Pro-2A Columbine Shooting Survivor Asks Beto A Question, Beto Assumes He’s Anti-Gun

Pro-2A Columbine Shooting Survivor Asks Beto A Question, Beto Assumes He's Anti-Gun

When an attendee at Beto O’Rourke’s town hall in Aurora, CO identified himself as a Columbine High School shooting survivor, it was assumed be was anti-gun.  But he’s not. In fact, Evan Todd is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment. He only asks Beto one thing – if he thinks it’s time to ban all semi-automatic firearms. Evan prefaces this with the fact no so-called “assault weapons” were used in the Columbine shooting.  And in 1999 when the devastating massacre took place, the country was smack in the middle of the Clinton Era Assault Weapons ban.

Beto’s response is a must-see.  WATCH!

Initially members of the media used this clip to claim a Columbine survivor was there pleading with Beto to ban all semi-automatic firearms.  As soon as that same media discovered Evan was not anti-gun and did not support the proposals Beto is pushing, they went silent.

Beto’s response makes it clear he is perfectly open to removing the means of self defense from millions of people.

Evan’s story of survival is a gruesome one. The day of the Columbine High School Shooting, he was the first person shot in the library, and the last person to speak to the shooters before they took their own lives. He was a sophomore at the time. 

Evan watched as the two killers murdered his classmates, execution-style.

“One of them kneeled down and put a gun to my head and said, ‘Why shouldn’t we kill you?'” Todd told KUNC during a Columbine anniversary interview. “And so when they came up to me, I really thought, this is it, this is the end of my life.”

They didn’t pull the trigger. And Evan survived, although forever changed.

Evan’s experiences that day have shaped his thinking on school safety and guns. Evan believes a teacher who is trained and allowed to carry a firearm can make a difference during a school shooting. He is a gun owner and a concealed carry permit holder himself. He has testified in favor of a bill that would allow people to conceal carry on school grounds, has testified against Red Flag laws, and he is outspoken in his support of the right to keep and bear arms.

Listen to his story in the video below.

Evan Todd is currently the spokesman for Bullets Both Ways, an organization dedicated to firearms and trauma training for school staff and church personnel. He spoke at our Take Back The Second rally last May.

Man, these town halls sure aren’t turning out as planned for Beto.

 

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)

Beto Sells “Hell Yes We’re Going To Take Your AR-15” Campaign Shirts, RFOR Says “Hell No” On New Merchandise

Democratic presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, released a new line of merchandise to support his campaign.  His official web store is now selling a shirt with red, white, and blue letters with the threat to physically take firearms away from millions of law abiding gun owners.

“Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15” the shirt says, available in unisex tee and a women’s cut.

This was following his now infamous line during Thursday’s presidential debate where he promised widespread gun confiscation. Here are his words: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.” This was followed by thunderous applause. Never mind it already illegal to use those gun against our “fellow Americans” unless in self defense.

WATCH:

The fact that he is now gloating this on merchandise that he expects unarmed citizens to wear in public is not just distasteful, but disturbing.

Rally for our Rights immediately launched a “Hell No, You’re Not Going To Take My Guns” line of merchandise as a counter campaign.  Products include unisex tees, tank tops, women’s cut, hoodies, coffee cups and stickers.  All proceeds directly support the fight to defend your gun rights.  Get your gear here.

Longmont, CO Wants to Register Their Gun Owners, Mandate Smart Tech Gun Locks

Longmont City Council Meeting On Extreme "Gun Safety Resolution"

In a Gun Safety Resolution so extreme it puts Boulder, CO’s so-called “assault weapons” ban to shame, Longmont, CO city council is asking federal and state elected officials to implement laws such as gun registration and requiring gun locks so advanced the technology barely even exists yet, among many other things.

On Tuesday, Councilman Tim Waters presented the resolution.  It was voted 5-2 to advance to the next step – deliberation and a final vote which will take place on Tuesday, Sept 10 at 7pm during the weekly city council meeting.  If approved, Mayor Brian Bagley would have to forward this resolution to state and federal elected officials conveying that these are the laws city council believes Longmont’s law abiding gun owners should have to abide by.  It should be noted, Mayor Bagley was one of the NO votes to move the resolution forward, along with Councilwoman Bonnie Finley.

Here is what the resolution calls for: 

1.) Required state issued permits for gun ownership.
2.) Universal background checks on all sales, including the private sale of firearms*.
3.) State issued permits for concealed carry*.
4.) State issued permits for concealed carry within a vehicle*.
5.)  Banning the personal sale or purchase of military grade weapons by non-military personnel.
6.) Limits on magazine capacity*.
7.) Required gun locks that enable only permitted gun owners to fire a weapon.
8.) Prohibitions of gun ownership by convicted felons and individuals convicted of domestic abuse.
9.) Red flagging individuals who have given family members and/or law enforcement reasons for concern about their mental and emotional stability*.

(Read the PDF of the resolution distributed by Councilman Tim waters on Tuesday here.)

