Democrats Introduce Gun Control Bill To Boost GOP Popularity

Fresh from their electoral victories on Tuesday, Democrats are about to roll out a bill to aid President Trump’s ebbing fortunes. In a move that is apparently calculated to keep Republicans from becoming too unpopular, Senate Democrats intend to introduce gun control legislation that is similar to bills that Americans have rejected many times previously.

The Washington Examiner reports that, true to form, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calf.) is leading the charge on a bill that would ban more than 200 types of semi-automatic (the trigger must be pulled for every bullet fired) guns and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The bill would also ban devices that increase the rate of fire like the bump stock used by Stephen Paddock in the Las Vegas massacre as well as require background checks for private gun sales and mandate “safe storage” for other guns.

“We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason – so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote,” Feinstein said in a statement.

With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and a president who is at least nominally pro-gun, Feinstein’s bill has approximately no chance of becoming law. It is far more likely that the bill will instead inspire gun owners to get out the vote to resist Democrats in 2018. Voters who might have stayed home due to their unhappiness with the ineffective Republican administration in Washington will be more likely to go to the polls because at least the Republicans aren’t “gun-grabbers” like Feinstein and the Democrats.

While a recent Politico poll found a slight majority in favor of new gun controls after Las Vegas, almost half of independents say that protecting gun rights is more important than limiting gun ownership. Respondents were equally split on which party better handles the gun issue.

Feinstein’s new “assault weapons” ban follows on the ban instituted by the Clinton Administration in 1994. The ban did not cause a drop in the crime rate and, when it expired 10 years later, there was no corresponding increase in crime. In fact, the definitive study on the gun ban, by Christopher Koper of George Mason University in 2004, found that the ban “had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.” So Dianne Feinstein is proposing to revisit an old policy that is ineffective as well as unpopular.

What the Feinstein bill may effectively do is remind blue collar voters why they voted for Donald Trump in the First place. The president is not popular and Democrats in Congress have all but shut down the Republican agenda. Nevertheless, a new assault weapons ban is the sort of overreach that can generate enthusiastic resistance for Republicans among gun owners.

Dianne Feinstein, the stereotypical SanFranciso anti-gunner, has provided the NRA with a villain for decades. Now, as Republicans struggle to give their base a reason to vote for them in 2018, it is Feinstein who rides to the rescue with the stereotypical San Francisco solution to any problem involving crime or violence, namely taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

President Trump should send her a thank you note.

 

Las Vegas-Style Shootings Are Impossible To Prevent

A day after the Las Vegas massacre, pundits and political activists are out in force. Gun control activists are pushing their agenda while others are arguing for a hidden conspiracy. The one thing that most people have missed about the shooting is how easy it was to carry out and how difficult it would be to prevent similar attacks.

Stephen Paddock presents a problem for both sides of the gun debate. He purchased his guns legally in spite of waiting periods and background checks, but even stricter gun laws won’t prevent killers from getting weapons. Guns, both legal and illegal, are plentiful in the United States and relatively easy to obtain. Stephen Paddock had no criminal record and there was no reason to prevent him from legally purchasing a gun. The same cannot be said of the gangbangers of Chicago who, despite criminal records, also seem to have no trouble finding guns.

Paddock avoided security by avoiding the concert venue which likely had metal detectors and building a sniper’s nest in his hotel room at the Mandalay Bay casino across the street. Paddock likely smuggled his arsenal into the building in suitcases or golf bags. A frequent traveler myself, I have never seen a single hotel with metal detectors or luggage screening of any sort. Why would they? It isn’t illegal to have a legally owned gun in your hotel room (subject to state and local laws).

From the right, the traditional answer of more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits would not have made a difference in Las Vegas. Paddock was shooting with a high-powered rifle from across the street on the 32nd floor of a high-rise hotel. Pistols in the hands of concert-goers would have been useless.

From the left, no gun control laws under consideration would have prevented the massacre. Paddock passed background checks because he had no criminal record or history of mental illness. His large arsenal was accumulated over months or years at stores in several different states so waiting periods would not have made a difference. Gun-free zones just move the violence to other areas.

