of these Democrats will vote for the national gun registry and gun licensure.  And, in exchange, Reid will allow them to vote against the Feinstein gun ban, which will be the sacrificial lamb to the more important gun control which Democrats really want.

But aside from the fact that the Democratic “non-controversial” gun control bill is, in many ways, worse than the “controversial” bills, there are two additional problems.

First, if gun control gets to the Senate floor, all bets are off.  There are dozens of horrific gun control proposals that could easily be added on the floor.

For example, a Lautenberg amendment — supposedly intended to “combat terrorism” — would allow Obama to ban guns for every gun activist in America just by putting their names on a secret “watch list.”

Second, if gun control makes it to a House-Senate conference committee, all bets are off.  The conference could report a bill which contains a Feinstein amendment, even though neither the House nor the Senate voted for that language.  The conference report is unamendable, and, under the recent anti-gun changes in the Senate rules, there is no way to keep a Senate-passed bill out of the hands of an anti-gun conference.

THE SOLUTION TO ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS

First, we cannot allow one word of gun control to move to the Senate floor.  NOT ONE WORD. 

Second, the way we keep gun control from reaching the Senate floor is to defeat the “motion to proceed” to the Leahy Bill.  (The “motion to proceed” is usually offered by the Senate Majority Leader — in this case Harry Reid — to bring up a bill for consideration.  The Senate quite often brings up legislation under a Unanimous Consent agreement, but if there is not unanimity, the “motion to proceed” can usually be debated, if not filibustered.)

ACTION:  Urge your Senators to vote against the Motion to Proceed to any gun control bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  This bill cannot be allowed to get to the Senate floor, or Harry Reid will then have a free-hand to start his “let’s make a deal” game.

CLICK THROUGH to use GOA’s system to send a message to your Senators.

Better yet, call them or write them directly yourself.