Mediaboss Marketing

DENVER A shooting range in the historic Five Points neighborhood aims to help educate communities of color about gun safety at an affordable price and in a virtual environment to help pierce through intimidation.

In a red brick building off Washington Street and 24th Avenue, the cars zipping by make more noise than the Second Amendment rights being practiced inside.

The 1770 Armory and Gun Club owners take pride both in their military background and as Black business owners in a market where minorities make up a small margin.

Wanda James and Shawn McWilliams own the shooting range. James served four years in the Navy and McWilliams served eight years in the Marines.

"Given where we are in America and where we are today, it is vitally important that we are able to protect your family and the people that you love," James said.

She says a lot of people in the Black community, "don't feel safe."

Unlike your traditional shooting ranges, this one feels a bit like a video game with real guns.

We wanted to create a virtual range that allowed them (clients) the opportunity to bring their weapon in, fire their weapon efficiently, get comfortable with that weapon, co-owner Shawn McWilliams said.

Customers can bring their personal gun or one will be provided. The gun is loaded with a shell casing equipped with a laser which looks like a bullet. When the trigger is pulled, a pin hits the casing and a laser shoots out. A target on the wall marks the X and a computer program records how close the laser shot landed to the target and awards points.

McWilliams says most people dont know the basics of holding a gun properly.

There is a lot of people that go out and buy firearms who never get an education, so Im against that, McWilliams said.

The virtual shooting range opened its doors in October. The owners hope the virtual environment will appeal to women, particularly those in minority communities who may fear guns or have a negative perspective about them.

The two owners served their country and now theyre working to serve their community to increase education and help prevent a potential tragedy.

The price of ammunition skyrocketed at the beginning of the pandemic and McWilliams says their range is an affordable alternative to get practice.

Just having a gun in your house can actually be a detriment to you and your family if you are not trained on it and you are not comfortable, James said.

If you dont know how to use that firearm, you can take someones life and you can change your life forever, McWilliams said.

Once a month, the owners will hosts Second Amendment Tuesday and invite guest speakers to discuss gun laws.

See the original post:
Virtual shooting range opens in Five Points and aims to increase gun safety - The Denver Channel

Gun rights organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Maryland Over Handgun Carry Ban. (Dave Workman)

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), and Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) announced the filing of a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit that seeks to restore the right to bear arms by making it possible for law-abiding individuals to carry a loaded handgun on their person in public for self-defense in the state of Maryland. The case, Call, et al. v. Jones, can be found at FPCLegal.org.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Nicole Moss, David Thompson, and Peter Patterson of Cooper & Kirk, Raymond DiGuiseppe of The DiGuiseppe Law Firm, and FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut.

The State of Marylands laws make it a crime for a law-abiding person to carry a loaded handgun outside of the home unless they have been issued a permit to carry a handgun. Further, State law prevents individuals from obtaining a license because of further unconstitutional requirements, such as the good and substantial reason requirement, among others. Just like in the Bennett and Greco cases recently filed by FPC, challenging New Jerseys and New York Citys respective bans, Marylands law amounts to a total ban on carry for the average law-abiding person. And consistent with other FPC and SAF cases, the plaintiffs argue here that the Supreme Courts precedents take that policy choice off the table.

The Second Amendment protects both the right to keep a firearm in the home and the right to carry a firearm for protection outside the home, explained Pete Patterson of Cooper & Kirk. Yet, the State of Maryland prohibits typical, law-abiding citizens from lawfully carrying firearms for self-defense outside of the home. This ban on carrying firearms is flatly unconstitutional, and we are bringing this suit to overturn contrary precedent in the Fourth Circuit and to secure the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens of Maryland.

The State of Marylands laws act as a complete bar to the average citizen from being able to carry a firearm for self-defense, stated Ray DiGuiseppe. Like several other states that have similar subjective provisions which function as an impossible threshold, Marylands good and substantial reason cannot pass constitutional muster. This suit seeks to place all of Marylands citizens on equal footing when it comes to the ability to exercise their natural right to self-defense outside of the home.

Marylands laws, such as its good and substantial reason requirement, destroy the right to bear arms in public, and by so doing, violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, explained FPCs Adam Kraut. As the Supreme Court has already held, the enumeration of the right in our Constitution takes that policy choice off the table. Maryland, like all states, must respect the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and allow law-abiding people to carry loaded, operable arms in public for all lawful purposes.

