Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced With Huge GOP Support

Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in the U.S. Senate today.

In a joint press release issued earlier today, the two senators announced the bill to allow “individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws, while abiding by that state’s laws.”

“This bill focuses on two of our country’s most fundamental constitutional protections– the Second Amendment’s right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the Tenth Amendment’s right of states to make laws best-suited for their residents,” said Sen. Cornyn. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation for law-abiding gun owners nationwide.”

What is interesting about this press release is the long list of Republican co-sponsors, which wasn’t the case before. They include the following U.S. Senators: John Barrasso (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Hoeven (R-ND), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John Kennedy (R-LA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), David Perdue (R-GA), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

It’s no surprise there aren’t Democrats co-sponsors.

The press release expands on what this legislation would set out to accomplish (key points are bolded):

Protecting Fundamental Constitutional Rights:

  • Allows law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while they are traveling or temporarily living away from home.
  • Allows individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to conceal carry in any other states that also allow concealed carry.
  • Treats state-issued concealed carry permits like drivers’ licenses where an individual can use their home-state license to drive in another state, but must abide by that other state’s speed limit or road laws.

Respecting State Sovereignty*:*

  • Does not establish national standards for concealed carry.
  • Does not provide for a national concealed carry permit.
  • Does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws. If under current law an individual is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under our bill.
  • Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.
  • Protects states’ rights by not mandating the right to concealed carry in places that do not allow the practice.

A Senate bill was previously introduced last Congressional session as with one in the House. Sadly, this bill won’t pass out of the House of Representatives given the Democrat control of that chamber during the new 116th Congressional session.

We’ll continue to monitor its progress here at The Resurgent.

Stop Comparing Trump to Communists. Just Stop.

Former Senator Jeff Flake made the comparison last year. Now it’s a Czech tennis star.

The Trump-Stalin comparisons have seriously got to stop. Like now.

Last year, I wrote here at The Resurgent about how asinine it was for former U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to compare President Trump to brutal dictator Josef Stalin. It wasn’t appropriate then, and it isn’t appropriate now. Here’s what I wrote on the matter then:

Trump doesn’t have a cozy relationship with the press nor does he manipulate them in a state-run fashion as Stalin did. Neither does he imprison, torture, or kill his political opponents like Stalin did. You may not like his governing style or brazen use of Twitter, but Trump’s no Stalin. Not in the slightest. Stop with this nonsense once and for all.

Most rational people—even those critical of Trump’s policies—find this comparison in poor taste and insulting to the memories of those oppressed and killed by Stalin. I’m one of those people. My maternal grandpa survived 18 months in one of Stalin’s gulags on the Russian-Finnish border. He was timid and scarred for life until his death in 1999 because of the torture he endured in that wretched place. Flake insults the memories of victims and survivors like my grandpa by insinuating Trump is like Stalin.

This time, Czech-born tennis player Martina Navratilova, who got scorched by her fellow Democrats for criticizing transgender people, is trying to redeem herself among her supporters with this tweet.

Martina Navratilova


Here is why trump’s lying is worse than the communist propaganda and lies- they did it because either they believed in the cause, or they were scared or they wanted a better life. trump is lying only and only for himself- his bank account and, most of all, his ego.

2,043 people are talking about this

Gabriella Hoffman

Navratilova should know better as someone who grew up in communist Czechoslovakia.

Bless her heart.

Virginia Gun Owners Should Worry About Governor Northam’s Gun Control Package

Earlier today, Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA)  announced his intention to promote a “reasonable” package of legislation aimed at “preventing gun violence” and “improving “the safety of Virginia’s citizens and communities” during the upcoming General Assembly session in Richmond, VA. Session will commence on January 9th.

“We lose too many Virginians each year to senseless gun violence, and it is time we take meaningful steps to protect the health and safety of our citizens,” said Governor Northam. “I look forward to opening a dialogue with the General Assembly on this legislative package of reasonable gun violence reforms, which appropriately balances Second Amendment Rights with public safety.”

