This is why I think public education needs to go.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Governor Scott signed the bill into law today. The NRA immediately filed a lawsuit alleging the infringement of the 2nd Amendment rights of people between the ages of 18-21.

You and I were definitely on the same page on this, but I must admit that the NRA filed the lawsuit even faster than I expected. Then again, I can understand them wanting to strike while the iron was hot before the weekend and not wait until next week.

I haven't read the suit yet, but I suspect there will be an injunction on that provision of the law until the court case is decided.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Governor Scott signed the bill into law today. The NRA immediately filed a lawsuit alleging the infringement of the 2nd Amendment rights of people between the ages of 18-21.

You and I were definitely on the same page on this, but I must admit that the NRA filed the lawsuit even faster than I expected. Then again, I can understand them wanting to strike while the iron was hot before the weekend and not wait until next week.

I haven't read the suit yet, but I suspect there will be an injunction on that provision of the law until the court case is decided.

I just don't see how it can be upheld. Complete denial of an explicit fundamental Constitutional right...that has to be the evaluated under strict scrutiny standard, and I'm having a hard time figuring out how they can make out the case that it is narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means of serving the governmental interest. The law simply abolishes the 2nd amendment for everyone under 21, without regard to any objective criteria. The NRA makes a great point that the law is particularly offensive to women particularly because women between the ages of 18-21 commit an extremely low rate of gun crime.

I will be following this one closely, but it seems to me it will take some real liberal legal gymnastics to uphold that part of the law.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
I will be following this one closely, but it seems to me it will take some real liberal legal gymnastics to uphold that part of the law.

Not for four of the SCOTUS judges. They'll be back to creating the law again rather than interpreting it. Let's hope the other five judges opt to adhere to the actual constitution when rendering their decision.

I know in most cases I am preaching to the choir here but I posted this on social media to some replies about taking it out on Scott and Republican legislators in the midterms...risking overusing this phrase, politics is chess, not checkers. Even with the bill in effect, 18 to 20 year olds can still own and use firearms, even handguns, under Florida law. They just wouldn't be able to buy them from a retail dealer unless they are LE or military. Gifts and private transfers would still be doable. With that said, don't think for a minute that the legislators that supported this law and the governor didn't anticipate that the age provision would be challenged in court. It will allow for precedent to be established for the entire country on what is Constitutional and what is not as far as age is concerned, ultimately at the Supreme Court level, which will lean even more toward conservative once Kennedy leaves in the early summer and Trump gets to appoint another conservative. I also much rather have Scott as a senator than Nelson. In the mean time, there will probably be an injunction to suspend the enforcement of this provision until the court decision comes down. The other provisions of the law will have some positive effects to safety, background checks, etc. Take a deep breath and enjoy the political victory.

With the law being 21 to purchase a handgun, I believe that the second was still protected as an 18-20 year old could still purchase a long gun. I'd be interested to see if this provision of the law stands.

quote:

"organizers told officials they had contacted Baltimore leaders because “There needs to be more diversity there for the march.”

Too many white kids from Florida?

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I know in most cases I am preaching to the choir here but I posted this on social media to some replies about taking it out on Scott and Republican legislators in the midterms...risking overusing this phrase, politics is chess, not checkers. Even with the bill in effect, 18 to 20 year olds can still own and use firearms, even handguns, under Florida law. They just wouldn't be able to buy them from a retail dealer unless they are LE or military. Gifts and private transfers would still be doable. With that said, don't think for a minute that the legislators that supported this law and the governor didn't anticipate that the age provision would be challenged in court. It will allow for precedent to be established for the entire country on what is Constitutional and what is not as far as age is concerned, ultimately at the Supreme Court level, which will lean even more toward conservative once Kennedy leaves in the early summer and Trump gets to appoint another conservative. I also much rather have Scott as a senator than Nelson. In the mean time, there will probably be an injunction to suspend the enforcement of this provision until the court decision comes down. The other provisions of the law will have some positive effects to safety, background checks, etc. Take a deep breath and enjoy the political victory.

My friend, we have different definitions of victory.

What exactly did we (law abiding citizens) get from this bill? Answer- The standard deal we have got in reference to gun control since I have been alive. Nothing, and more to the point it is like dealing with the mob "We could have taken $30,000, but we compromised and only took $20,000". Yeah, there's that word. Compromise. You hear it a lot along with other "commonsense" buzzwords. That is the definition of their compromise. We give, they take. A "conversation" on gun control? We listen, they lecture. "Common sense gun safety regulation"? Yeah, that is stripping our Rights from us.

The basis of your post is based upon the old deal of "compromise" and their idea of a "conversation". And it is unacceptable.