Anti-gun Maryland officials have been using this dodge for years, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. By setting this arbitrary standard, state bureaucrats have been routinely denying Maryland citizens their right to bear arms. The state cannot be allowed to continue this discriminatory practice because it essentially gives public officials the power to deny someones fundamental, constitutionally-protected rights on a whim.

On behalf of our members, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. is proud to announce that weve partnered with the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in bringing a new legal challenge to Marylands unconstitutional wear and carry permit requirements, said Maryland Shall Issue President Mark Pennak. The good and substantial reason requirement for issuance of a permit imposed by Maryland law has long been used to effectively disqualify the vast majority of law-abiding Marylanders of their right to carry a handgun for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The time has come to end Marylands subjective and discriminatory law and regulations. The people of Maryland have a fundamental right to protect themselves in public.

The right to bear arms is not a second-class right nor a mere privilege that only some lucky people are granted by the government on a case-by-case basis, said FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. It is constitutionally and morally offensive for the Maryland government to criminalize the exercise of this fundamental human right. The Constitution itself provides the only justification necessary for law-abiding adults to exercise their fundamental, individual right to bear arms in public. FPC will proudly fight to restore the full scope of the Second Amendment in the Old Line State and throughout the nation in this and other cases.

Recently, Firearms Policy Coalition has filed several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to New Jerseys carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York Citys carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and Californias Handgun Ban and Roster laws (Renna v. Becerra). FPC also has an upcoming trial in its lawsuit challenging Californias assault weapons ban (Miller v. Becerra).To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPCs website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

FPC is urgently seeking individual and FFL plaintiffs for a number of lawsuits that are being prepared to challenge laws and policies that infringe on fundamental rights, including (but not limited to):

If someone you know meets the criteria above, or if you would be interested in participating in litigation as a supporting FFL, please contact us:

If you would like to support FPCs Call case and many other pro-Second Amendment lawsuits, legal action, and research, please chip in $5, $10, $25, or whatever you can at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/donate or Join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPCs mission is to protect and defend constitutional rightsespecially the right to keep and bear armsadvance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nations largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

About Firearms Policy Foundation

Firearms Policy Foundation (firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPFs mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Peoples rights, privileges, and immunities deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms, through research, education, legal action, and other charitable programs.

Read the rest here:
Gun Groups Sue State of Maryland Over Handgun Carry Ban - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Im afraid, and I dont scare easily. When I worked for The Associated Press in Chicago, I walked home from work many nights hours before sunrise. While reporting on a childs death, I walked alone into a gang-infested high-rise housing project a few miles away.

I once drove to church by way of a series of desolate Chicago neighborhoods where cab drivers would not venture. (I later found a congregation in a safer area.)

And in Conway, I did not let a murderers letter keep me away from work, even though he informed me he had read my article about his case and did not like it.

President Donald Trumps blatant instigations of violence against journalists didnt keep me away either, not even after the shooting deaths in the Capital Gazettes Maryland newsroom in 2018.

But Im scared nowfor our nations democracy, for my family, for people of color, for the hungry and the sick, for people whose religion differs from what self-proclaimed evangelicals profess to believe. Im even scared for Trumps unflinchingly loyal disciples, for they likely have no idea of the dangers that could await even them if our democracy fails.

I do not worry about the senators, the representatives and the judges, for they know whats in their best interest. They also know Trump doesnt care. Hes more worried about his latest tweet and his latest prenuptial agreement than whether the pregnant woman will get the prenatal care she needs and survive childbirth or whether the underpaid teacher with coronavirus will get adequate health care.

The problem with Trump is not that hes a powerful man but that hes a power grabber, a mirror grabber and, by his own admission, a vagina grabber. He will ultimately do what he believes is best for the man in the mirror. So I pray that someone convinces him that his best future does not involve violence or anything more irrational than what hes already done.

My concern extends to those who blindly worship Trump much as the uninformed masses and the military do in totalitarian countries. The would-be dear leader of the United States counts many though not all evangelicals and far too many racists and xenophobes among his followers.

Tomorrows dear leader might share that base of support, or he might prefer atheism, Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Episcopal beliefs, or Catholicism and then seek to exclude everyone else. For once in power, totalitarian leaders can choose whatever religion, political party, and racial prejudice they want, and can demand that we share those views.