In fact, no law other than a total ban of guns in private hands would have prevented the shooting. The number of illegal guns used in crimes indicates that even a ban would not go far enough. Since thousands of guns that are already in private hands, confiscation would be required to prevent those guns from falling into the wrong hands. Such a policy is not only unconstitutional, it is politically impossible and unworkable from a practical standpoint, requiring the diversion of thousands of law enforcement officers from their current duties to tracking down and seizing guns from law-abiding citizens.

A total gun ban would not even necessarily have prevented Paddock from killing scores of people. In 2016, a man driving a stolen truck killed 85 people in Nice, France. In 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma City with a truck bomb.

Lone gunmen with no prior criminal history are notoriously difficult to defend against. I was working in the northern Virginia area in 2002 as the DC Sniper murders were taking place. The sniper, John Muhammad concealed himself in the trunk of Chevrolet Caprice and eventually killed 17 people and wounded 10. The entire Washington area was petrified. People were afraid to go outside for even long enough to pump gas.

Afterward, I thought that the strategy would be an easy one for Islamic terrorists or others to adopt. If Al Qaeda or Islamic State sent a few hundred followers across the country with locally purchased guns to shoot up shopping malls, concerts, movie theaters, parks and restaurants at random, the United States would be paralyzed in short order. Such attacks are impossible to prevent in a free society. The killer will ultimately be killed himself, but if suicide or martyrdom is the shooter’s ultimate goal, death is not a deterrent.

New laws and rules could make it more difficult for the Stephen Paddocks of the world to go on murderous rampages. The question is how many rights we are willing to surrender and how many inconveniences we are willing to endure. Do we, as a nation, want to scrap the Second Amendment and undergo TSA screenings every time we check into a hotel? For most of us, the answer is no.

The fundamental problem with mass killings is the existence of evil and the depravity of the human heart. Evil cannot be legislated out of existence no matter how hard we try. We just have to deal with the evil-doers as best we can.

Actor Makes Incredibly Uninformed Tweet After Vegas Shootings

It isn’t all that uncommon for entertainment personalities to spout off on issues about which they know nothing and quickly find themselves looking stupid, but actor Boris Kodjoe took the prize for the most uninformed and ill-timed tweet about the Las Vegas massacre. Kodjoe managed to tweet an even worse message than Hillary Clinton’s blatantly partisan and tone deaf tweet about silencers Monday morning.

Kodjoe, whose IMDB page lists few credits that you’ve probably heard of, tweeted, “My 10 year old asked me how the shooter was able to get his machine gun. I told him that pretty much anyone in the US can. ‘But why daddy’?”

A user called “Heimish Conservative” responded best with the retort, “So you lied to your kid?”

Kodjoe, who was born in Vienna, Austria to German and Ghanaian parents, is obviously ignorant of American gun laws, despite having spent more than two decades in the United States. Kodjoe’s tweet is blatantly false. Not everyone in the US can get a gun and “machine guns” are extremely difficult to get.

In 1986, the National Firearms Act banned the possession by private individuals of fully automatic weapons, “machine guns” to Boris Kodjoe, manufactured after May 18, 1986. The Federalist points out that there are no exceptions to this law and the penalty is stiff, a mandatory sentence of 10 years in prison.

Pre-1986 automatic weapons can be legally purchased, but it isn’t easy. Prospective owners of an automatic must submit to a thorough federal background check that includes submitting fingerprints and a photo. The purchaser must pay $200 in taxes and both the gun and its owner will be listed in a federal registry.

It isn’t even accurate to say that “anyone” can buy a semi-automatic (one bullet fired for one trigger pull) gun. There are age limits and other restrictions on the ability to purchase guns. Background checks have been required under federal law since 1994. Many states have even more stringent requirements.

Stephen Paddock’s guns were not fully automatic and he had passed the background checks required to own semi-automatic weapons. At least one of Paddock’s 23 guns was modified with a “bump stock,” a legal modification that increases the rate of fire to simulate an automatic. Paddock apparently broke no laws until he started killing people.

