Boulder CO Assault Weapon, Large Capacity Magazine Ban Overturned

Victory in Boulder! 

When Boulder, Colorado passed an “assault weapon” and large capacity magazine ban in 2018, gun owners scoffed at the ultra-liberal city’s agenda, unsurprised by the virtue signaling and visible presence of Bloomberg’s astroturf organization Moms Demand Action. Statistically, a person was more likely to be killed by baseball bat than by one of the firearms they were arbitrarily defining as “assault weapons” inside the city limits, those stats being ONE for death by baseball bat to ZERO for death by “assault weapon”.  The ordinance also restricted the age of purchase for a long gun to those 21 and over, and banned open carry of their arbitrarily defined assault weapons in the city of Boulder.

What did come as a surprise was that many Boulder residents weren’t okay with these new laws, and now after nearly three years and two legal challenges against the ordinance, a Boulder County judge has overturned it. 

This is a big win for those who fought against Boulder’s ban, such as Rally for our Rights who lead two large gun rights rallies in downtown Boulder and even held an AR-15 giveaway to raise money for the legal challenges.

Boulder CO Assault Weapons, Large Capacity Magazine Ban Overturned

The NRA backed lawsuit Chambers v Boulder sought injunctive relief claiming that two portions of the ordinance were preempted by Colorado state law, something that was argued repeatedly by gun owners, constitutional experts, and gun rights advocates during the heated debate leading up to the final passage of the ordinance.

Colorado’s preemption statute, CRS 29-11.7-103, states: “A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.”

The two portions of the ordinance Chambers v Boulder claimed violated the preemption law were:

Count 1 – that the portions of the Ordinance banning the sale purchase, and possession of assault weapons, and enacting the certification process are preempted by state law;

Count 2 – that the portion of the Ordinance that ban Large Capacity Magazines are preempted by state law.

On March 12, 2021 Boulder County District Judge Andrew Hartman agreed with the NRA backed plaintiffs that Boulder’s ban on possessing and transferring commonly-possessed “assault weapons” and ten-round magazines was preempted by state law. Here is what he wrote in his final order, effectively overturning the ban:

“In sum, the Court finds that State of Colorado law preempts Boulder City Ordinance 8245 and Ordinance 8259 as they relate to the prohibition of the sale, possession, and transfer of assault weapons and LCMs, specifically the inclusion of “assault weapons” and “LCMs” in the definition of “illegal weapons” pursuant to Boulder Rev. Code § 5-8-2. These provisions are invalid, and enforcement of them is enjoined. The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.”

Read the entire 22 page final order here.

Boulder still faces yet another lawsuit, backed by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF). Unlike the NRA backed suit which solely targeted preemption, the MSLF legal challenge, Caldara v Boulder, began in U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of the Boulder ordinance, citing violation of the Second Amendment as well as preemption. The U.S. District Court of Colorado chose to abstain from hearing the case until the NRA backed state case was decided. MSLF appealed that decision in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and most recently they filed a petition for Supreme Court review of the abstention issue. That was denied. A noteworthy aspect of the MSLF case is that in addition to challenging the firearm and magazine bans, it challenges the two other key points of the Boulder ordinance, both which were dismissed from the NRA one early on: 1.) the section prohibiting 18-20 year olds from purchasing long guns, and 2.) open carry of “assault weapons” in Boulder.

The city of Boulder can appeal the most recent decision, and if they do, it could eventually land in front of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado’s current Supreme Court has not been friendly to gun related issues on the grounds of preemption, primarily their most recent 2020 decision on the RMGO backed legal challenge against the states ban of magazines larger than 15 rounds. It should be noted that if it was to go to the Colorado Supreme Court and were decided in favor of Boulder, that would be the end of the NRA suit, as without a constitutional challenge, it cannot move to a higher court – but the MSLF suit could continue.

That said, the Boulder challenge is unique in that preemption law is specific to local government and does not specifically prohibit the legislature from enacting statewide laws.