An authoritarian leader can and probably would ignore the U.S. Constitution. Forget ratification votes. After all, elections apparently dont matter to Trump, the man who says hes not a politician even as he brags of deal-making and panders to his political base.

A dear leader can revoke the Second Amendment. Thats the one that protects your hunting rifle, your handgun.

A dear leader also can singlehandedly revoke the First Amendment, the one that allows me to write this column and you to write a letter to the editor opposing it. And he can singlehandedly lock the doors to the church building, synagogue, cathedral or mosque where you worship.

I understand that Trump has much to lose by walking peacefully out of the White House. For one thing, he can be charged with a state crime even if he resigns early and Vice President Mike Pence pardons him of federal crimes.

For another, Trump reportedly has roughly $400 million in debt coming due during the next four years. If he waves the white flag, he may not have the power any longer to work out a deal with the lenders, foreign or otherwise, he owes. (I am tempted to use a stronger word than deal but shall refrain.)

Yes, Trump could leave this country as he has said he might. If hes

short on money, he could probably bunk with Edward Snowden in Russia. Of course, if Vladimir Putin or Putins pals are the ones Trump owes, that might not be a great idea. Ditto Saudi Arabia and its crown prince, and theyre certainly not the kind of friends Id want if I owed them money.

The longer Trump refuses to

acknowledge his defeat, the more irrational and more desperate he will appear. At this point, Trump would do well just to let the transition process begin. As it is, hes endangering our democracy and our national security, for enemy countries can gloat and take advantage of our weaknesses when we are at war with ourselves.

Weve had other close presidential elections. One was in 2016. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly conceded. I didnt hear anyone saying we should give her more time to accept defeat. She is an adult and acted like one, not like an untrained toddler going back and forth between home and the playground.

If former President Barack Obama had even mumbled about hanging out in the White House longer than he was elected to serve, I can only imagine the outcry. Those Confederate flags would have been in the back of more pickups than we could count.

A few things Ive learned as a white woman who was single most of her life have become increasingly clear as Ive grown older and, I think, wiser or perhaps more realistic.

First, a Black man who dares to be powerful is in for a struggle and plenty of hate in this country. Too many white people just dont like the idea of a Black person telling them what to do.

Second, a woman of any color who dares to be powerful is in for both as well. If she is Black or Asian, she faces an even tougher fight. If she has ever openly had an affair, shes branded for life and will be subjected to smears years later. And if shes single, well, thats just not allowed.

But let an amoral white man come along with an ego problem, a penchant for lies and

an unquenchable

for money, power and sexual partners, and he wins the favor and forever-pardon of evangelicals, from Franklin Graham to Prosperity Gospel advocate Paula White.

All thats to say, I have what some may consider an outlandish idea. Maybe its time for Trumps evangelical supporters and President-elect Joe Bidens most liberal supporters to become a tad more ecumenical when it comes to our country.

After all, this is the United States. Its not a church, its not a business, and its not a kingdom. Its a democracy, at least for now.

Debra Hale-Shelton can be reached at [emailprotected] . Follow her on Twitter at @nottalking.

See the original post here:
OPINION | DEBRA HALE-SHELTON: A democracy on the edge - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

The U.S. militia movement has long been permeated by a peculiar-and undoubtedly mistaken-interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and civil liberties.

This is true of an armed militia group calling itself the Wolverine Watchmen, who were involved in the recently uncovered plot to overthrow the Michigan government and kidnap Gretchen Whitmer.

As I wrote in Fracturing the Founding: As the Old Right corrupts the Constitution published in 2019, the core of the militia movements devotion to what I have called the Old Right Constitution is a poisonous mixture of constitutional falsehoods and half-truths.

Private militias

The term militia has many meanings.

Article 1 of the Constitution refers to militias and authorizes Congress to provide for the organization, arming and disciplining of militias.

But the Constitution does not provide for private militias, such as the extreme right-wing Wolverine Watchmen, Proud Boys, Michigan Militia and the Oath Keepers, to name a few.

Private militias are simply groups of like-minded men-their members are usually whites-who profess a sometimes confusing set of beliefs about a miserly federal government hostile to whites and white heritage, and about the sanctity of the right to bear arms and private property. They believe that the government is under the control of Jews, the United Nations, international banking interests, leftists, antifa, Black Lives Matter and so on. There is no evidence of this.

