Retreat On Wall Funding And Bump Stock Ban May Cause Cracks In Trump’s Base

Donald Trump boasted during the 2016 campaign that “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters.” Until now that has been true. No matter what Trump has done or what revelations have come out his supporters have stuck with him. This week may have been the breaking point for some Trump supporters, however.

Core Trump supporters have a few issues that rise above all others. For many, guns and immigration top the list and this week saw President Trump take positions on both issues that are unpopular with many members of his base.

First, Trump, who many supporters lauded as a fighter, surrendered to Democrats on a temporary funding bill for the government. As recently as last week, Trump had vowed not to sign a new spending bill that did not include $5 billion in funding for his border wall. On Tuesday, however, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders retreated from that position, telling reporters, “At the end of the day, we don’t want to shut down the government. We want to shut down the border.”

Trump supporters almost universally support the border wall, even to the point of launching a GoFundMe campaign that has so far raised $1 million for the project. Many were also strongly in favor of a government shutdown over funding for the wall. The White House acquiesence to a temporary funding measure will be viewed as a defeat by many members of the base.

Even worse for Trump is the long-awaited bump stock ban. The Second Amendment is considered untouchable by many Trump supporters and conservatives yet President Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to outlaw the rapid-fire devices and require Americans who own them to either turn them in or destroy them within 90 days. There is no provision for compensating bump stock owners for their devices which could cost hundreds of dollars. Worse, the ATF under President Obama told Congress that the government did not have the authority under current law to ban the devices.

The Trump Administration’s ban has brought criticism from many Second Amendment supporters. Jerry Henry, executive director of Georgia Carry, told the Atlanta Journal, “When you start banning accessories to firearms, then you really get on a slippery slope. It doesn’t change the function of the firearm, and therefore it shouldn’t be banned.”

“It is nibbling away at our second amendment rights,” Janelle Westrom, owner of Davenport Guns, told Iowa’s TV-6. “I don’t like the decision but, myself personally, it doesn’t affect me,” she added.

“I don’t care about bump stocks,” tweeted Sean Davis, Trump supporter and a founder of The Federalist, “but I care a great deal about lawless government power grabs, based on utter lies, that will instantly turn innocent people who did nothing wrong into felons and be used to justify nationwide confiscation regimes.”

Davis also noted in a separate tweet, “Under the new rule, an individual who illegally brings a loaded rifle into an elementary school will get a shorter maximum prison sentence (5 years) than a woman who has a bump stock in her garage but doesn’t own any actual guns (10 years).”

On the other hand, some people do support the bump stock ban. “I have to agree with the ban,” Geoff Wilson of Hendersonville, N.C. told WLOS TV.. “Turn them in, get rid of them. And like I said, I’m a full supporter of the Second Amendment.”

Another supporter of the ban is Mary Margaret Oliver, a Democrat state representative who introduced a similar bill in the Georgia General Assembly earlier this year. Rep. Oliver’s bill went nowhere but she told the AJC, “I’m delighted that I can say that President Trump did something that makes me happy.”

While some Trump supporters will rally around the president and deny that the bump stock ban is an infringement of the Second Amendment and an unconstitutional overreach of executive authority, for others Trump’s moves will be a breach of trust. Where Trump’s past statements in support of gun control can be overlooked by many, the bump stock ban initiated by the president without getting anything in exchange cannot be explained away as a bargaining ploy or mere rhetoric.

Trump’s support won’t evaporate overnight but this week may mark a turning point with his base. Issuing an ultimatum on wall funding to Democrats and then backing down smacks of weakness while the bump stock ban calls into question Trump’s core principles. Supporters who have not doubted the president up to this point may now start to do so. Trump’s base won’t vote Democrat but they may stay home. This may be the president’s Fifth Avenue moment.