The provisions included in this package are the following:

  • Establishing an Extreme Risk Protective Order
  • Reinstating the  previously enacted One Handgun a Month law;
  • Prohibiting individuals subject to final protective orders from possessing firearms under red flag laws;
  • Banning so-called “assault firearms”—largely semi-automatic in nature
  • Preventing children from accessing firearms
  • Requiring individuals to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement more quickly
  • Banning magazines exceeding 10 rounds


Virginia gun owners should contact their state lawmakers and attend Lobby Day on January 21st, 2019, to lobby their delegates and state senators to vote down this legislation.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Emulate FDR on Taxes to Fund Green New Deal

The new congresswoman from the Bronx believes this will fund the Green New Deal. She’s off-mark.

There are many issues awarding the newly-minted Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) too big of a platform before serving in Congress.

She’s the future of the Democrat Party, some observers declare, given her socialist chops. The new-found embrace of socialism by the Democrat Party isn’t so new. That party has toyed with socialism for decades; they are just more transparent about it now.

It can be strongly argued she hasn’t earned her stripes yet to be elevated to great heights. Who am I, a 27-year-old female, to say this? But I agree with former Missouri U.S. Senator Claire McCaskil (D-MO), a rarity I must say, that she’s hasn’t served in Congress long enough to be elevated.

McCaskill (D-MO), who was handily defeated by her successor Senator Josh Howley (R-MO), remarked that Ocasio-Cortez is a “bright and shiny new object” but cautioned she hopes Ocasio-Cortez “realizes that parts of the country that are rejecting the Democratic Party…need to hear how their work is going to be respected.”

It’s fair to criticize Ocasio-Cortez on her preposterous policy proposals like the Green New Deal and blunders like unemployment is low due to people having two jobs but not so much her dancing skills from her high school days.

What is fair game, however, is her complete and utter misunderstanding of economics. Case in point: her recent call for taxing up to 70 percent of high income earners who should pay “their fair share” fund outlandish proposals like a Green New Deal:

Embedded video

Jon Levine


On 60 minutes, @AOC calls for raising taxes up to “60 or 70 percent” for highest earners

“People are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes”

869 people are talking about this

“What is the problem with trying to push our technological capacities to the furthest extent possible?” Ocasio-Cortez asked. “There’s an element where yeah, people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes.”

During the 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper, he probed her about whether such a proposal makes her a radical, to which she replied in the affirmative—likening herself to fellow “radical” President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s. FDR famously taxed Americans at a 94% income tax rate and felt a kinship with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who also taxed and collected 90% of income for those he oppressed. I guess that’s a great radical to emulate.

Here’s a taste of FDR’s economic policies for your reading pleasure:

Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR’s top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR’s “excess profits” tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945….By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.

UCLA put out a 2004 study by economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian that found that FDR’s policies — including high taxation — prolonged the Depression by seven years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,” Ohanian said. “As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces*.”*

Giancarlo Sopo, a self-proclaimed Democrat with family who fled communist Cuba, sounded the alarm on the danger of his fellow embracing Ocasio-Cortez’s policies, which his family escaped. Sopo wrote:

Democratic socialism is a lot like the system my family fled, except its proponents promise to be nicer when seizing your business…Despite my working-class immigrant roots, I am concerned by the popularity of socialism within my party. On the night of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory in New York, I thought her use of the term was a misnomer. Then I began studying the views of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the rapidly growing national organization she belongs to, and was disturbed by what I learned.

Like those of yesteryear, today’s socialists believe the government should nationalize major industries, propose eliminating private ownership of companies, and reject profits. In other words, democratic socialism is a lot like the system my family fled, except its proponents promise to be nicer when seizing your business.

When I confronted some progressive friends about this, they initially dismissed my concerns. After sharing some articles with them, the conversation shifted to “they just want us to be more like the Nordic countries” and “they’re not like real socialists!” Both are reductionist, self-delusions to avoid confronting difficult truths.