The most notable time Colorado Supreme Court has heard a local government firearm preemption challenge was in 2005 after Denver sued the state of Colorado over the 2003 preemption law, saying the city should be able to enact it’s own laws under home rule. The was because Denver’s own firearm laws they had on the books since 1994 should have been nullified by the new preemption law. In the end, a Denver District Court judge agreed with the city, eventually landing the case in front of the Colorado Supreme Court.  The state’s highest court deadlocked and the rare split-ruling meant Denver prevailed in the case and the city could resume enforcing its firearm laws that had not been enforced during litigation. Many familiar with the case say the ruling was not based on the preemption law itself, but because Denver had enacted their law prior to the date the preemption law was enacted.

MSLFs case is still alive and well, although they will likely wait to see if Boulder chooses to appeal before making a decision as to what their next move will be. If their case eventually moves forward in the 10th Circuit, it could become an important Second Amendment case to watch.

Although the Chambers v Boulder decision is specific to Boulder, it will undoubtedly set a precedent as other municipalities consider pushing similar laws.

Now that this is settled, we assume gun control groups such as Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords will start tackling real issues, like skyrocketing violent crime. We won’t hold our breath though.

HAVE YOU VISITED OUR STORE LATELY?

HR127: It’s Your Money or Your Guns

HR127: It’s Your Money or Your Guns

HR 127 has been called “The Gun Apocalypse” and for good reason. Introduced by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson D-TX, this bill is formally known as the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act. What HR127 ultimately does is wipe out the Second Amendment by making gun ownership unaffordable for all but the most affluent. Which is clearly the intent.

It’s ironic that the Democrats who preach criminal justice reform aren’t hesitating, with the stroke of a pen, to turn millions of law-abiding Americans into felons, punishing them with onerous fines and years of incarceration. Despite this, nothing in HR127 will disarm one violent criminal or reduce the gun homicide rampaging through our cities.

There is much about this bill that makes it unworkable and impractical but for the moment, I’ll focus the discussion on what it will cost your wallet.

Pony up, Mr. Gun Owner

This bill requires that every applicant for a gun license must first pay $800 to the US Attorney General for liability insurance. Never mind that as a gun owner, if you have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance, you already have gun accident insurance under the plan’s liability umbrella coverage. This requirement begs many questions such as, what experience does the AG have in managing insurance? How will claims be processed? Does this insurance protect a gun owner against law suits? Does this insurance cover legal expenses? There remain more questions and I’ll turn back to those later.

You’ll also be required to take 24 hours of training to include live firing training. Maybe you can find such training at $50 per hour so you’re talking $1200, minimum.

You want a gun? You must be crazy!

HR127 requires that every gun owner and member of the household undergo an evaluation by a licensed psychologist. Plus, this psychologist must interview any former spouses as well as at least two other family members or associates. Since the standards for these required evaluations are as yet not available, it’s difficult to determine how much they will cost but a reasonable estimate is $1000 each. Assuming three in your household, that’s at least $3000. Add another $1000 for the interviews—another estimate—and we’re talking $4000.

Also consider that HR127 mentions that these licensed psychologists must be approved by the AG. An Internet search shows about 100K licensed psychologists in the country and not every of them will be approved. Consider the evaluations required of gun owners and members of their households plus interviews with the ex’s and associates, that means less than 100K psychologists will be conducting hundreds of millions of evaluations and interviews. By what deadline? Those psychologists already have full schedules so we’re expecting them to take on such an avalanche of new clients on top of that? This situation will create a seller’s market of insane proportions. With that in mind, who knows what you’ll pay for a shrink’s time.

Speaking of pay…who will pay for these evaluations and interviews?

Not the AG, but you.