Donald Trump Just Restricted The Second Amendment More Than Barack Obama

Although he is still endorsed by the NRA, President Trump just presided over the biggest federal restriction on the Second Amendment since President Clinton signed the assault weapons ban in 1994. On Tuesday, the Trump Administration officially banned bump stocks in a regulatory move that bypassed Congress.

In a scenario reminiscent of the worst fears of gun owners, the new federal regulation makes it illegal to possess a bump stock. Any person who possesses one of the rapid-fire devices must either surrender it to authorities or destroy it when the new regulation takes effect. Per the Associated Press, the deadline to comply will be 90 days after the regulation is published in the Federal Register. That is expected to happen Friday, meaning that bump stock owners will have until late March to decide how to dispose of their property.

The regulation was signed into law by President Trump’s newly appointed Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. The president had directed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns” last February. CNN reported in November after the election that the regulation had been finalized and would be issued soon.

The bump stock ban seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The devices, which use the recoil of the gun to help the shooter pull the trigger rapidly, are not typically used in crimes. The exception was the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre in which the murderer used a rifle with a bump stock to kill 59 people. Bump stocks make it difficult to aim and shoot accurately, but concert-goers in Las Vegas were packed into such a tight area that aiming was hardly necessary.

Ironically, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms under Barack Obama determined that a regulatory bump stock ban was not legal under current law. In 2013, the assistant director of the ATF wrote to a member of Congress that bump stocks “are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes” and were therefore legal. The letter stated that the devices did “not provide an automatic action — requiring instead continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot” and were therefore not subject to the Federal Firearms Act. In the expert opinion of the ATF, a bump stock ban would require Congress to pass new legislation.

Now, five years later, the Trump Administration is arguing that the Obama-era ATF was wrong and that bump stocks are in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. The laws of physics have not changed over the past five years. Guns with bump stocks still require separate trigger pulls to fire multiple times. Neither has the Federal Firearms Act changed. The only thing that has changed is the Trump Administration’s interpretation of the law.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, told the AP that the organization was “disappointed” by the ban. Baker said that the regulation “fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans” who bought the devices before the Trump Administration deemed them to be illegal and argued that current owners should be grandfathered in with an amnesty.

The Trump bump stock ban contains many of the worst aspects of liberal gun control plans and sets a dangerous precedent. First, the ban is arbitrary and will have little, if any, effect on public safety. The rationale for the ban, that no one really needs a bump stock, is the same rationale that many liberals use to advocate banning AR-15s and guns in general. Proponents say that bump stocks are a gun accessory and not protected by the Second Amendment, but the same argument could be made for many other items including scopes, reloading equipment, magazines, and ammunition.

More disturbing is that the Trump Administration is bypassing Congress to invoke the ban in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. Current law defines a “machine gun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” However, as the ATF pointed out in 2013, that does not describe a bump stock’s operation. Reading the law to mean something that it does not say is usually strongly criticized by conservatives.

The new regulation goes further in restricting the Second Amendment than anything successfully enacted by Barack Obama, who was notoriously anti-gun. The Republican Congress killed Obama’s proposed gun restrictions limiting the former president to issuing a series of Executive Orders that fell short of banning any weapon or accessory.

President Trump’s bump stock ban is a blueprint that future anti-gun Democrat presidents can use to bypass Congress and further restrict the Second Amendment. In addition to being an anti-gun measure, the move is a flagrant abuse of executive authority.

There is no word on whether the NRA will endorse President Trump for reelection.

Report: Trump To Issue Order Banning Bump Stocks

Now that the election is over, President Trump is reportedly ready to issue his long-promised ban on bump stocks.

You may remember that the president ordered then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.” Trump added that he expected the regulations to be finalize soon. That was in February.

Now CNN is reporting that the moment of truth has finally arrived. In March, the Department of Justice submitted a proposed rule that would reinterpret an Obama-era regulatory interpretation that allowed the devices. In 2013, the assistant director of the ATF wrote to Congress that bump stocks were not subject to the Federal Firearms Act because they required “continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot.”