The latter is a particularly absurd fallacy because it requires one to believe that adults who willfully join socialist organizations, sound like socialists and call themselves socialists are not what they claim to be.

Unbeknownst to Ocasio-Cortez and her acolytes, unleashing market-based economic policies globally has substantially reduced economic inequality here and abroad.

In 2015, the Huffington Post published a piece on how capitalism—not high taxation or nationalizing business—can reduce income equality.

The answer to fixing the deficit and fixing income inequality is innovation driven through capitalism. Many of the best ideas that work in anything are the non-linear strategies, or the non-obvious ways of getting things done. When the obvious doesn’t work, which it isn’t right now, it’s time to look at the problem in a non-linear fashion.

If you want to help balance the budget and reduce the federal deficit, instead of putting a gun to the head of the wealthy and forcing them to pay more in taxes, play to the vanity of large corporations and sell them the naming writes to streets, parks and other publicly held properties.

Even the New York Times argued income inequality was on the decline as recent as 2014. Moreover, the World Bank noted that although the population grew by about 2 billion, roughly 1.2 billion people moved up and out of extreme poverty. The more economically prosperous a country—especially when the wealth generators and highest income earners aren’t burdened by high taxes—the less income equality the world sees.

I implore my fellow Millennial, the newly-elected Congresswoman from New York, to not take cues from The Communist Manifesto on economic policies. High taxation and nationalization of industries doesn’t reduce economic inequality; it aids and abets it by lending itself to creating equal miserable outcomes.

President Trump Signs Bipartisan Modern Fish Act Into Law

This legislation was over two years in the making. This will simplify federal law with respect to recreational fishing.

The Modern Fish Act was signed into law on December 31st, 2018, by President Donald Trump.

Over 11 million Americans partake in recreational saltwater fishing—with the activity being heavily concentrated in the southeastern U.S.

In what is being celebrated as a victory for recreational fishing and boating, this law will be bring much-needed clarification and reforms to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. While the bill is not entirely perfect, various stakeholders agree this new law will clarify any confusion previously inset in the law and bring recreational fishing management into the 21st century.

The Modern Fish Act was passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate on December 17th, and by overwhelming approval in the House (350-11) on December 19th, 2018.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Gabriella Hoffman


The is now law thanks to @POTUS @realDonaldTrump’s signage. An incredible victory for recreational fishing in America before the new Congressional session begins. Press release c/o @sportfishpolicy

See Gabriella Hoffman’s other Tweets

In a press release issued by the Center for Sportfishing Policy and various stakeholders, they heralded the new law as a fix to the problem of regulating recreational fishing like commercial fishing. Anglers, boaters, and others vested in these industries long argued for distinctions to be made between between recreational and commercial fishing, especially in how they are regulated.

The law adds “more appropriate management tools for policymakers to use in managing federal recreational fisheries.”

“Millions of American families take part in saltwater recreational fishing and boating activities and support multi-billion dollar industries that generate hundreds of thousands of jobs in our country,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Sportfishing Policy. “Today, we are thankful for this important milestone for federal fisheries management and marine conservation, and we look forward to continuing to improve public access to our nation’s healthy fisheries.”

“This is historic for the recreational boating and fishing community, capping years of hard work to responsibly modernize recreational saltwater fisheries management,” said Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association. “The Modern Fish Act is a critical first-step solution towards establishing a framework for expanding access to recreational saltwater fishing, while ensuring conservation and sustainability remain top priorities in fisheries management. We thank President Trump and Congress for making the Modern Fish Act the law of the land and look forward to working with them in the coming years to advance policies that protect and promote recreational saltwater fishing.”

“The recreational fishing industry is grateful to see this legislation enacted,” said Glenn Hughes, president of the American Sportfishing Association. “We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, as well as NOAA Fisheries and the regional fishery management councils, to improve the management and conservation of our marine fisheries.”

“The Modern Fish Act signed by the President provides an opportunity for significant, positive change on behalf of millions of recreational anglers who enjoy fishing in federal waters,” said Jeff Crane, president of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. “We look forward to working with NOAA Fisheries, the regional fishery management councils and the states to fully implement the provisions of the bill and improve federal fisheries management for America’s saltwater anglers.”