Actors like Boris Kodjoe and Jimmy Kimmel are entitled to voice their opinions on political issues, but they don’t have the right to put out false and misleading information without being corrected. Like any other citizens, Kodjoe and Kimmel should learn about both sides of the issues to make informed comments and avoid embarrassing themselves.

 

 

 

 

Despite Gorsuch, is SCOTUS Backtracking on the Second Amendment?

On June 26, 2017, the SCOTUS declined certiorari to Peruta v. California, a case that met all the criteria for a review.

Why? After Heller and McDonald, this seemed like the perfect opportunity to clarify themselves, but during the entire legal process, it seemed the courts were acting as though neither were applicable.

The following article is a bit scholarly, but it explains what may be behind this phenomenon. It’s worth bookmarking in your browser for future reference. It is reprinted here with permission of the author, Mike Rana, who publishes his own blog, RightWinger.buzz.

 


 

Generally, the high court uses a few criteria to determine what to accept: When there are multiple Courts of Appeal in conflict, multiple state Supreme Courts in conflict, and important federal questions to be answered.  Another consideration is how the case at hand will impact national policy.

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights at ratification.  In this nation’s 228+ year history, the justices have only been confronted twice with it.  Heller affirmed the civilian right to bear arms for self-defense in the home, but only as applied to the federal government.  McDonald affirmed Heller and incorporated that right to the states, forbidding any city or state from completely banning firearms.

In his and Justice Thomas’ dissent, they said:

“Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six States have asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the ones below) have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the issue.”

See Drake, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian, 572 U. S. ___ (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___ (2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012), cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace, 569 U. S. ___ (2013); Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 800–802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785–786 (2012); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v. United States, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010).

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions”); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“ Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”).

The Court has not heard arguments in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard arguments in roughly 35 Second Amendment-related cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment, and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment.”

While one could easily write a book on how the judicial branch has cherry-picked from the Second Amendment, but has vigorously protected other fundamental rights (and unconstitutionally created and gone to lengths to defend others) it’s not hard to see how gun rights seem to be the one that legislatures and courts want to ignore.

I offer three hypotheses on why the Court decided to deny certiorari:

GRANTING CERTIORARI USUALLY IMPLIES A CHANGE IN POLICY IS POSSIBLE

Where the SCOTUS is the court of last resort for the nation and has a pint-sized docket compared to the breadth of petitions it receives, typically they only take major things.  The only exception to this rule might be Bush v. Gore.

The issue at hand in Peruta is whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

Precedent has only held that cities and states cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, but as Heller and McDonald tell us, states are allowed to enact reasonable regulations on that right.  As it is right now, five states have banned open carry:  California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina, but allow concealed carry with a permit.

For those that want a popsicle headache, the Peterson v. Martinez decision ruled the following:

  • Concealed carry is not a protected right under the Second Amendment due to 19th century case law that has long prohibited the practice.
  • Mr. Peterson’s claim that he’s disarmed when traveling to another state because his permit is not recognized isn’t unconstitutional because the state he traveled to at the time of the claim allowed open carry.
  • Even if Second Amendment case law yielded to protecting the right to concealed carry, the state has an interest in public safety by regulating the issuance of permits on the grounds of legal suitability (I.E. not prohibited by state or federal law).

THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME RIGHTS ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN OTHERS

The Court has had no issue bringing the iron fist to campus administrators who create free speech policies against disagreeable views. The same court has upheld offensive speech such as flag burning and Westboro without flinching, but they seem to be allergic to a piece of metal on the hip.

Other notable rulings include:

The Court has ruled that religious employers can receive an exemption from the healthcare mandate.

The Court has afforded wide latitude to the press in terms of what they publish.

The Court has ruled that abortion is a fundamental right as it applies to privacy and medical treatment.

The Court has ruled on things relating to cellphone searches, vehicle searches, not concocting reasons to stop someone just to pry further, and prohibiting a traffic stop from lasting longer than is reasonable to enforce the violation the person committed.

Multiple lower courts have ruled repeatedly that campus administrators cannot ban political speech on the grounds of a divergent viewpoint.

The Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right due to free association and the freedom of choice.