Per CNN’s report, the ban will be announced within a few days. As part of the rule change, owners of bump stocks would be required to either turn in or discard their devices.

A senior DOJ official told CNN, “Bump stocks turn semiautomatic guns into illegal machine guns. This final rule sends a clear message: Illegal guns have no place in a law-and-order society, and we will continue to vigorously enforce the law to keep these illegal weapons off the street.”

Democrats support a bump stock ban but argue that an executive ban would be subject to legal challenges in the courts. Republicans typically oppose new gun controls, but many have urged the Justice Department to enact a bureaucratic ban, arguing that bump stocks are a gun accessory that is not protected by the Second Amendment.

Shockingly, even the National Rifle Association has called for increased regulation of the devices. In a statement released after the Las Vegas shooting in 2017, the NRA said, “Devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.” The Las Vegas massacre appears to be the only crime of note that has been committed with a bump stock.

Along with the obvious questions of what the Administration hopes to gain by banning a device that has almost no history of use in violent crimes and whether it is constitutional for a president to unilaterally decide to reinterpret existing law to accomplish his dubious policy goal, another question should haunt Second Amendment activists as they prepare to bid their bump stocks goodbye:

Isn’t ammunition also a firearms accessory?

Originally published Nov. 29, 2018

YETI Responds to NRA Backlash in Email to Dealers, Ambassadors

Per an email issued to YETI ambassadors and dealers, the embattled company says they still support conservation and 2A.

According to Austrailian bowhunter Adam Greentree, YETI ambassadors received this email explaining how YETI Coolers amended its legacy vendor program—which now excludes NRA Foundation and also Safari Club International (both of whom are closely tied to the NRA).

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bh5aIIYHIbR/?utm_source=ig_embed

In the email blast, YETI says they continue to “actively support hunters, anglers, and the broader hunting community.” They also stressed they “believe in the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States.” They claim their restructuring of their legacy vendor program is a business decision, and not a political one—stressing they still support conservation.

Not sure if YETI will issue a public release explaining why they ditched their legacy vendor programs with NRA-affiliated groups NRA Foundation and Safari Club International. Did they increase ties with more lefty conservation groups? Did they do a massive sweep of conservation groups of all political stripes? Time with tell.

However, a lot of damage has been done by YETI. We shall see what pans out.

UPDATE I: One YETI ambassador, Rachel Athila, claims the company made a statement, yet there’s no word it’s from HQ themselves:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10160249072495704&set=a.10151570907345704&type=3&theater

​UPDATE II: YETI put out an official statement in response to the media attention it’s been getting

​https://www.facebook.com/Yeti/photos/a.115182725943/10156095306920944/?type=3&theater

YETI

YouTube Places Dangerous Target on Platform’s Pro-Gun Users

A newly updated policy on firearms on the popular video sharing platform is sure to backfire.

YouTube, a subsidiary of Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc., announced a new policy that’ll adversely affect channels for those who hold pro-Second Amendment views. These changes will impact the many individuals, companies, and advocacy groups who rely on YouTube to reach their large audiences.

Per Bloomberg, YouTube announced it’ll ban videos that promote the sale of firearms or bump stocks. Additionally, it’ll ban videos instructing people on how to assemble firearms. These changes are set to go into effect in April. They offered this revision to their firearms policy:

YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that:

Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items. These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds).

Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.

Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation had this to say about the move:

“We suspect it will be interpreted to block much more content than the stated goal of firearms and certain accessory sales,” the foundation said in a statement. “We see the real potential for the blocking of educational content that serves instructional, skill-building and even safety purposes. Much like Facebook, YouTube now acts as a virtual public square. The exercise of what amounts to censorship, then, can legitimately be viewed as the stifling of commercial free speech.”

This change in policy even led one channel to suggest they’ll move to PornHub, which is a bit drastic if you ask me. Don’t resort to desperate measures, guys.