“CCA is proud to be a part of this important coalition, and we are grateful to our champions in Congress who stood by us during the intense, sometimes contentious negotiations on this legislation,” said Patrick Murray, president of Coastal Conservation Association. “There is still work to be done, but this is a valuable first step. We are hopeful this opens the door to an ongoing discussion of tools and processes that can be developed to better manage recreational fisheries in federal waters in all regions of the United States.”

What is the Modern Fish Act?

Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018, or Modern Fish Act, is a bill that would accomplish the following if passed. Now that it’s law, it’ll set out to accomplish the following per Center for Sportfishing Policy’s press release:

  • Providing authority and direction to NOAA Fisheries to apply additional management tools more appropriate for recreational fishing, many of which are successfully implemented by state fisheries agencies (e.g., extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices of native communities);
  • Improving recreational harvest data collection by requiring federal managers to explore other data sources that have tremendous potential to improve the accuracy and timeliness of harvest estimates, such as state-driven programs and electronic reporting (e.g., through smartphone apps);
  • Requiring the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the process of mixed-use fishery allocation review by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Councils and report findings to Congress within one year of enactment of the Modern Fish Act, and
  • Requiring the National Academies of Sciences to complete a study and provide recommendations within two years of the enactment of the Modern Fish Act on limited access privilege programs (catch shares) including an assessment of the social, economic, and ecological effects of the program, considering each sector of a mixed-use fishery and related businesses, coastal communities, and the environment and an assessment of any impacts to stakeholders in a mixed-use fishery caused by a limited access privilege program. This study excludes the Pacific and North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Councils.

Prior to the Modern Fish Act being passed, data collection methods of saltwater fishing catches were Byzantine at best. For example, those who partook in the data collection process in sync with federal managers had to rely on landline phone surveys. Moreover, Draconian standards that harmed recreational fishing interests like cancelled seasons, reduced bag limits, and unnecessary restrictions were commonplace. This led to economic upheaval, job uncertainty, and endless headaches.

Anglers and boaters are optimistic the new law will prevent this from happening again.

Why was this needed?

This law was needed for several reasons.

The first being the need to recognize the impact recreational fishing has on our country economically and with respect to conservation efforts.

Much like hunting, fishing bolsters conservation efforts. Why not have laws that better reflect this too? Anglers, hunters, and shooting sports enthusiasts helped fund a minimum of 60 percent of conservation funding through excise taxes under the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good in the form of licenses, firearms, and tackle to be collected by the Interior Department to be distributed to state wildlife agencies for habitat and wildlife conservation efforts. Better management and science-based policies encouraged by the Modern Fish Act will bolster resources and fish species, not see an end to them.

The second reason for the Modern Fish Act was to bring recreational fishing management to the present day. ​The 1976 Magnuson-Stevens law set out to chart out the course of commercial fishing but never tackled recreational fishing adequately, and arguably, to its detriment.

Recognizing serious deficits in federal recreational fisheries management, a group of stakeholders came together in 2014 in the form of the Commission on Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Management, or the Morris-Deal Commission. The co-chairs of this commission were Johnny Morris (founder of Bass Pro Shops) and Scott Deal (president of Maverick Boat Group). They drafted a report titled “A Vision for Managing America’s Saltwater Recreational Fisheries” that laid the groundwork for many of the provisions and recommendations found in the Modern Fish Act.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) noted in a December 2018 report — the 11th Fisheries Economics of the United Statesreport — that in 2016, both commercial and recreational fishing generated over $212 billion in sales and contributed $100 billion to the country’s gross domestic product. It also noted that these two industries supported 1.7 million jobs across the country.

Here’s a breakdown of both industries’ economic impact by the numbers from the same report:

9.8 million saltwater anglers took recreational fishing trips in 2016 — a 9 percent increase in anglers from 2015. Saltwater recreational fishing supported 472,000 jobs, generated $68 billion in sales impacts across the economy, and contributed $39 billion to the GDP, all metrics that increased 7 percent from 2015 measurements.