The psychological evaluation is offered with the premise it will be an accurate predictor of who should or shouldn’t have a gun. But in truth, those giving such evals, highly trained psychologists and psychiatrists, have a miserable record at protecting public safety. The shooters at Thousand Oaks, the Aurora Theater, and the Parkland high school had all been extensively evaluated for exhibiting dangerous behavior prior to the shootings, and yet nothing was done to prevent the ensuing massacres. And sadly, the increasing rate of suicides in this country shows that mental health professionals don’t have a firm grasp at preventing fatal self-harm.

If there is a hint that the AG’s licensed psychologists may bear any liability for a misdiagnosis, then expect the Catch 22 of HR127 to kick in:

We must keep the mentally disturbed from getting a gun

….and only the mentally disturbed would want a gun.

HR127: By the Number$$

How much will HR127 cost you, the law-abiding gun owner, to keep your property? Factor in fees (also unspecified) for the registration of each gun (don’t forget ammo), the permit application, and the permit itself so a lowball estimate for the first gun is:

Insurance: $800
Training: $1200
Psyche eval: $4000
Fees: ???

Total: $6000+

The AG’s Money Grab

Let’s return to the insurance. Assuming 75 million gun owners in this country, let’s say 25 million won’t pay this extortion and thus give up their guns. That means 50 million will jump through the financial hoops. The simple math of 50 million gun owners times $800 each means $40 billion of your money will slosh into the coffers of the AG. That’s a lot of cash. Substantially more than the entire 2020 budget for the US Department of Justice ($29.9B). What happens to all that money? Does it remain in an insurance portfolio…managed by whom? Or does that money get lost in a slush fund?

Currently, every state in the union is experiencing an alarming surge in gun homicide, mostly because of gang and drug-related shootings aggravated by the pandemic lockdowns. Is anyone naive enough to think that any criminal will subject themselves to the provisions of this bill considering they’re not supposed to have guns to begin with? Tragically, HR127 will do nothing to protect anyone from violent crime or make our streets any safer.

Contact your congressperson today and let them know you oppose this bill!  Click here to find their contact information.

 

Gun Rights Face Masks Neck Gaiters Coverings For Sale Republican Conservative Don't Tread On Me Betsy Ross Big Laua

Colorado Gun Owners: Brace For Gun Control Fight In 2021

Colorado Gun Owners: Brace For Gun Control Fight In 2021

After a 2020 that felt more like the Twilight Zone than reality, there’s one good thing that happened: 2020 gun control legislation was DOA both in-state and federally.  But that’s all about to change.

Last year Colorado Democrats had only introduced two gun control bills when the legislature took an emergency recess due to COVID-19. When they returned months later to finish up what they considered “necessary business”, many legislative ambitions were no longer considered “necessary”.  This included a bill mandating locking up firearms and another bill making the reporting of lost and stolen guns mandatory. Although Democrats held the majority in both the State House and Senate, the margin in the senate was slim and they knew the passage wasn’t a slam dunk. After the November 3rd election, Democrats in the state picked up one additional state senate seat and the majority in the state house remained unchanged.

At the federal level in 2020, Republicans held a slight majority in the Senate while Democrats held a large majority in the House of Representatives.  Multiple pieces of gun control legislation passed out of the house only to never see the light of day in the senate, ultimately never making it to then President Donald Trump’s desk.  The November 3rd elections, and most notably the recent January 5th senate run-off in Georgia, changed the entire make up of congress, and the recent inauguration of Joe Biden as president and Kamala Harris as vice president sealed the deal. The senate now sits with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, making the tie breaker the new VP, Kamala Harris. In the house Republicans did pick up a number of seats but not enough to make up the large margin. Currently the party make-up in that chamber is 211 Republicans to 221 Democrats with three vacancies yet to be filled.

So what should we expect?