According to Councilman Waters, the asterisk denotes laws that already exist in Colorado, although it’s unclear what he means by #4: State issued permits for conceal carry within vehicle.  Is he suggesting Colorado has a separate permit that allows individuals to carry a firearm within their vehicle or is he simply denoting it’s an extension of #3?  Just to be clear, there is no separate law requiring a permit to carry within a vehicle in Colorado.

The others with an asterisk are accurate – #2, #6 and #9.  In 2013 Colorado passed expanded background checks as well as restricted magazine capacity to 15 rounds, although it’s done nothing to curb gun deaths (homicides and suicide combined), and in fact, gun deaths have been rising at an alarming rate in the state since those laws were enacted. You could almost make the case that it’s had the opposite effect of what was intended.  And as for #9, Colorado’s “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders ERPO legislation was signed into law this past April, but the law will not go into effect until January 1, 2020.  I’ve also pointed out that Red Flag laws don’t work in other states that have them, such as Indiana where suicide rates are skyrocketing and they’ve had a Red Flag law since 2005, or California where there has been a public mass shooting yearly since they enacted their Red Flag law in 2014, and Sandy Hook happened in Connecticut after they enacted their Red Flag law in 1999.

But now let’s take a good look at the other laws the resolution calls for…

#1: State issued permits for gun ownership.  This is a gun owner registry plain and simple.  A registry required based off an irrational fear of property we own. Which class of people will Longmont suggest we register next based off an irrational fear? Muslims? Jews? The bigotry of the council is astounding. And how much will it cost to register? Are they also discriminating against poor people who can’t afford to register? Oh, and we all know exactly who will NOT register – criminals. In addition, talk of a registry always begs the question of how it will stop evil people from committing evil acts?  Would someone who wishes to do harm with a firearm not do so because they’ve “registered”, suddenly instilling morals and a sense of right from wrong into the individual? Absolutely not.

#5: Banning the personal sale or purchase of military grade weapons by non-military personnel.  What does this even mean? If they’re referring to banning access to firearms such as AR-15’s or AK-47’s that civilians can legally purchase from a gun store in the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be included under #5 as those firearms are not used by military.  Maybe they mean they want to eliminate the ability for civilians to spend $30k and purchase a full auto through the NFA?  Considering the latter is still legal in Boulder where they banned “assault weapons” in 2018, it’s more likely that Councilman Tim Waters has no idea what he is even talking about, but still supports sending men with “weapons of war” to confiscate “weapons of war” from people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.  I bet he claims to be against police brutality too, even though he’d support police enforcing his ban up and to the point of brutal force.

#7: Required gun locks that enable only permitted gun owners to fire a weapon.  Now we’re not just talking about access to firearms via a smart technology safe, but the actual requirement that the gun cannot be fired unless by the registered gun owner.  This kind of smart technology barely exists, and what does exist is incredibly expensive.  For example, German firearms manufacturer Armatix LLC manufactures RFID enabled guns that are only activated by those with an authorized watch. But the pricetag is through the roof at $1800 for it’s most basic .22 caliber iP1 pistol.  So again, we’re talking about laws that limit access to self defense only to those who can afford it, blatant discrimination against the poor.  The technology also doesn’t come without flaws, and dangerous ones at that.  Even though the manufacturer says the bracelet must be within 1 foot of the firearm to function, multiple videos have proven that all it takes to bypass the safety block is a simple magnet held next to the firearm, rendering it an overpriced and awkward .22 handgun.  Plus RFID jammers are easy to make, creating a whole new black market where stalkers and rapists can obtain the means to deactivate a potential victim’s instrument of self defense.

#8: Prohibitions of gun ownership by convicted felons and individuals convicted of domestic abuse.  This is already federal law, with felons and domestic abusers being entered into the NICS database, prohibiting the legal purchase of a firearm, and it’s simply illegal for them to own one.

If there is one word that comes to mind after reading this, it’s privilege.  This is what privilege looks like.  Councilman Waters, along with council members Marcia Martin, Polly Christiansen, Aren Rodriguez, and Joan Peck who joined him in his support of this resolution, are so privileged they don’t understand why someone could possibly ever need to defend themselves.  And those who are underprivileged and live in poverty would have their right to self defense stripped of them, even though statistics show people living in households in the US that have an income level below the Federal poverty threshold have more than double the rates of violent victimization compared to individuals in high-income households.  And because the poverty rate of African Americans is almost double of that of Caucasians, you could almost call Councilman Waters proposals white privilege. I mean, he must believe only rich white people should be allowed to defended themselves, right?

Now, some may say resolutions are worthless; simply a statement with no teeth.  I don’t see it that way.  What I see is a city council who will be voting September 10th on whether or not they believe these laws should be forced upon the 94,000 people in their city. And if their vote is yes, what’s to stop them from doing an ordinance next?