On Thursday the FBI arrested six men, five of them from Michigan, and charged them with conspiracy to kidnap Whitmer. Shortly thereafter, state authorities accused another seven men of attempting to storm the Michigan Capitol and seek civil war. Among them were the founders and several members of the Wolverine Watchmen.

According to the FBI affidavit attached to the federal indictments, the six accused men claimed to be defense attorneys for the Bill of Rights. In fact, some of the men had participated in April rallies in the state capital of Lansing, where armed citizens tried to force their way onto the floor of the House of Representatives to protest Whitmers order to shut down the pandemic as a violation of the Constitution by a tyrannical government that wanted to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of the COVID-19 struggle.

According to the FBI affidavit, the conspirators wanted to create a society that adheres to the U.S. Bill of Rights and in which they can be self-sufficient.

The militiamen see themselves as the last true American patriots, the modern defenders of the United States Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

Thus the Bill of Rights-and especially the Second Amendment, which establishes the right to bear arms-play an important role in the United States Constitution. It is no coincidence that the first discussions about the overthrow of the so-called tyrannical governor of Michigan began at a Second Amendment rally in June.

According to most militias, the Second Amendment authorizes their activities and also makes them free from legal regulation by the state. In reality, the Second Amendment does nothing to authorize private armed militias. Private armed militias are expressly illegal in every state.

No limitation of rights

Another basic principle of militia constitutionalism is absolutism. In the world of militias, absolutism is understood as the idea that basic constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to property cannot be restricted or regulated by the state without the consent of the citizen.

The extreme right-wing reading of the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution which regulate freedom of speech and the right to bear arms respectively is based on a simple premise: Both amendments are literal and absolute. They believe that the First Amendment allows them to say anything, anytime, anywhere, to anyone, without consequences or accusations from the government or even from other citizens who disagree or are offended by their speech.

Similarly, advocates of old-fashioned gun ownership believe that the Second Amendment protects their God-given right to own a gun any gun and that government efforts to deny, restrict or even register their guns must be unconstitutional. They believe that the Second Amendment

See original here:
The conspiracy to kidnap Governor Mich. grew out of the constitutional falsehoods of the militia. - The Washington Newsday

Matt Grahn|The Bulletin

NORWICH Norwich Mayor Peter Nystrom said he gets asked by businesses if there are any large plots of land available in the city. His reply isoften "No" since most larger spaces are Brownfield sites, which are expensive to clean up.

However, if a land sale goes through, it will make large projects easier for businesses looking to come to the city.

I get calls throughout the almost three years Ive been mayor, and people are looking for 100 acres, 50 acres, Nystrom said. I dont have anything to offer them, yet they want to be in this central location between Boston and New York, as well as the proximity to the two casinos.

On Sept. 30, the latest amendment to the Agreement of Sale of land from Byron Brook Country Club, LLC and M&A Holdings, LLC to the Norwich Community Development Corp. (NCDC) was signed, and was made public last Friday. NCDC, along with Norwich Public Utilities, has been working on developing a second business park in Norwich. The amendment states that NCDC has until Dec. 15, 2022, to make sure that the land is feasible for construction, which is currently when the decision to buy will be made.

We negotiated a period of time to make sure the land is suitable and can be developed as a business park, said attorney Mark Block, representing NCDC.

Blockbelieves its important for the city to have more land with the development.

If the city is going to attract any business or industry, we need areas that can be developed for the industries and businesses to locate, Block said.

Currently, Block said, that they are still checking the feasibility of the land.

Were doing all the studies that are necessary to determine the suitability of the property, Block said.

The Agreement of Sale, first signed on July 31, 2019, stated that the total property sale, 272 acres over eight tracts, was worth $3.55 million, and initially required a $65,000 deposit. More deposits have been made, with a $10,000 deposit in the first amendment and $100,000 in the second amendment, and $150,000 in the fourth amendment, with half paid in January, and half in July.

The land in question held by Byron Brook Country Club, LLC and M&A Holdings LLC is in Occum. The properties in particular are on Scotland Road, Lawler Lane, Canterbury Turnpikeand Bromley Lane.

The owners originally bought the land for building 658 apartments with a golf course and country club, which was expected to cost $200 million. However, due to the economic downturn in 2007, the developer tried to change the project. The project was officially cancelled in 2011, after Norwich released $1.5 million in bonding back to the developers.

Here is the original post:
Business park in Occum still in the works - Norwich Bulletin