The commercial fishing and seafood industry — harvesters, processors, dealers, wholesalers, and retailers — supported 1.2 million jobs in 2016, generating $144 billion in sales impacts and adding $61 billion to the GDP. The domestic harvest produced $53 billion in sales, up 2 percent from 2015, and supported 711,000 jobs across the entire American economy. Sea scallops had the largest revenue increase in 2016, bringing in $46 million in landings revenue.

​Recreational anglers, much like commercial anglers, play a central role in our economy. It was time the law recognized their contributions and importance too.

How does it help recreational anglers?

While groups like Audobon Society accused this law of going “against all common sense and ignores science by weakening the requirement on how many fish are caught each year” and forecasted overfishing if it were to pass, recreational anglers and boaters don’t see it that way. It’ll empower them to further practice science-based, sustainable fishing practices ever further.

Recreational anglers are conservationists who abide by catch limits, seasons, and practice sustainable fishing methods. To suggest otherwise, like Audobon, radical environmentalists, and some in commercial interests have put it, is simply false. There are bad actors who disrespect fishing rules across the country, but they are in the minority and shouldn’t be lumped in with responsible recreational anglers. The majority of anglers —myself included—are law-abiding and don’t want to see our fisheries decimated. If fish were to be harvested unsustainably and with little regard to conservation methods, all of us — fish and humans — would suffer. No angler wants to see this happen, let alone any recreational angler.

Preservation and overfishing are extremes that should never become the norm in this country. Many anglers believe in catch-and-release and partake in reasonable put-and-take practices that don’t undermine fishing populations. Their contributions, like those in commercial fishing, are important to sustain this country and conservation efforts.

Anglers felt extremely marginalized under the Obama administration as the former president routinely sided with radical environmentalists keen on seeing the end of the fishing industry. One ESPN columnist noted in 2010 that Obama’s ocean policies could kill sport fishing altogether.

During the Obama administration, fisheries management councils heavily placed limits on what recreational saltwater anglers could harvest in the Gulf of Mexico—particularly on red snapper (where seasons went from three days to 46 days under the Trump administration).

In a March 2018 article in USA Today, the author noted how President Trump and his secretaries in Commerce and Interior sought to restore recreational fishing privileges in previously off-limit territories once available to sport fishing. Here are some of the measures passed after the new administration came to power:

  • Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross personally approved a plan in June extending the recreational fishing season for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico from three to 42 days even though his own agency warned it would lead to significant overfishing.
  • In July, Ross again intervened. This time, he sided with New Jersey to loosen restrictions on the harvest of summer flounder, known as fluke,over the objections of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Commission Chair Douglas Grout said he was “very much concerned about the short and long‐term implications of the Secretary’s decision on interstate fisheries management.”
  • In the fall, the South Atlantic  Fishery Management Council, working closely with the Trump administration, allowed recreational snapper fishing from Jupiter Inlet Florida to the North Carolina-Virginia border for the first time since 2014. Kellie Ralston, Florida Fishery Policy Director of the American Sportfishing Association, called it “a victory” for anglers while environmentalists called it a “risky move” given that red snapper in the South Atlantic is still recovering.

As a result of the Modern Fish Act’s passage into law, recreational fishing will get a boost, see increasing participation numbers, and continue to bolster our GDP. It’s encouraging to see Congress and the Trump administration pass landmark legislation that adds to and not subtracts from recreational fishing.

Thank Goodness Actor Chris Pratt Isn’t the Only A-Lister Who Goes Hunting

There’s a lot of brouhaha over actor Chris Pratt hunting. He’s not the only A-lister to harvest his meat.

As part of an unusual series gawking over famous actors bearing the first name Chris, actor Chris Pratt is very “problematic” and the most “divisive among the Chrises.”

