“Even though I knew of private gun ownership when I first came to the United States, there was still an emotional disconnect between seeing others own guns and realizing that my parents could. For people from even less RKBA friendly countries than the USSR, such as China, Koreas and Japan, that emotional disconnect may be even greater. So take your immigrant friends shooting. Teach them the safety, and the tactics, and the political history behind the Second Amendment and the preexisting human right it affirms.”
— Oleg Volk
As always, Oleg is an inspiration.
A combination of talk show and podcast, CN Live will feature the hard-hitting, honest commentary Colion is known for, along with interviews with all of the industry’s top newsmakers as well as political figures, media personalities, athletes, entertainers and more. CN Live launches Monday, October 17, and will air live Monday through Thursday at 5 p.m. ET/4 p.m. CT on NRATV. CN Live represents the next generation of coverage about the issues of freedom that matter most and promises to be the place to stay up-to-date on current events, Second Amendment news, firearm products, gun culture, pop culture and whatever else Mr. Colion Noir finds interesting. Viewers can join in the conversation live using #CNLive. The first five minutes of each show can also be viewed on Facebook Live at /COLIONNOIR. To watch the entire live show tune into NRATV, available for free at NRATV.com and on Apple TV, Roku, Google Chrome Cast and Amazon Fire. You can also see Colion on his flagship episodic show, NOIR, sponsored by Mossberg with ammo provided by Federal Premium on NRATV. Look for new episodes on Tuesdays.
The law of averages predicts that at some time in the future, perhaps as soon as 2017, the Democratic Party will once again control the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. When that happens, the next Democratic president — be it Hillary Clinton or someone else — will sign into law a sweeping, foreign-style gun ban.
The legislation has already been written. H.R. 4269 would enact a national, permanent ban on the manufacture and sale of so-called “assault weapons” and all firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The bill, introduced last December, already has149 Democratic co-sponsors (218 are needed to pass the House).
H.R. 4269 would ban all AR-15 and AK-type rifles and all civilian versions of military rifles produced anywhere in the word within the past 60 years or so. The bill would also ban all parts kits, stripped receivers, “bump-fire” stocks, thumbhole stocks, trigger cranks, so-called “compliant” rifles, and “any… characteristic that can function as a [pistol] grip.” Law enforcement is exempt from the bill’s provisions.
H.R. 4269 is not a “kick down the door and confiscate ‘em” bill. Existing rifles and magazines are “grandfathered” (but the transfer of existing magazines is permanently prohibited). Gun banners know that it is literally impossible to perform a door-to-door gun confiscation in a nation of 300 million people, and that any attempt to do so would certainly be met with violence. Consequently, they have pre-empted the “Come and take it” crowd by employing a long-term strategy. Once the manufacture and sale of certain weapons is prohibited, it is only a matter of time before the legislation would be amended to outlaw the transfer of “grandfathered” rifles as well as magazines, thus enacting a de facto confiscation within a generation.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/the_coming_national_gun_ban__and_how_the_states_can_resist.html
From the article:
In late June, MSNBC correspondent Aaron McCarthy interviewed an agent with the National Security Agency, one William Hunsaker, and questioned him about that agency’s hyper-focus on those gun owners:
McCarthy: Mr. Hunsaker, if I were to make the statement: most gun owners within the United States receive more aggressive surveillance from the government than non-gun owners, would that statement be true or false?
Hunsaker: That would be a true statement. The NSA has been collecting and compiling records of gun ownership for the purpose of protective surveillance since 1999.
Hunsaker: It’s nothing more than collecting and utilizing data. It’s not always a popular stance. However, the truth is that individuals with guns inflict harm on other individuals. We understand that not all individuals who own firearms have intentions to inflict malice on others. However, many times we have the ability to identify those who do. Additionally, we are able to gain insights into gun owners’ mental stability through intensive and strategic surveillance.
McCarthy: Who is on your high-priority surveillance list?
Hunsaker: Have you applied for or purchased a firearm in the United States between the years of 1999 and 2016? If so, then you are on the list.
Read the entire article: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/24190-feds-scanning-license-plates-of-gun-show-attendees
In a quintuple victory for Second Amendment rights, a federal judge last week overturned a ban on carrying handguns in public, a ban on so-called assault weapons, caliber restrictions for long guns, a $1,000 tax on handguns, and a requirement that all guns be registered with the government. “The individual right to armed self-defense in case of confrontation…cannot be regulated into oblivion,” declared Ramona Manglona, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
In her September 28 ruling, Manglona notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (which includes the Northern Mariana Islands) has said “there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon in public.” But the 9th Circuit has not addressed the broader question of whether the right to armed self-defense recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller extends beyond the home. Adopting the historical analysis and logic that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit applied when it overturned an Illinois ban on carrying guns in 2012, Manglona concludes that “the Second Amendment, based on its plain language, the history described in Heller I, and common sense, must protect a right to armed self-defense in public.” While “the right of armed self-defense, including in public, is subject to traditional limitations,” she says, “it is not subject to elimination.” Since the law enforced by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) “completely destroys that right,” Manglona writes, “it is unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny applied, and the Court must strike it down.”
Read the rest of the article: http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/05/federal-judge-overturns-ban-on-openly-ca