Mediaboss Marketing

The Second Amendment Foundation will launch a nationwide TV and radio campaign Monday aimed at exposing legal holes in President Obamas executive actions to ban ammunition commonly used in AR-15 sport utility rifles.

We bought $700,000 of time on Fox News and Glenn Becks Blaze network, Alan Gottlieb, the groups founder and executive vice president, told The Washington Times in a Sunday telephone interview. Its aimed at getting our legal argument out to the public, and at getting support for a possible lawsuit.

The foundations one-minute commercial heralds 1 million Americans to call a toll-free number to voice their concerns, make a contribution and target Mr. Obama for exercising another executive power grab.

PHOTOS: Awesome rifles: The best and the baddest

The ad claims, The Obama administration was unable to impose gun restrictions and confiscation through the legislative process, so now its trying to ban commonly used ammunition through regulation. If we allow Obama to ban ammunition through executive fiat now, it will lead to the loss of our Second Amendment rights by the time Obama leaves office.

Press secretary Josh Earnest said last week that Mr. Obama supports the ban because he predicts that the AR-15s .223 caliber M855 ammunition will be used to pierce law enforcement officer armor, although there are no such reported cases to date.

The Second Amendment Foundations media campaign is being launched only days after it sent a scathing legal threat to B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In addition, 239 congressional lawmakers, including seven Democrats, dispatched a letter voicing their own concerns to the federal agency.

PHOTOS: Bang for your buck: Best handguns under $500

The proposed regulations, which ban the production and sale of the steel-tipped ammunition was a response to an ATF report that claims new handguns are capable of firing the ammunition. But the new AR-15 handguns are nearly 2 feet long, and weigh about 6 pounds, making them almost impossible to conceal like a traditional handgun.

The administrations logic does not satisfy the requirements under federal law to classify the ammunition as armor piercing, the foundation argues.

Link:
Obama AR-15 ammunition ban targeted in gun group's nationwide media campaign

Clackamas County is considering a resolution supporting Second-Amendment gun rights, but some residents are concerned it could put firearms in the wrong hands.

County commissioners will vote on a resolutionaffirming Second-Amendment rights in a 6 p.m. business meeting Thursday, Feb. 19.

A Ceasefire Oregon flyer assumes that the resolution opposes expanded background checks for gun sales and aims to help felons buy firearms.

"Clackamas County commissioners will consider a resolution that ostensibly supports the Second Amendment but will, in reality, continue to enable criminals and domestic violence abusers to buy guns," the flyer reads.

Chair John Ludlow insists that's not what the resolution is about.

"I know [background checks] exist and I feel good about the current ones," Ludlow said in an interview Friday. "We now hear from various people that we are passing a law, and that is certainly not the case here, that would put guns in the hands of felons and domestic abusers. I would invite them to again look at the resolution. There is no way that could be construed as putting guns in the hand of felons."

Some gun-control groups are pushing this year for state legislation that would expand background checks to private gun transactions.

Tualatin resident Christine Martin is concerned the resolution could shut down a meaningful discussion about what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, she said.

"[The resolution] is an attempt to prevent smarter gun possession by law-abiding citizens," Martin said. "We need to look at protecting our children. If that means closing some loopholes and leveling the playing field, then I support that."

Some opponents of the resolution have mistaken it for a law, ordinance or bill.

More:
Clackamas County considering Second-Amendment resolution; Some concerned it would help felons get guns

Published February 23, 2015

A flurry of firearm and Second Amendment-related bills introduced in the Nevada legislature have already generated plenty of controversy, according to The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

This could be the year of the gun, as Republicans, who are in the majority in the Legislature for the first time in decades, see a chance to enact Second Amendment measures supported by many of their constituents.

At least nine bills directly relating to firearms have either been introduced or are being drafted. And there are related measures, including a bill that would extend justifiable homicide to carjacking situations, and another that would allow foster parents who are in law enforcement or who have concealed weapons permits to carry loaded firearms.

First there was a dust-up between Senate Democrats and Republicans over a GOP-backed gun measure that includes domestic violence provisions that Democrats said fell short of what is needed.

Then Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, generated some controversy over comments she made in a New York Times story about her bill to allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry their weapons on college campuses.

If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them, she said.

To read more from The Review-Journal click here:

Follow this link:
This could be year of the gun in Nevada

Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun gunsan "electrical weapon" under the statutedoes not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.

The decisionsays(PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns arenot suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.

Nevertheless, we note that stun guns deliver a charge of up to 50,000 volts. They are designed to incapacitate a target by causing disabling pain, uncontrolled muscular contractions, and general disruption of the central nervous system.... It is difficult to detect clear signs of use and misuse of stun guns, unlike handguns. Stun guns can deliver repeated or prolonged shocks without leaving marks. ...The Legislature rationally could ban their use in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare. Removing from public access devices that can incapacitate, injure, or kill a person by disrupting the central nervous system with minimal detection is a classic legislative basis supporting rationality. It is immaterial that the Legislature has not banned weapons that are more lethal. Mathematical precision by the Legislature is not constitutionally required.

The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.

Moreover, although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment. A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention. Even were we to view stun guns through a contemporary lens for purposes of our analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military. Indeed, the record indicates "they are ineffective for . . . hunting or target shooting." Because the stun gun that the defendant possessed is both dangerous per se at common law and unusual, but was not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment, we conclude that stun guns fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment.

The decision, the most recent analysis of the Second Amendment by any top court, comes as all types of and manner of weapons are being constructed at home via 3D printing technology. The latest showdown about those weapons surfaced last month, when FedEx refused to ship a box that makes homemade metal semi-automatic rifles.

The Massachusetts case, decided last week, concernedJaime Caetano, who lives in one of five states making it illegal for private citizens to posses stun guns. She appealed her 2013 conviction, on Second Amendment and self-defense grounds, claiming she had a right to the weapon to protect herself from what she said was an abusive father of her children. The penalty for breaching the law carries up to a 2.5-year maximum jail term. She was caught with the device outside a grocery store after allowing the authorities, who were looking for a shoplifter, to search her purse.

The law in question, the court said, forbids the private possession of a"portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill" except by specified public officers or suppliers of such devices, if possession is "necessary to the supply or sale of the device or weapon" to agencies utilizing it.

In2008, the US Supreme Court, in a decision known as Heller(PDF), overturned a District of Columbia statute and ruled that a banon handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Now, every state allows people to carry weapons of sorts, some with or without permits.

The Massachusetts top court concluded that the woman could have applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, like a handgun instead.

Follow this link:
You have the right to bear arms, not electrical arms, court declares

Senators approved a bill Friday that could make West Virginia the sixth state to allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

After reading aloud from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, senators voted 32-2 for a bill (SB347) that allows people 18 and older to tote concealed guns.

The bill eliminates the crime of carrying a concealed weapon in West Virginia, said Sen. Charles Trump, R-Morgan.

The legislation next goes to the House of Delegates.

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming are the only states that allow residents to carry a hidden gun without a permit.

West Virginia already allows open carry of a handgun without a permit.

West Virginia law enforcement officials have expressed concern about the bill. They said the legislation could put officers more at risk. They also noted that the weapons-permit fees generate funds for sheriffs departments across the state. Last year, the permits raised $3.4 million for the departments.

However, senators who supported the bill kept coming back to the Second Amendment.

This is a United States constitutional right, said Robert Karnes, R-Upshur. The Second Amendment recognizes this inherent right.

Sens. Corey Palumbo, D-Kanawha, and Ron Miller, D-Greenbrier, voted against the bill.

Follow this link:
W.Va. Senate OKs bill to allow concealed carry without permit