In “How to love Chris Pratt without hating yourself,” TV Guide senior editor Kaitlin Thomas said Pratt the actor is better than the off-screen Pratt. How so? Here’s her reasoning:

When you take a deeper look at Pratt the man and not necessarily Pratt the actor, some of the shine wears off. Although he can be as funny offscreen as he is on — his recurring “What’s My Snack” videos on Instagram are almost always delightful — it’s impossible to ignore some problematic aspects of his life offscreen.

But wait—there’s more! She continues:

Adding fuel to this particular fire is the fact that Pratt, an avid hunter who has often spoken about his love of hunting, currently raises lambs on his farm*. The enthusiastic tone he took when speaking about “eating fresh farm-to-table lamb” in an* Instagram video earlier this year — “They are the happiest lambs on the planet, they are so sweet and then one day they wake up dead and they’re in my freezer” — sparked backlash from a number of fans, and not just those who are vegetarians or vegans. The next day, Pratt posted a photo of several pieces of fresh lamb meat and even compared said lamb’s death to something as easy or trivial as “unplugging a TV.”

Pratt is a hunter? And he raises his own lamb to eat? The horror, horror! Hollywood is shocked to learn that the actor, who comes from more humble beginnings, is like a good portion of the country. Millions of people go hunting in this country. Countless Americans, including A-listers, consume farm-raised, organic meat—but are far removed from the process.

And moreover, Pratt’s blue collar roots are ghastly, apparently:

The idea that Pratt doesn’t see himself — though he may come from a working-class family and spends most of his time on a farm, he’s also a successful, straight white man at the heart of two major film franchises — as being represented in television or film is ridiculous, as is the idea that working-class America isn’t well represented in Hollywood.

The “Jurassic World” star and former “Parks and Recreation” regular isn’t the only A-lister who harvests his own meat ethically. Plenty of other Tinseltown favorites go hunting.

Scott Eastwood, the son of Clint Eastwood who is making a name for himself in Hollywood on his own right, is an avid hunter too.

He’s pals with bowhunter Cameron Hanes and spoke to Men’s Journal about his love of the Great Outdoors—and his foray into hunting— in May 2017:

How did your love for the outdoors begin?

For a while I lived with my mother in Hawaii, so I have always loved being around the water. Then I moved to be with my father, and he was very much into fishing when I was younger. Some of my first memories of him are around fishing for trout in Northern California. My father was actually a state parks commissioner after he was mayor. I like to think I’m following his footsteps in that respect as well. That is why I am so into public lands issues, because they were a big part of my childhood.

More recently you got into bow hunting?

I picked it up a few years ago, but before now I went off and on. I’ve started to get into it more now and I recently got a new Hoyt. I am most excited to go on some bow hunting trips with Cameron Hanes. That guy is one of the most badass bow hunters of our time. I have been on a few hunts since then.

What do you like about it?

I think it is hunting on its highest level. People don’t realize you may go a whole season and not shoot a single thing. There is a lot of discipline involved. It’s very challenging because of how close you have to get. I think it’s the hardest sport we have.

Do you know who else goes hunting? Canadian punk rock singer Avril LavigneAerosmith’s Joe Perrymodel Rosie Huntington, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Plus former NBA star Shaq O’NeillKurt Russell, and reportedly Eva Longoria are known to hunt and process their own wild game. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” actress Eliza Dushku apparently loves elk hunting, too. Nick Offerman likes the wild game Chris Pratt harvested for him, as well.

Hollywood is likely full of more closeted hunters. Why do people, including the aforementioned A-listers, hunt? To enjoy the Great Outdoors, to get organic meat, to help fund conservation, and teach values.

It’s refreshing to see this. Eat that, TV Guide.

University of Nevada-Reno is Discontinuing Its Successful Division I Rifle Team

The sport will instead be replaced by cross country come fall 2019.

Is the NCAA ridding Division I rifle teams due to politics? It appears the gun control movement’s efforts are targeting campus gun groups and high school programs.

The latest casualty is University of Nevada at Reno’s Wolf Pack rifle team. The Facebook page says this decision by the athletic department gives a “whole new meaning to How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” This decision is also turning heads since the rifle program has won more NCAA championships than any other sport at the university.

