there is a sense of defiance apparent among gun owners across America. Having just returned from The NRA Convention in Houston Texas.I can report that the organization has now passed the 5 million mark. Gun sales are going through the roof and frantic attempts to pass anti gun legislation have failed. The mood at Houston was buoyant. over 86,000 .attendees heard from politicians ,gun owners and law enforcement officers. We have won the battle but not the war.The war will be long and the anti constitutional left wing ,assisted by the main stream media will continue to push the ban all guns agenda. They will do so under the guise of keeping us safe,and ensuring no one is suggesting banning guns, The problem is that we know the truth, we see the continued draconian gun laws being passed in those States unlucky enough to be controlled by progressive democrats. Those States include those with the highest murder rates ,California Illinois ,and Washington DC. The latter tops the gun crime rate in the nation. Chicago has the highest murder rate, the lowest detection rate and the most stringent gun laws. The evidence is overwhelming. These politicians are directly responsible for the death rate in their States. The fact that they still get elected is mystifying but they do. The mid term elections next year will give the only opportunity to protect the second amendment and push back. We need to not only defeat the progressive Democratic caucus, we must totally decimate them. Glenn beck put it well at Houston when he pointed out that in Texas in 1836 Col William Travis drew a line in the sand and said here we stand and hear we fight . Who stands with me. Well 86,000 NRA members have stepped over the line. The next few months will be very interesting.

Well the Election has come and gone,Not the outcome that gun owners were looking for,but is that true? Gun ownership is not confined to the Republican Party, or the Independents So many Democrat gun owners must have also voted for the President. So the question is why. The Republican base state that Obama is anti gun and cite examples of his anti gun voting record . Obama on the other hand insists he is a defender of the second amendment and has no plans to alter it. He did however state he intends to seek a re-introduction of the Assault weapons ban. Unfortunately whether Obama's is or is not anti gun is a mute point at present. He is the president for the next 4 years. It is true that no attempts were made to legislate against firearms ownership in the first Obama term.But there are risks. The first of which is the possibility that he may need to appoint one or more supreme court judges who may change the meaning and interpretation of the Second Amendment.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 80s is one candidate who may retire, However she is a Left wing liberal and replacing her with a judge with similar views would not alter the balance of the Court.And there is no certainty that she or any of the judges will retire. Secondly there is the pressure from the left,notably the Brady Group who will press for tighter legislation This they may well do but will have to contend with the make up of Congress. Both the House and notably the Senate have stated in open letters to the president that they will under no circumstances sign any legislation that in any way infringes the right to keep and bear arms. So the situation may not be as dire as the right predict. Time will tell, at any rate the new administration has a lot more on its plate, with Fiscal Cliff, The re-emergence of Al Queada and massive debt and unemployment. With mid terms due in 2014, can Obama really afford to take on the american gun owners. Steve C

The NRA-ILAs Chris Cox recently did an interview with Mitt Romney,on his viwes on gun rights and the Second Amendment. worth checking out. http://www.nraila.org/about-nra-ila/director%27s-archive/one-on-one-with-governor-mitt-romney.aspx?s=one-on-one-with-governor-mitt-romney&st=&ps=&goback=.gde_47497_member_161067521

Well we are well into election year, and after the primaries, infighting accusation and counter accusation, we have emerged with 2 very different candidates. NOW BOTH PARTY CONVENTIONS ARE OVER WE HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO ASSESS EACH PARTY'S VIEW. PARTICULARLY ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Now I will not re-hash both policies here but I will state that The Republican position is pro gun and the Democratic pro regulation. Gun owners of course come from both party's and have different ideas on what,and what does not, constitute infringement. In the UK the total gun ban was proceeded by a gun registration ,a ban on semi auto Rifles and a ban on high capacity magazines. Mitt Romney states that he will enforce existing laws and roll back anti gun legislation , Of course promises are easy to make and ,once elected, easy to ignore. If elected Romney will need to hold true to these promises to avoid losing a second term.

California continues to oppose the right to keep and bear arms

On June the 2nd after a 10 year fight the 9th 9th circuit appeals court in California finally ruled in favour of a modified gun ban at Gun shows in California. its decision in Nordyke v. King, upholding an Alameda County, California gun control ordinance regulating gun shows at the county fairgrounds. The case first originated more than a decade ago when gun show promoters Russell and Sallie Nordyke filed a Second Amendment challenge against the county's 1999 ban on the possession of firearms on county owned property, a law enacted primarily to prevent any guns from being sold at the fairgrounds. The Nordykes' suit didn't really pick up steam until 2008, however, when the U.S. Supreme issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and ruled definitively that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, not a collective one, to keep and bear arms. First the State tried to push the case that the 2nd Amendment was a federal amendment and did not apply to States. This was shot down in 2008 by the McDonald Heller decision Faced with defeat the county modified their ban to allow gun show sales provided the guns were unloaded and certain other safety measures were followed.
This was a partial victory for gun control freaks, but the 2nd Amendment is still under more threat in California than anywhere else in the USA. It will remain so until the likes of Boxer and Fienstien are voted out and common sense takes over.

Proposed shotgun ban

regarding blog posts concerning a proposed shotgun import ban, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ solicitation of public comments about this issue.
While this outrageous proposal goes to show the Obama administration’s anti-gun agenda, it should be put into perspective. Firstly the proposal comment period  has well expired .the original proposal of April 2011.called for discussion . The NRA-ILA submitted numerous objections to the new law  and the law was officially de-funded in November 2011. In short it is not going to happen. The scaremongering is due to right wing political commentators spinning the truth. Yes Conservative right wingers are as adept as their left wing counterparts in spreading false rumors. This is an election year so all is fair in love and war, Remember that truth is always the first casualty of war. The proposal does show the Obama administration is still anti gun and anti second amendment. 

Kentucky UK University loses 2a case as predicted.

As I have been predicting for several months now, during our CCDW courses,  the University of Kentucky lost an important case
A reminder of the facts, for those who missed them .In April 2009. Michael Mitchell an anesthesia technician at UK medical center was reported to a supervisor after a co worker overheard him talking about guns.
Michell was interviewed and his locker searched,without result. In an effort to clarify the situation Mitchell told campus police that he did own a gun being a CCDW holder, but it was locked in his vehicle in a parking lot 1/4 mile away at Commonwealth stadium.
He was then taken to his car, his gun was illegally seized by the UK police and the university subsequently fired him from his job. It was clear to all but the troglodytes that run UK ,that these actions were against both State and federal law.
With the aid of KC3 Mitchell appealed through to the supreme court of Kentucky.
The court ruled as follows .
We conclude that Mitchells discharge was contrary to a fundamental and well defined public  Policy
ie the right to keep and bear arms as evidenced by the Kentucky Revised Statute, We further conclude that an explicit legislative statement prohibited Mitchell 's discharge .And that the reason for his discharge was his exercise of a right conferred conferred by a well -established legislative enactments. Therefore UK was not entitled to judgement.
In plain English this means The UK ignored the law,had no legal authority to fire Mitchell and did so anyhow.
Now they will have to pay the penalty. I congratulate KC3 and the Supreme Court. This was a battle we had to win ,here in our own backyard. Another victory for common sense.