We should not budge ONE INCH without getting something in return. Not ONE INCH. Yeah, 18-20 year olds can still possess weapons as they always could. But, do you honestly think that the grabbers next intention isn't more "compromise" to "close that loophole"?

This isn't a victory for gun owners. It is a shame. A shame that we have become so whipped that we think it was a good deal. A victory.

What did we actually get that wasn't just limited extortion?

The only thing the hoplophobes ever compromise on is how much of your rights they're willing to take away this time. We never get anything back for our efforts, just a little less chipped away, and even before the ink is dry they're gearing up for the next push.

quote:

This isn't a victory for gun owners. It is a shame. A shame that we have become so whipped that we think it was a good deal. A victory

I agree. In 1950, you could walk into most hardware stores and buy a shotgun or rifle. Pay and leave with it. Simple. It looked like The Second Amendment.

The only question is whether we were so much over a barrel that this deal was the least damage we could hope to sustain.

But it is a fight we have been losing inches at a time for almost 100 years.

1950?

I bought my first rifle at Coast-to-Coast hardware store in 1976.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
The only question is whether we were so much over a barrel that this deal was the least damage we could hope to sustain.

We weren't and aren't "over a barrel". We caved to the minority, and the so called "gun owners" that don't believe that we should be able to possess this or that. (None of those "gun owners" are in the current company). And remember that minority is heavily funded by the gun control pimps. We've been tricked into thinking and believing that we "gotta do something". If that was true, each and every state would be jumping on this bandwagon of fear and opportunity. Some are. Most aren't. Bills are being filed, but they are filed by the same people in the same places each year, and each year they go down in flames.

We don't have to "do something". Why? Because criminals don't follow laws. If we wanted to agree to "do something", I would have made murder with an AR-15 illegal. Or make if you are between 18-21 and you commit murder with an AR-15 illegal. That is "doing something" for feel good reasons, and will have just as much effect on violent crime as what the new FL laws did.

And I do agree with some others. Those in the FL republican party that caved have to go. You can't be wishy washy with our Rights, and represent the people.

Not one inch, from now on. If you want something, you give us something. No more "compromise" with lunatics who think that lunatics who commit horrific crimes will be thwarted with more laws.

As long as they think that they have us over a barrel, despite us not doing anything wrong, we will continue to lose. #notoneinch

This AP article has been out for a few days, I have not seen it posted. Surprise, surprise, another hit piece blaming the NRA...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...ls-article-1.3865035

AP finds the NRA gave $7 million to hundreds of schools

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Friday, March 9, 2018, 5:59 PM

The National Rifle Association has dramatically increased its funding to schools in recent years amid a national debate over guns and school violence, an Associated Press analysis of tax records has found. But few say they plan to give up the money in the aftermath of the latest mass shooting.

The AP analysis of the NRA Foundation's public tax records finds that about 500 schools received more than $7.3 million from 2010 through 2016, mostly through competitive grants meant to promote shooting sports. The grants have gone to an array of school programs, including the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, rifle teams, hunting safety courses and agriculture clubs.

In some ways, the grant distribution reflects the nation's deep political divide over guns. Nearly three-quarters of the schools that received grants are in counties that voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 election, while a quarter are in counties that voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to the AP analysis. Most are in medium-sized counties or rural areas, with few near major cities.

California received the most in school grants, more than $1 million, while Florida was a close second.

Florida's Broward County school district is believed to be the first to stop accepting NRA money after a gunman killed 17 people at one of its schools Feb. 14. The teen charged in the shooting had been on a school rifle team that received NRA funding. School officials announced the change Tuesday but declined to comment further.

Denver Public Schools followed on Thursday, saying it won't pursue NRA grants in the future and will turn down several that were to be awarded this year. But officials in many other districts say they have no plans to back away.

"Whatever I think of the NRA, they're providing legitimate educational services," said Billy Townsend, a school board member in Florida's Polk County district, whose JROTC programs received $33,000, primarily to buy air rifles. "If the NRA wanted to provide air rifles for our ROTC folks in the future, I wouldn't have a problem with that."

The grants awarded to schools are just a small share of the $61 million the NRA Foundation has given to a variety of local groups since 2010. But it has grown rapidly, increasing nearly fourfold from 2010 to 2014 in what some opponents say is a thinly veiled attempt to recruit the next generation of NRA members.

The NRA Foundation did not return calls seeking comment.

Annual reports from the pro-gun group say its grant program was started in 1992 and raises money through local Friends of NRA chapters. It says half the proceeds from local fundraisers go to local grants and half goes to the national organization. Tax records show roughly $19 million in grants going to the group's Virginia headquarters in 2015 and in 2016.

Besides schools, other typical recipients include 4-H groups, which have received $12.2 million since 2010, Boy Scout troops and councils, which received $4 million, and private gun clubs. Overall, about half the grants go to programs directed at youth.