Here’s an email, posted on Facebook, by the school’s athletic director to alumni of the rifle program:

A message from the Athletic director to the Alumni.

From: Doug Knuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 12:51:02 PM
To: Doug Knuth
Subject: Wolf Pack Athletics News

Dear Wolf Pack Rifle Team Alumni:

Earlier today I met with the members of the rifle team to share some tough news. After much consideration and evaluation, we made a decision regarding the alignment of our athletic department sport sponsorship with the Mountain West Conference. This decision involves adding a MWC sponsored sport – men’s cross country – while also discontinuing the sponsorship of a non-MWC sport – rifle.

We will continue to support the team through the end of their season and will provide academic support for each of the students through the duration of their degree completion plan. The university will start an ASUN sponsored club rifle team to provide an opportunity for current and future students to participate in the sport.

This is sad news and my heart hurts for each of the talented students on our current rifle team, for coach Harvey who has dedicated more than two decades of his life to the team and for all the rifle team alumni who represented the university with honor during their time on the team. Please keep coach Harvey and the team in mind at this difficult time.


Doug Knuth

In a statement by the team’s manager, here’s why they are shutting down operations of one of the few remaining competitive rifle teams in the country:

Gabriella Hoffman


Wow, @unevadareno is discontinuing its Wolf Pack Rifle Team—as of December 15, 2018. It was one of few remaining NCAA Division I rifle teams left in nation.

This is an official statement from Colby Sakumoto, UN-Reno Rifle Team’s Manager. 

See Gabriella Hoffman’s other Tweets

According to the team’s Facebook page, the program has active since the 1900’s and is currently comprised of mostly females.

Per an official university announcement dated December 15th, the Reno campus is scrubbing the rifle program for a cross country team. It will fund the rifle program through the end of season. Here’s their statement:

The University of Nevada athletics department announced today that it will discontinue its sponsorship of rifle as an intercollegiate program following the 2018-19 season, and the Wolf Pack will add men’s cross country as an official sport as part of the Mountain West Conference and NCAA beginning in the fall of 2019.

The moves aim to strengthen the Wolf Pack’s alignment within the Mountain West Conference as the institution continues to grow and evolve in its seventh year in the league. The Mountain West is an elite-level conference for men’s distance running as four MW schools finished among the top 18 in final rankings by the United States Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association this year.

Despite the rifle program’s success, the athletic department adds the shrinking presence of Division I rifle teams is justification to nix it altogether:

The Wolf Pack also has historical success as a rifle program, but the sport has struggled to maintain its place within the NCAA as only 23 Division I programs currently sponsor the sport. Of those 23, only one (the Air Force Academy) is in the Mountain West and only three are located west of the Rocky Mountains. In total, fewer than 30 institutions across all NCAA divisions continue to sponsor the sport, and six are service academies (Army, Navy, Air Force and the Coast Guard) or military-related institutions (The Citadel and Virginia Military Institute).

“These are not easy decisions, and we’ve gone to great lengths to examine, identify and chart the best course of action for Nevada athletics,” said athletics director Doug Knuth. “Our department is forever thankful for the service and dedication of Fred Harvey, our rifle coach of 23 years and a longtime University employee, as well as the many distinguished student-athletes who competed for our rifle program over the years.”

The university had planned for a new state-of-the-art range, but plans are up in the air now with this decision. It was planned to build a 33,000 square feet facility. The Facility was described as the following:

This world class shooting facility open to the public and public safety training, shall accommodate 20 positions of Air Rifle and Air Pistol range and will be a multi-purpose space and accommodate 20 archery positions. The facility will also accommodate a range with 27 positions for small bore and tactical hand guns. Other features will include meeting and training rooms, group gathering rooms and a kitchen. Special areas features include three overlapping trap and skeet ranges with the opportunity for one set up to meet the International Shooting requirements. Also provided for the shot gun enthusiast will be a sporting clay course. The facility will be located adjacent to the current Public Safety Training Facility and will be utilized by law enforcement, accommodating 25 outdoor shooting positions and a 100 yard rifle range.