Undoubtedly, YouTube continues to land itself in hot water with this embrace of targeted censorship against those aren’t liberal or anti-gun. The platform has also censored videos from PragerU, which led them to file suit against Googlelast fall. In January 2017, YouTube removed a channel belonging to Cornell University law professor and Legal Insurrection founder William Jacobson. The egregious examples of censorship against conservatives are innumerable. While YouTube is a private company, them taking the wrong side on the gun debate will cost them countless users.

Prior to these swift changes, some so-called conservative YouTube stars were raking in big money from the platform. A change to its monetization rules has led to many in conservative and firearms circles to find other avenues to rake in money. Demonetization has specifically targeted conservative and independent video makers.

Will a viable alternative to YouTube arise? Time will tell. There are some variants to choose from, but a serious competitor to the popular video sharing site has yet to emerge. Perhaps a legitimate competitor can arise amidst this problem—one that doesn’t lead gun enthusiasts to PornHub.

Is “Big Tech” too big to fail? Some are arguing breaking up these companies will ameliorate these problems. (Like many out there, I’m torn but am more skeptical about this and corresponding government regulation being tossed around.) More realistically, competition is the best antidote to companies engaging in divisive corporate advocacy.

Don’t Commit These 3 Social Media Blunders In Wake Of Mass Shootings

In wake of another mass shooting, social media is buzzing yet again with interesting hot takes on firearms. Ugh.

Decency, as it stands, is dead.

Of course, some Americans—particularly media, Hollywood elites, and others keen on virtue signaling—are lecturing the populace on what measures need to be taken to prevent this from happening again. Their solution? Gun confiscation, sugarcoated as “sensible gun reforms.” They don’t admit it, but that’s what they’re thinking. Plain and simple.

Why no mention of mental health reforms? Better parenting? Reversing a wayward culture that celebrates graphic and sexual violence? Personal responsibility is too difficult of a concept to promote, so let’s scapegoat firearms. Right.

When it comes to social media, the knee-jerk responses—just minutes after blood has been shed and parents not knowing if their child is safe or not—have worsened with each recent mass shooting. It’s grown to intolerable heights. We’re all sick of it, and the dialogue isn’t getting better. Where has reasonable discourse gone? Will it ever return?

I offer three ways to not make social media blunders in response to mass shootings. They can be found below:

Don’t misconstrue facts by gunsplaining if your firearms knowledge is limited or non-existent

In response to any horrific event, opinion makers and reporters take it to social media to blame firearms, political parties (Republican/conservative), and pro-gun groups for the crimes of deranged individuals. They love to throw out lofty statistics to inflate violent crime rates to serve their agenda, although homicides are at an all-time low. (The Washington Post did a decent job disputing Everytown for Gun Safety’s methodology for determining the frequency of mass shootings.)

If you’re reporting on the issue, do it with extreme caution and consideration of the facts—the true facts. Here’s what we know about this killer thus far:

—FBI got a tip on shooter on January 5, but didn’t follow through on protocol.

—Police called his home 39 times since 2010.

—He wrote on YouTube he wanted to be a professional school shooter.

If you lump him in with law-abiding gun owners or NRA members (see point 3), you are doing a shoddy reporting job. Stick with the facts. If you’re a journalist or opinion maker, you sure as hell better know what you’re talking about and not gunsplain. If you’re a reporter or opinion maker, here are some common misconceptions about firearms and firearms deaths:

Suicides account for the most shooting deaths, not mass shootings. This doesn’t negate or downplay the latter’s horrific nature, but it’s important to note. Inflating this to serve an agenda is harmful and dishonest to public discourse.

—There are differences in firearms and their handling. Semi v. fully automatic. Pistol v. rifle. Open carry v. concealed carry. Do you know the difference? Can you confidently report on this?