The Court has ruled that speech construed as offensive speech is still free speech.

You can see how these rulings could impact Second Amendment rights, if the court were intellectually consistent. While the Courts haven’t defended gun rights as vigorously as they have free speech, religious freedom, search and seizure, due process, and going as far as equal protection challenges, they have cordially taken cases involving each.

Although Peterson was decided in 2013, the legal framework hasn’t changed.  Concealed carry is still NOT considered a constitutionally-protected form of carry in SCOTUS case law. While the right to carry has been ruled acceptable, it hasn’t been ruled protected.

Some state supreme courts since Peterson have acknowledged, much like Justice Gorsuch did, that the right to carry is inferred from the right to keep and bear; the presence of inconsistent acknowledgement in other courts made Peruta a good candidate for a hearing, and this latest dismissal complicates policy.

For instance:

  • The Constitution protects the right to bear arms, but only with weapons that were in use at the time of the amendment’s passing.
  • The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, but public safety concerns allow the state to regulate it.
  • Citizens cannot carry firearms into government buildings because on the grounds that all should feel safe accessing.
  • Permits are a constitutional exercise of the government’s compelling interest of ensuring public safety and ensuring that prohibited persons aren’t able to purchase firearms.
  • Since a state allows one form of carry, it’s not a total infringement, as state regulations are reasonable for public safety.
  • States aren’t required to recognize each other’s permits on the grounds that one state’s policies and training requirements may be inferior to another’s.

THEY WOULD RATHER THE STATES DEAL WITH IT

Imagine if your right to petition your state representative required a permit costing $100 in Florida, and was banned unless you held an affiliation with an organization in Washington?

Imagine if your right to be free from search and seizure was fully protected in Montana, but didn’t apply to computers or cellphones in Nebraska?

Imagine if the Boston Globe criticized the governor of Massachusetts and it was protected speech, but the Los Angeles Times mocked California’s governor’s policy on climate change, and the blogger or journalist was charged with a hate crime?

I can’t think of a court in the nation that would tolerate or uphold any of those scenarios since each one is widely understood to be a protected right. Ironically, the Court itself acknowledges that gun rights aren’t an inferior second-class right, yet, here we are.

Given the case law behind our disfavored right, state legislatures have had to do the brunt of the work.  Considering twelve states have enacted permit-less carry with a dozen more with proposals out there, three-quarters of the states allow open carry without a permit, only five states outright banning open carry, and with each successive legislative session, more states are dismantling gun control schemes, what more would the courts need to do considering they’re not authorized or empowered by the Constitution to make law.

While the case law is correct in that no right is absolute, there is no enumerated fundamental right more cherry picked than the right to bear arms – something that needs to change.

 

Guns On Campus – Antonia Okafor’s Argument for Campus Carry





Campus carry advocate Antonia Okafor has written an excellent opinion piece for the New York Times called “Why I Bring My Gun to School.”  In it she talks about her experiences in attending graduate-level night classes at the University of Texas, Dallas and having to rely on a rape whistle and a phone for protection.  Thus, in 2015 when Texas began debating a campus carry bill she became involved in the effort to advocate for its passage.

Campus carry bills and laws vary by state, but the basic core is that they allow those with concealed carry licenses to carry firearms on campus grounds and property.  Typically, there are areas designated off-limits (in Georgia, for example, dorms, athletic events, places where disciplinary hearings are held, and classes which have high schoolers in attendance are all off-limits).  To obtain a concealed carry permit, a person must be 21 years of age or older (with some exceptions), pass a background check, and – in some states – undergo training.

The rationale for campus carry is the same as that for concealed carry in general: the fact that firearms are likely being carried by some proportion of law-abiding citizens tends to deter criminals.  Concealed carriers therefore help provide greater security to an area even without having to actually use their firearms.  Thus, even if a person does not carry a firearm themselves, they benefit from the presence of concealed carry laws.