Colorado:

Colorado’s legislative session was set to begin on January 13, 2021 and run for exactly 120 days.  Due to COVID-19, Democrat leadership altered this timeline. On January 13th, legislators were sworn in and routine business was done; for two more days a few bills were passed that related directly to COVID-19 and then they recessed until February 16, 2021. At that time they intend to run for the remainder of the 120 days or possibly less. We are already aware of three pieces of gun control legislation to be introduced as soon as they reconvene:

• Mandatory waiting period between firearm purchase and possession – possibly 5 days. (Rep. Tom Sullivan and Rep. Steven Woodward)
• Mandatory “safe storage” of firearms. (Rep. Kevin Mullica)
• Mandatory reporting to law enforcement of lost and stolen guns. (Rep. Tom Sullivan and Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis)

It’s not unlikely we’ll see more gun control out of Colorado gun grabbers this session – the question remains what and when.

I’ve written about the last two proposals and you can read that here. I’ll be breaking down the mandatory waiting period in the coming days so keep your eye out for that.

A list of contact information of all of Colorado’s legislators can be found here.

Federal:

The 117th U.S. Congress gaveled into session earlier this month, and at least six gun control measures have been filed already with the House Judiciary Committee. Unlike the past couple years, these bills could land on the new president’s desk for signature if strategic pushback from gun owners doesn’t stop them.

Summaries of these bills are not yet available to the public at the time of this writing.

H.R.30 – To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking. (Rep. Bobby Rush, D-IL)

H.R.121 – To provide for the hiring of 200 additional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents and investigators to enforce gun laws. (Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee D-TX-18)

H.R.125 – To amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide for a 7-day waiting period before a semiautomatic firearm, a silencer, armor piercing ammunition, or a large capacity ammunition magazine may be transferred. (Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee D-TX-18)

H.R.127 – To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition. (Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee D-TX-18)

H.R.130 – To require the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, and to require the investigation of reports of improper storage of firearms or ammunition. (Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee D-TX-18)

H.R.167 – To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer. (Rep. Al Green D-TX-9)

Stay tuned for more information as the full text of these bills becomes available and as more bills are filed.

A list of Colorado’s federally elected representatives and senators can be found here.

And in the mean time, buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride. 

 

Gun Rights Face Masks Neck Gaiters Coverings For Sale Republican Conservative Don't Tread On Me Betsy Ross Big Laua

Bill Introduced To Repeal Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO Law

Bill Introduced To Repeal Colorado's Red Flag ERPO Law

Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law has only been in effect since the first of the year and a bill has already hit the state legislature to repeal it.  Introduced by Rep Lori Saine, Senator John Cooke and Senator Jim Smallwood, HB20-1271 Repeal Red Flag And Amend 72-hour Hold would effectively repeal the Extreme Risk Protection Order law while simultaneously changing the standard for a 72 hour involuntary hold.  It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.  No hearing is scheduled yet but because every bill gets a public hearing in Colorado, sparks will surely fly when it does.

The changes to the 72 hour hold would replace the term “imminent” with “extreme risk” which is defined as “a credible and exigent threat of danger to themselves or others through actionable threats of violence or death as a result of current mental health state”.  This would give officers more leeway in who they can place in a hold and would remove the person from the crisis, rather than leave a person in crisis while removing one tool harm could be done with.

With the hyper-partisan make up of the state legislature, it is highly unlikely the bill will make it out of committee.  That said, it will give activists a megaphone to bring the Red Flag ERPO abuses we’ve already seen front and center.

The highly controversial Red Flag ERPO bill, HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders, passed through the Colorado legislature last year by one single vote and was then signed by Governor Jared Polis.  It had bi-partisan opposition. Every Republican and three Democrats voted against it.

Colorado’s ERPO law has been used eight times since it became law.

Three were in Denver…

The first ERPO was filed by a police officer requesting to keep guns that had been voluntarily handed over during a domestic dispute call where the respondent made suicidal statements. The respondent voluntarily agreed to the ERPO before a permanent hearing. We detailed that case here and detailed how an ERPO wasn’t even needed.