Grant funding to schools rose sharply in the years after the 2012 shooting at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School, fueled in part by a new grant program the NRA unrolled to help schools make safety improvements. Three districts received safety grants totaling $189,000 in 2014, tax records show, but none appears to have been awarded since then.

Nearly half of the 773 overall school grants have gone to JROTC programs, which put students through a basic military curriculum and offer an array of small competitive clubs, like the rifle team at Broward's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. But JROTC leaders say few students ultimately enlist in the military, and the primary goal is to teach students skills like discipline and leadership.

"The safety that we're teaching, the good citizenship that we're teaching here, those are the things you don't hear about," said Gunnery Sgt. Jim Flores, a JROTC instructor at Cibola High School in Albuquerque, New Mexico. "The majority of people walk out of here awesome young men and women, respectful of authority, things of that nature. Not so much little tin soldiers."

In some parts of the country, shooting clubs draw the same sort of following as any school sport. Bill Nolte, superintendent of the Haywood County district in North Carolina, says he still shows up at school sportsman's club tourneys even though his son graduated. Starting in sixth grade, students can join the clubs to compete in shooting events, archery and orienteering. For many families, Nolte said, it's just like any other weekend sports event.

"You take your lawn chair and your coffee in a thermos, and do much like you would do if you were going to a youth soccer or travel basketball or baseball event," Nolte said, adding that NRA grants have helped buy firearms and ammunition and cover other costs that otherwise would fall to the parents. "We are constantly seeking revenue for sportsman's club just like we do for cheerleading and track."

Districts that tallied the largest sums of NRA money typically used it for JROTC programs, including $126,000 given to Albuquerque schools, $126,000 to Broward County and $125,000 to Anchorage, Alaska. The most awarded to a single district was $291,000, given to Roseville schools near Sacramento, California, which say much of the funding went toward ammunition and gear for trap-shooting teams.

Grants are often provided as equipment rather than cash, with schools given rifles, ammunition, safety gear and updates to shooting ranges. Nationally, about $1.3 million was provided as cash, while $6 million was provided through equipment, training and other costs.

The data does not include grants smaller than $5,000 — those do not need to be individually tracked in tax filings.

Ron Severson, superintendent of the Roseville Joint Union High School District, says no parents have raised concerns over the funding, but administrators may reconsider it in the wake of the Florida shooting.

"After we get through this spring, we will probably take some time to assess how to move forward," he said.

School board members in some districts said they didn't know about the grants. Donna Corbett, a Democrat on the school board in southern Indiana's New Albany-Floyd County School Corporation, said she never heard about $65,000 that went to a JROTC program at one of the high schools. Corbett said she plans to raise the issue with her board but feels conflicted about it.

"I am not a big NRA fan, but I also realize that ROTC is a good program," she said. "I'm not sure I would be willing to pull it to the detriment of the kids and their programs."

While some states received dozens of school grants, about 20 got only a few or none at all. In Massachusetts, for example, known for its strict gun laws, no schools have received NRA grants since 2010, tax records show. Terry Ryan, a school board member in the Westford district northwest of Boston, says a local teacher considered applying for a grant in 2014, but the district ultimately didn't pursue it.

"We were not interested in any way, shape or form endorsing the NRA or its philosophy," Ryan said in an interview.

By contrast, parent Jana Cox in Louisiana's Caddo Parish says few in the area would have a problem with the $24,000 in NRA grants that have gone to school JROTC programs.

"Everybody here has guns," Cox said. "This is north Louisiana. You've got a lot of hunters and you've got a lot of guns."

Without NRA grants, some programs would struggle to stay afloat, officials say. For JROTC groups, which receive most of their money from their respective military branches, the grants have become more important as federal budgets have been cut. Programs at some high schools in Virginia, Missouri and other states have folded in recent years amid the pinch.

Lt. Colonel Ralph Ingles, head of the JROTC program at Albuquerque schools, says the Florida shooting has sparked a conversation about NRA grants, but he doesn't anticipate cutting ties anytime soon.

"I don't see anybody really backing down," he said. "I think it's just ingrained that we're going to continue to move forward in a positive direction."

The age provision was discussed not as a victory in and of itself, but as a step towards a greater victory in the courts on that point and more overall support for those that supported it. I explained and stand by my interpretation until I see otherwise.

That provision aside now, where exactly in the law did we as gun owners give up anything? The bump-stocks were already DOA even before this occurred. Politicians as a whole were just waiting for the right time to address that issue and even Trump himself was going to do it so it was a moot point. There was no other compromise on our part.

No "assault weapon" ban, no magazine capacity limits, etc., they were defeated. Yeah, I call those a political and Constitutional victory. What is important now is to support the NRA more than ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
The age provision was discussed not as a victory in and of itself, but as a step towards a greater victory in the courts on that point and more overall support for those that supported it. I explained and stand by my interpretation until I see otherwise.