College campuses, in particular, are in need of the type of deterrent that concealed carry provides.  I attended a major university in Atlanta from 1996 to 2001.  The area has changed for the better now, but still faces the challenges typical of big cities.  During my time there, my car was broken into twice, a friend was robbed at gunpoint, a pizza deliveryman was killed in a robbery, and many other people were victimized on, or just off, campus.  My female friends would travel in groups for fear of being assaulted.  These types of problems are commonplace on campuses across the nation.  In addition, Okafor mentions the risk of sexual assault and the statistic that one in five college women are assaulted.  Many people, as she points out, do not think the number is this high, but I believe it is.

The argument for campus carry is to help make these places safer places for students.  Even if the students are too young to obtain a concealed carry permit or if they are prohibited from keeping firearms in their dorms, they will benefit from campus carry laws due to the deterrent effect.

It is easy for those who don’t have to deal with crime on, or around, college campuses to contend that “guns will make the campus less safe.”  I have news for them, though: there are already guns on campus.  The problem is just that the criminals have them and there are far too few good men and women with guns around to deter them.  Campus carry is an effort to rectify that situation.

 

Madness! School Suspends Kid For ‘Liking’ Instagram Pic of TOY Gun

What kind of insanity is this? Young Zachary Bowlin, a seventh grader at Edgewood Middle School in Trenton, Ohio, received a 10-day suspension notice because he “liked” a picture of an Airsoft toy gun on Instagram.

The obvious lesson here is that guns are anthropomorphic, hate-filled menaces that seek out children to corrupt into killers.

“I liked it, scrolling down Instagram at night about 7, 8 o’clock I liked it,” Zachary said. “The next morning they called me down [to the office] patted me down and checked me for weapons.”

Zachary didn’t “like” the picture on school property, during school hours, or using school computers. He didn’t threaten anyone.

“I was livid, I mean, I’m sitting here thinking ‘you just suspended him for ten days for liking a picture of a gun on a social media site,” father Marty Bowlin said. “He never shared, he never commented, he never made a threatening post… anything on the site, just liked it.”

The school decided it might be a good idea to drop the suspension after realizing they were idiots, so they did exactly that. But the lesson was taught anyway.

Friday morning an email went out to parents stating:

“Yesterday evening school officials were made aware to an alleged threat of a student bringing a gun to school. We act on any potential threat to student safety swiftly and with the utmost importance. This morning, the alleged threat was addressed and we can assure you that all students at Edgewood Middle School are safe and school will continue as normal. Thank you”

Below is the statement given to FOX19 NOW by Superintendent Russ Fussnecker:

“Concerning the recent social media posting of a gun with the caption “Ready”, and the liking of this post by another student, the policy at Edgewood City Schools reads as follows:

The Board has a “zero tolerance” of violent, disruptive, harassing, intimidating, bullying, or any other inappropriate behavior by its students. 

Furthermore, the policy states:  

Students are also subject to discipline as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct that occurs off school property when the misbehavior adversely affects the educational process.

As the Superintendent of the Edgewood City Schools, I assure you that any social media threat will be taken serious including those who “like” the post when it potentially endangers the health and safety of students or adversely affects the educational process.”

This is madness on stilts.

“Liking” a picture of a toy gun indicates that the kid who clicked approves of something resembling a real gun. In liberal academic parlance, guns are bad, guns get up in the middle of the night and kill people, guns force kids to bring them to school and shoot their classmates. Therefore, anyone who “likes” a gun is a threat.

I suppose a good number of people in my town are threats, because we like guns. Every night, I leave my gun loaded, and so far I haven’t awoken to find it attempting to kill anyone by itself, or trying to sneak its way into my kids’ backpack. In fact, in Georgia, I can carry my gun while I drop off my kids at school, or pick them up there (gasp!), if I possess a Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL, and for the record, I do possess one).

Nobody is more in favor of protecting our kids at school than I am. Nobody would crack down harder on an a student bringing a lethal or harmful weapon into a school than I would. All parents want to protect their kids. But there’s something they apparently don’t teach in school any more called common sense. And common sense dictates that a 13-year-old clicking “like” on a picture of an Airsoft pistol at home is not in itself an indication of a threat.

It’s not even close to a threat. You know, I’d even be okay with the school calling a parent and asking little Zachary is having any issues, or even asking to search his stuff if there were other indications of violent intent. I’d even be okay if they patted him down as a precaution–because teens are really good at hiding their feelings.