Another hit Denver soon after.  In this case, the Temporary ERPO was filed by the ex-father in law of the respondent.  Ex-father in law claimed respondent had made non-specific threats.  Temporary ERPO was granted and a permanent hearing was scheduled for Jan 23, 2020.  Respondent did not initially voluntarily surrender his firearms or file the necessary affidavit stating he had personally relinquished them according to what is required by law; this prompted further action from the court at which time the firearms and CCW permit were seized. Respondent is also going through a nasty custody battle which according to him is being financed by the ex-father in law.  The case documents include pages and pages of angry, but non-threatening text messages between ex-father in law, respondent, and ex-wife.  On Jan 23, the hearing was vacated for two reasons: 1) ex-father in law is not a qualified person to file petition; 2) witnesses were out of town.

The next day another ERPO was filed against the same man by the ex-wife, who is qualified person to file under the law. That permanent case will be heard Feb 5, 2020.

In Larimer County three have now been filed… 

The first was filed by the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office on an inmate.  He was being held on two felony charges: Inciting Destruction of Life or Property and Retaliation Against a Witness or Victim.  The petition stated that the inmate did not own any guns, but while in jail he had told cell mates that when he gets out he “wants to kill 50 people”.   The ERPO was initiated in an effort to make him a prohibited buyer if he successfully bonded out.  We had lots of questions about this, as if he was released on bond, being a prohibited person is a condition of that bond.  After some back and forth with law enforcement and the CBI, it sounds like “it’s too much work” to get him into the CBI database via the bond route, therefore an ERPO was an easy band-aid to that broken piece of law. At the permanent hearing, an attorney for the inmate respondent argued for more time as she believed he may already be adjudicated mentally defective and a prohibited buyer.  The permanent hearing was rescheduled for March 5, 2020.

The second Larimer case was filed by 64 year old Susan Holmes against CSU Police Officer Phillip Morris.  Morris had shot and killed Holmes’ mentally unstable, knife wielding son in 2017.  Body cam footage clearly shows the shooting as justified, and the DA agreed.  On her petition, which she discussed in a YouTube video, Holmes stated that her and Morris had a child in common, a fact that made her a person qualified to file.  They do not have a child in common.  Holmes discovered a loophole in the ERPO law that allowed her to bypass the Temporary ERPO hearing which would have likely denied her at the door, and instead move right into a full permanent orders hearing.  That hearing was a circus and the Permanent ERPO was denied in the end.  The Larimer county DA then put out an arrest warrant for Holmes based on two charges: Perjury and Attempting to Influence a Public Servant.  After nearly two weeks on the run, Holmes was arrested.

And the third Larimer case was denied at the Temporary ERPO hearing, but it’s so absurd it’s worth pointing out.  This was our first case of legitimate family members: sister and brother.  The petitioner is the sister who is apparently allowing her brother to live with her temporarily.  The brother got very upset when someone moved his soap, and allegedly screamed at his sister and their father.  Sister felt physically threatened and claimed she had seen a gun in the past but wasn’t sure where it is now or if he still had it.  No other information besides the soap incident was provided.  The petition was denied.  Case closed.

Douglas County tried to do one too…

Douglas County Sheriff’s Office filed a temporary ERPO on an inmate in their jail.  The inmate was homeless and owned no guns, but had made suicidal statements while detained.  Similar to the thinking of Larimer ERPOing their inmate, this would have made him a prohibited buyer and unable to legally purchase a firearm when released.  At the Temporary ERPO hearing it was discovered he was already a prohibited buyer because he’d been Adjudicated Mentally Defective in the past.  ERPO denied, case closed.

And one in Lincoln County…

Another was filed in Lincoln County by a woman who claimed a man “whom she’d had relationship with” had made physical and verbal threats to her with a handgun.  She also claimed he used alcohol and marijuana. The judge denied the temporary petition but his reasoning was not made public.

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

CO Mom Tells Beto “Hell NO You’re Not Taking My Guns!” At Aurora Town Hall

CO Mom Tells Beto "Hell NO You're Not Taking My Guns!" At Aurora Town Hall

Lauren Boebert drove three hours from Rifle to Aurora, Colorado for one reason and one reason only – to tell Democrat Presidential Beto O’Rourke “Hell NO, you’re not taking my guns” and she did.