—Do you know what existing firearms law is? Are you aware of existing laws, federal or state, on background checks, mental health, and the like? Do you see the failure to enforce existing law and the duplicitous nature of proposing new laws? Be sure to study up and get your facts right.

This Google Doc from Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski can guide you when reporting or opining on firearms issues. It provides the differences between firearms classification (automatic v. semi-automatic), open v. concealed carry, and other basic facts for accuracy in reporting. Again, here’s the link.

If you’re a reporter who touts objectivity but decide to go full gun control activist, expect the appropriate constructive criticism. Many opinions and statements regarding firearms come from a place of inexperience or naïveté. Likely, a mainstream media reporter shouting for Australian-like gun control doesn’t understand the Constitution nor can they surmise how violent crime comes in all shapes and forms, even in absence of firearms. Moreover, these reporters likely have never fired a round or gone through the process of purchasing a firearm or taking safety courses. Chances are, they don’t have any friends or know people who are shooting instructors, despite claiming the contrary.

If you are diligent and believe in your profession, consult security experts or firearms instructors. Don’t misconstrue the facts.

Don’t lambast those who offer thoughts and prayers

The second social media blunder, condemning the notion of offering thoughts and prayers, has been lambasted by those eager to push gun control. They accuse their opponents of having no respect or reverence for the deceased, which is false. Examples of such derision include the following:

“If you don’t take immediate action on this, you’re part of the problem!”

“Screw your thoughts and prayers! That won’t save lives!”

These are typical tweets or messages you’ll find across social media in wake of terrible mass shootings. For example, morning TV host Kelly Ripa said it’s not enough to offer this. BBC wrote it’s time for “policy and change” not “thoughts and prayers” The USA Today editorial board issued this piece suggesting doubling up on background checks (which are already in the books) and banning bump stocks, not thoughts and prayers.

Interestingly enough, if you casually look across social media, you’ll see many Americans —even those who aren’t staunchly in favor of gun rights— not buying this rush to push gun control.

On Fox News last night, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said prayers helped him recover after he was nearly gunned down last June here in Alexandria, VA.

Embedded video

Fox News

@FoxNews

.@SteveScalise on Florida school shooting: “Anytime there’s any kind of tragedy…immediately you’ve got a group of legislators that go run out and start calling for gun control to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens.” @IngrahamAngle

3,984 people are talking about this

What’s wrong with offering thoughts and prayers immediately after a horrific tragedy? Are we not a Judeo-Christian nation? Can’t those grieving find some solace amidst the pain? No, there must be swift action—action that will largely have no effect on mitigating future mass shootings. The Federalist said it best:

It’s understandable that Americans want solutions to mass shootings. No one should be satisfied with what happened in Parkland, Florida. No one should willingly embrace mass shootings as the norm. But it’s deeply unfortunate that in our search for solutions, we have turned on each other. Ridiculing prayer as well as people of faith does nothing to make our kids and our communities safer.

Don’t lump criminals with law-abiding gun owners

Perhaps the most egregious social media blunder people commit in wake of mass shootings is lumping in law-abiding gun owners with evil killers, like this Parkland, Florida, killer. Not surprisingly, the blame has been pitted on the Republican Party, the National Rifle Association, and lawmakers who partake in inaction.

Here’s who’s responsible for the crimes of this sick, twisted kid—according to those in gun control or Democrat circles:

—Republicans, therefore one columnist says their removal from office will rid society of gun violence (So asinine)

—The National Rifle Association, allegedly “a terrorist group” that has blood on its hands for crimes committed by non-members (Ridiculous)

Scapegoating groups or individuals to push your agenda will not only backfire, it’ll reduce your credibility further. As I mentioned earlier, it’s easy to scapegoat your political opponents when you are reluctant to be accountable or hold those accountable for their actions. It’s unfortunate this is the state we’re in now and serious dialogue on this issue can’t be had.