Competing in Division I rifle teams allows aspiring Olympians to build up their skillset for the big leagues. These programs also teach gun safety and responsible firearms use. With this update, there are 22 remaining NCAA Division I rifle programs left in the country. Will they be next?

We’ll continue to monitor the situation here at The Resurgent.

DC City Council Implements More Gun Control, Red Flag Law

This won’t deter criminals—just penalize law-abiding gun owners, who are increasingly scarce in Washington, D.C.

It will be increasingly harder for law-abiding gun owners to possess certain gun accessories in the District of Columbia.

The newly-enacted Firearms Safety Omnibus Amendment Act, largely supported by Ward 6 Councilman Charles Allen, is calling for “stronger gun laws” to be witnessed—including increased penalties for those in possession extended magazine clips, for those in possession of bump stocks, and the implementation of the controversial and dangerous red flag law—which recently resulted in the tragic death of an Anne Arundel, Maryland, man.

When enacted, this red flag law in D.C. will allow “family members, physicians, officers and others” to file a petition to have firearms removed from individuals, largely family members, they believe are a danger to themselves or others. Moreover, red flag laws give more authority to judges to certify the petition for removal of firearms within hours of a request being filed. This law has been rightfully criticized for incurring Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment right violations.

Here’s more on their justification for this provision, which will certainly alarm civil rights advocates:

“It gives a process through the courts where that gun can be removed temporarily to prevent them from doing harm to themselves or to others,” explained Allen.

He also said the red flag law could exempt someone from criminal punishment through an immunity provision if they are found to possess a gun illegally.

D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham was critical of the immunity provision in a letter sent to the council recently, saying it will create an environment more accepting of illegal guns.

Newsham said in the letter, “by expanding the immunity provision to include felons, fugitives from justice, or anyone with a domestic violence conviction, the legislation will undermine efforts to protect the community and other potential victims of violence.”

“If that gun was used in a crime, immunity is gone,” said Allen responding to the chief’s concerns. “If they aren’t allowed to have a gun because they are under court supervision, they are prohibited – no immunity.”

“This is a very narrow, narrow piece that is the barrier between someone making a phone call because they’re trying to weigh, do I think they are going to do harm or do I want to have them get a criminal consequence? And we want to get the gun out of their hands,” said Allen.

Like other examples of gun control measures, this will absolutely do nothing to deter violent crime in the nation’s capital—which rated as the _ most dangerous city in the country. This will only penalize law-abiding gun owners, who already have a difficult time in the district.

Washington, D.C. recently became a shall-issue territory—meaning the city council couldn’t legally restrict concealed carry applicants from applying and exercising their rights. As of November 2018, there was a 1,440% percent increase in carry permit holders since last year’s landmark ruling in the District’s Circuit Courts of Appeals, where now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh previously sat on. Daily Caller also reports that prior to the ruling, only 123 D.C. residents had carry permits. That number, as confirmed by Metropolitan Police Department, has increased to 1,896 total concealed carry permits issued by them this year.

Guns and Ammo magazine ranked Washington, D.C. as the 47th worst place for gun owners of all 50 states and the District of Columbia—just behind California. Their report assessed each state using the following criteria: Right to Carry (RTC), access to “Black Rifles”, the states’ use-of-force laws (i.e., Castle Doctrine or CD), the prohibition of items regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and a catch-all Miscellaneous (MISC) column.

Per the recently launched FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, Washington, D.C. was rated the 44th most violent city in the U.S. It last held the 27th spot. Hate crimes are reportedly up 62 percent. D.C.’s 2017 violent crime rate was 6, 584 per its population of 693,972—with 116 homicides.

This D.C. bill will likely be challenged by gun groups for its numerous violations of individual rights.

The author of this story consulted Ward 6 Councilman Charles Allen’s Republican challenger, Michael Bekesha, during the 2018 election cycle.