The town hall was held Thursday, September 19th on the lawn of the Aurora Municipal Center to a small crowd of a few dozen people, many who attended in opposition of Beto’s proposed gun control.  During the last democratic presidential debate Beto made headlines when he stated “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15!” and immediately released a line of campaign t-shirts with the new slogan on them.

Lauren is a mother of four and owner of Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado, a restaurant where you will regularly see staff open carrying and patrons are welcome to carry – open or concealed.  She took Beto to task on everything from his desire to disarm the law abiding to his criminal past.

“We all know that you, sir, have a criminal history and I understand that burglars do not like armed defense. Burglars do not like armed defense yet that is a right that we have that shall not be infringed in America,” Boebert said.

She also brought up why her and staff began open carrying in their restaurant – a man was beaten to death in the alley nearby.

“He lost his life that night, and it kinda shook me up. I was there alone a lot and I thought, ‘what am I gonna do, what am I gonna do if something happens, what if somebody comes in here, my husband isn’t here to protect me, I’m all alone,’ and really, that’s what got me to open-carry,” she said.

MUST WATCH!

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

Five of Colorado’s Ten Safest Cities Are In This ONE Second Amendment Sanctuary County

Five of Colorado's Ten Safest Cities Are In A Second Amendment Sanctuary County : Rally for our Rights

A list of Colorado’s safest cities based on FBI crime statistics has been released, and five of them are in Second Amendment Sanctuary county, Weld County, including the top spot. Could it be that gun ownership and independent self protection leads to less crime?  More information on data and methodology can be found here.

The top ten safest cities are as follows:

  1. Firestone (Weld)
  2. Louisville (Boulder)
  3. Frederick (Weld)
  4. Golden (Jefferson)
  5. Broomfield (Broomfield)
  6. Windsor (Weld)
  7. Parker (Douglas)
  8. Erie (Weld)
  9. Johnstown (Weld)
  10. Steamboat Springs (Routt)

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams has led the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement across the state and is an outspoken opponent to Colorado’s poorly written and unconstitutional “Red Flag” ERPO legislation, which ultimately passed by a single vote.  The law will go into effect January 1, 2020.

Five of Colorado's Ten Safest Cities Are In A Second Amendment Sanctuary County : Rally for our Rights

Back in April he stated he’d rather sit in his own jail than enforce such unconstituational orders on the citizens of his county.

“If a judge issues an order saying a person can’t possess weapons, and also compels law enforcement to perform a search warrant to seek out those guns, I believe that’s a violation of a person’s constitutional rights,” Reams said.

“I have a hard choice at that point. I can potentially violate someone’s constitutional rights. Or I can violate a court order. I would rather be on the side of violating a court order than someone’s rights.”

More than 50 of Colorado’s 64 sheriffs opposed HB19-1177, “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders ERPO, and 37 counties have declared Second Amendment Sanctuary status.

In addition to having five of the top ten safest cities, Weld county has below state average suicide rates. This is important because Giffords group has been pushing the narrative that Second Amendment Sanctuary counties have the highest suicide rates, a narrative that is parroted by Moms Demand Action.  What they fail to mention is MOST of these counties have very small populations. For example, they are using Custer county’s calculated suicide by firearm rate of 49 per 100,000 people to make their case, but Custer county has a population of 4,900 people and ONE suicide by firearm.

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams regularly testified to his concern that Colorado’s “Red Flag” legislation as written does nothing to aid those who do need help, and instead sends deputies to confiscate firearms from someone who may be suicidal, while leaving the person in crisis.  Such actions will only escalate and exacerbate a distressing situation.  Compassion may be lost on the gun grabbers, but it is not lost on us.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
Other designs available.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

come and find it sticker for donation to rally for our rights