Nobody wants mass shootings to become the norm. Nobody condones this evil behavior by the shooter. Nobody wants kids and schools to be defenseless. If you call for bipartisanship but delegitimize your opponents by lumping innocent people with criminals, forget dialogue and expect chaos with respect to public discourse.

The three aforementioned social media blunders can be avoided in wake of mass shootings. But will members of the media, those in Hollywood, and other opinion makers be open-minded to this prospect? Time will tell if that’s the case. I want to be optimistic, but at this time, I can’t.

Finally: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Passes in the House

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19-11 to move concealed carry reciprocity ahead.

The House Judiciary Committee announced yesterday that House Resolution (H.R.) 38—the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017—was approved by a 19-11 vote.

What does this mean? If reconciliation in the Senate can occur and a bill is agreed upon by both chambers, all U.S. states can soon enjoy rights to concealed carry reciprocity — especially rights that have been denied to folks in high crime blue states and their crime-ridden cities.

Here is a statement from NRA’s Chris Cox on the House Judiciary Committee green lighting this move:

“Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines without fear of unknowingly breaking the law. For years, the National Rifle Association’s top legislative priority has been to pass National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, a much-needed solution to the confusing patchwork of state and local gun laws. The NRA and law-abiding gun owners across America are excited to see this important legislation headed for a vote in the House of Representatives. We thank Congressman Richard Hudson and Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte for their leadership in moving H.R. 38 to the House floor.” Gun Owners of America similarly issued a statement and provided it to The Resurgent:

Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America’s Executive Director, issued the following statement to The Resurgent:

“GOA applauds the committee passage of the concealed carry reciprocity and encourages the House leadership to take up the bill right away. This legislation will allow decent Americans to carry in any state in the country, thereby countering the fascist gun laws of anti-gun states.

“GOA also sends special kudos to Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who shot down an attempt by Democrats to delete the Constitutional Carry protections in the bill. Gun Owners of America opposed the amendment that sought to limit concealed carry reciprocity to permit holders only and was happy to see it go down to an inglorious defeat.”

The Concealed Carry Act of 2017, if passed, would expand concealed carry rights for law-abiding gun owners. Here’s more of the bill’s text for your viewing pleasure:

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Earlier this year, Second Amendment Caucus chair Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced legislation— H.R 2909, or D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act — in wake of the Alexandria, Virginia, ballpark shooting that left Congressman Steve Scalise severely wounded. If passed, this bill would grant law-abiding gun owners with “valid concealed carry permits issued from their home state to carry their firearms in the District of Columbia.”

“After the horrific shooting at the Republican Congressional Baseball practice, there will likely be calls for special privileges to protect politicians,” Congressman Massie said . “Our reaction should instead be to protect the right of all citizens guaranteed in the Constitution: the right to self-defense. I do not want to extend a special privilege to politicians, because the right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege, it is a God-given right protected by our Constitution.”

Let’s hope the Senate can get its act together and pass an accompanying bill. Law-abiding gun owners in blue states and neighboring states shouldn’t be criminalized in the eyes of the law any longer.

These Are The 10 Best States for Gun Ownership in 2017

Guns & Ammo recently unveiled their 2017 list of “Best States for Gun Owners.” Here are the top ten.

Guns & Ammo has unveiled their 2017 list of “Best States for Gun Owners” for the fifth year in a row. Did your state make the top ten or fade to the lower ten?

Here are the top ten states for gun ownership:

Arizona

Alaska

Kansas

Oklahoma

Montana

Utah

North Dakota

Texas

Georgia

Missouri

Here are the 10 worst states for gun ownership:

Minnesota

Delaware

Rhode Island

Maryland

Connecticut

California

Hawaii

New Jersey

Massachusetts

New York

Bonus: Washington, D.C

Guns & Ammo based their methodology off of the following: Right-to-Carry, Black Rifles, the National Firearms Act (NFA), Castle Doctrine, and Miscellaneous.

To see the full list, go here