I’m not okay with them treating the kid like a criminal, trying to suspend him for 10 days, and calling something completely innocuous “misbehavior.” And you know the biggest problem I have? The sullen kid who may be planning a massacre just learned more about how not to be caught by seeing this pageant of stupidity.

The real lesson schools like Edgewood are teaching is that guns are bad and people who own them are by definition irresponsible.

Responsible gun owners know and do these things:

  • Know where your weapons are at all times
  • Store guns and ammunition separately unless they are under your direct control or lock them up securely
  • Train your kids to be safety conscious around firearms
  • Talk to your kids, especially teens, and know if they’re emotionally stressed (every teen’s world ends at least 5 times a year)
  • If you don’t feel like your home is a stable place, emotionally or physically, don’t keep guns there

That last one is a biggie. Sometimes the best way to be a responsible gun owner is to give up the guns for a while. For example, a recently divorced couple with teenagers who spent lots of time by themselves, single parents who share custody, and guns lying around in the house? It’s probably not the best combination. Maybe give the guns (except the one on your person) to your best friend for a while. That’s being responsible.

But you see, schools and liberals think any seventh grader who clicks “like” on a picture of something that looks like a gun, or any first grader who eats a pop tart in the shape of a gun, or any eight-year-old who holds his finger and thumb to simulate a gun is about to run home, grab a loaded gun off the table and shoot the place up.

In the real world, that’s called paranoia, and it’s a form of madness. And that’s exactly what our schools have become–places of madness.

Gun Company Partners With Charity to Combat Veteran Suicide

SIG SAUER announced Monday afternoon that it’s partnering with a charity group to combat veteran suicide. The Newington, NH-based gun company is partnering with Aiming for Zero for an upcoming charity shooting match to be held at the SIG SAUER Academy® in Epping, New Hampshire, this weekend.

Per the press release, Aiming for Zero shooting events are under the umbrella of Active Heroes, a 501(c)(3) charity aimed at supporting  “U.S. military service members, veterans and their families through physical, educational, and emotional programs providing coping skills in an effort to eliminate suicide.”

“People behind the guns at competitions are patriotic, red-blooded Americans who support the sacrifices our men and women in service make,” said Chris Tessier, Match Director for Aiming for Zero. “If they see an opportunity to help veterans and military families while pursuing their passions, it’s a no brainer. The response to Aiming for Zero has been overwhelming.”

“We are honored to partner with Aiming for Zero,” said Adam Painchaud, Vice President, SIG Academy said in the press release. “SIG SAUER has a long history of supporting U.S. military personnel during and after their service to our great nation. The SIG Academy is the perfect venue to host this wonderful charity and help bring awareness to veteran suicide.”

The event is expected to raise $30,000. SIG SAUER says it’ll donate all proceeds to Active Heroes.

Earlier this year, SIG SAUER announced the U.S. Army selected the company’s Model P320 to replace the Beretta M9 service pistol that was in use since the mid-1980’s. They will be manufactured at their facilities in the Granite State.

Whoever said gun companies sponsor murder and crime must not be familiar with the gun industry. These efforts define the gun industry and make up the majority of their contributions. Kudos to SIG SAUER, much like the gun industry, for giving back to our nation’s heroes!

Dem State Senator: “Go To Hell With Your Guns!”

In a debate today on the floor of the Arkansas State Senate over SB 724, which would ban concealed carry inside college stadiums, State Senator Stephanie Flowers got a little heated:

Video Credit: @TheJayBir on Twitter

According to the Arkansas Times, Senator Flowers, a Democrat, was responding to Senator Trent Garner’s comments about the “God-given” right to carry a gun. Senator Garner is a Republican.

Ultimately, the bill passed the Arkansas Senate and House, and will be law.

UPDATE: Watch Senator Flowers’ entire speech here (via ArkansasMatters.com).

What do you think about Senator Flowers’ angry comments? Was she justified, or out of control? Let us know by sharing this article on Twitter with your thoughts and tagging @Resurgent.