That provision aside now, where exactly in the law did we as gun owners give up anything? The bump-stocks were already DOA even before this occurred. Politicians as a whole were just waiting for the right time to address that issue and even Trump himself was going to do it so it was a moot point. There was no other compromise on our part.

No "assault weapon" ban, no magazine capacity limits, etc. defeated. Yeah, I call those a political and Constitutional victory. What is important now is to support the NRA more than ever.

What is important now is to stop this idea that somehow the only rob a little from us, and it somehow is a "win".

What did gun owners get? That is the greater question. This business that somehow it is acceptable to take and not give is what got us here. And you have accepted defeat as being inevitable by your posts, with the false hope that the courts will rule a certain way, which could easily, and probably go hard the other way.

When gun owners, and fake gun owners, gun companies give their seal of approval, that opens the door for the next time. And the next time. And the next time. Do you really think that they aren't waiting for people like you to cave again to give up the next piece? Do you really think they are done. Not one more inch. They need to be taught that if they want something, they are going to have to give something. And that something has to be something for all involved, and it has to be painful for the competition. They need to be taught that bringing up new gun control is going to be very painful for them. Right now, folks like you think that last attempt was a "WIN" for the Second Amendment. Really? I can't wrap my mind around it. NOT ONE INCH. Want something? Then you gotta give up something. That is how compromise works. And that is how we have to vote. We can't accept warm milk politicians any longer. We can't accept those in our number not understanding how this was a "WIN" when it wasn't. Simply only being extorted out of a few Rights, while them graciously leaving others alone (until the next time) is not a win.

From here on out, if they want to come to the table to talk state or national gun control issues, they had better be prepared to give up a lot that they don't want to. And each of us need to demand that from our elected officials, instead of saying "Phew, they only took Rights away from that group, that is a win". That is what got us the '94 ban because bird hunters didn't give two shits about black rifles. And we can't accept this. We have to have one unified voice that says NOT ONE MORE INCH.

This was no win. It was a slow steady erosion of the Rights of American citizens, that other citizens signed off on as a win.

If we do not go on the offensive now, we probably only have another 20 years left. It is time to pick a side.

#notoneinch

I told you guys that they were going to do this, consequences be damned. Dead kids, AR15s and emotion-driven behavior, utterly lacking in logic.
By your measure, no one could ever look at how an ongoing battle is unfolding and say "This part of the battlefield is lost", even though it is apparent that it is lost. It's treason to state the apparent, or so it seems.

Platitudes and hashtags mean nothing. What are you able to do to stop this? Call your congressman? Look at Florida. Republicans voted for this shit. Dead kids, savvy? Emotion, not logic.
You propose to plop down in the midst of a mob of wild-eyed, frothing madmen and reason with them, and for me or anyone else to say that this portion of the battlefield is lost- well, that is the real insanity in all of this, right?

Our Canadian Justice Minister is adding new gun control measures to address, get this, an increase in GANG violence (mostly committed with stolen handguns).
Fully admits it’s gang violence, and yet turns around and increases restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

Don’t fall into the gun control trap. It is a true slippery slope, and will only move in one direction.

"... the legislation also allocated almost “$400 million toward mental health counseling, hiring more school resource officers, adding metal detectors and bullet-resistant windows in schools and increasing child welfare investigators."

It also improves the background check system to help avoid lawful gun owners getting blamed for the failures of the current system. Last but not least it will allow certain people to be armed in the schools. Having two daughters in high school down here, these other provisions are important to my wife and I as tax payers and parents.

You may have not seen my prior posts, but for the record, I did in fact contact the Governor and all the senate members throughout the process and more than once about the fact that my family and I did not support the raising of the age provision and that they needed to eliminate "gun free zones" for CWP holders among other things. I do however recognize the potential of the age issue working to all Americans' favor in the long run for all the reasons already mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by Surefire:
Don’t fall into the gun control trap. It is a true slippery slope, and will only move in one direction.

What does that even mean? Do you honestly think- for even one second- that anyone around here wants more gun control laws?

I want to know what's wrong with looking at how all of this is playing out and saying that there is no way that we were going to get through this without some new legislation.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Funny stuff.
A congressional candidate running on a platform of more gun control laws, illegally creates a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and post the video on Facebook.

Showing the need for more laws by breaking the law.
Very clever of her.


VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WVEC) -- The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is investigating congressional candidate Karen Mallard after she posted a video on Facebook that shows her cutting apart an AR-15 rifle.

She's not the only one.

The local news showed a video of a guy doing the same thing.
My response was, that's nice, if you really want to destroy it, how about running that saw through the lower!