Please speak up, especially if you are a Longmont resident.  You can email the entire council at once at: [email protected] and telephone numbers can be found here.  Attend the next city council meeting:  Sept 10th at 7pm, Civic Center 350 Kimbark St. Longmont, CO 80501.  If you are comfortable doing so, come with a 3 minute prepared speech to give during public comment (it’s easy). If you don’t want to speak, please still come and offer support to others.  Questions?  Contact 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.
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)

Why “Red Flag” ERPO Laws Are Not The Solution To Mass Shootings

Are "Red Flag" ERPO Laws The Solution To Mass Shootings?

After every public mass shooting, the call for gun control reaches a new pitch.  Those on the anti-gun left have gone so far as suggesting banning nearly every modern day semi-automatic firearm and having police go door to door confiscating them.  And those on the right are calling for “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Order laws in every state.

But is this really the answer?  The suggestion of a door to door gun confiscation would be laughable if these people were joking- but they aren’t.  How any politician believes using what they refer to as “weapons of war” to confiscate “weapons of war” will not turn into a war, is beyond me.  Even the anti-gun, Bloomberg funded website “The Trace” admits there are at bare minimum 20 million civilian owned, modern day sporting rifles in the US, and nearly all of them have never been used to commit a crime.

So what about “Red Flag” laws?  Let’s take a quick look at Red Flag laws and what they do…

“Red Flag” laws are also called ERPO’s or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, a term coined by the anti-gun movement to deter from the negative reputation that came with “Red Flag” legislation.  Don’t be fooled though, they are the exact same thing.  Red Flag laws have actually been around since 1999, although they are quickly rising in popularity.  In fact, Connecticut had a Red Flag law in place when the Sandy Hook shooting happened and California had one in place at the time of the San Bernardino attack, the Thousands Oaks shooting, and the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting.

The proponents and mainstream media will tell you Red Flag ERPO laws allow family or law enforcement to petition the court to have the firearms removed from someone who is proven to be a danger to themselves or others.

To the general public, this sounds pretty benign, and polling reflects that when the law is presented this way.

But what if I phrased it this way: It’s a law that allows an abusive ex to petition the court, over the phone, for $0, to have the firearms confiscated from an individual they wish to disarm.  The petition is granted based on the lowest evidentiary threshold used in court, a preponderance of evidence (meaning there is a 51% chance that the accusation is true) and when the temporary order is issued by the court, it is coupled with a search warrant.  This means the first time the accused even finds out these proceedings are taking place is when the police are at their door ready to raid their home prepared to take away their means of self defense against the same abusive ex who requested the ERPO – and possibly the means of defense for their children.

Because that is exactly what these laws do.  It is legalized swatting that can be done by a laundry list of family members, former and current roommates, and anyone you have ever been intimate with.  Don’t believe me?  Read through the 30+ pages of HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders that was just signed by the governor here in Colorado.

There is a big difference between supporting the concept of a Red Flag law, and supporting the actual legislation that is being passed. The devil is always in the details.

But do they work?

Well, we already pointed out above three mass shooting in California with one of the broadest Red Flag laws (right behind Colorado’s), as well as Sandy Hook in Connecticut.  So, no, they didn’t work to stop killers in those instances and there is zero evidence they have thwarted any attacks elsewhere.

But what about suicide? Proponents will of course tell you yes, they work.  States like Indiana pointed to stats showing suicide by firearm was decreasing.  Well, turns out it wasn’t.  It was still increasing but not at the projected rate, so they consider that a win.  In addition, suicide by other methods has skyrocketed and Indiana has dropped from 19th in the country for mental health in 2011, to 45th in 2015, and in both 2016 and 2017 suicide was the tenth leading cause of death for all residents over all demographics, and the leading cause for certain demographics.  Their Red Flag law was enacted in 2005.

Why are we seeing these results?  Because these laws have nothing to do with mental health, and everything to do with taking away the guns.  The bill sponsors here in Colorado even admitted that during the month long debate before the bill passed by ONE SINGLE vote with every Republican and three Democrats voting against it.  Watch the video here:

These laws are widely opposed by law enforcement, as they realize the danger they will put their officers and citizens in, as well as the unconstitutionality of the law.  In Colorado, more than 50 of the 64 sheriffs opposed the legislation, as did the Denver and Aurora police unions.  The ACLU has opposed legislation in other states such as Rhode Island.  And people have been killed having these Red Flag orders served, such as happened in Maryland when a woman ERPO’d her brother after a family dispute. She later admitted she did not believe he would have hurt a fly, but he was killed when he refused to turn over his guns. Trading death for death is never the answer. The lives of gun owners do not matter less than the lives of anyone else.

We should also always remember in the “do something” era, passing feel good, knee jerk, virtue signaling legislation is a waste of valuable time and resources that could be used to actually DO SOMETHING, for example Maine passed a completely different proper adjudication law to address the same issue.  You can learn about that by listening to this podcast here.

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)

Parkland One Year Later: The Government Has Blood On Their Hands

Parkland One Year Later: The Government Has Blood On Their Hands Rally for our Rights Colorado
Today marks one year since the United States saw a school massacre that broke the hearts of a nation, ignited a fire in new activists, and if you’re paying attention – shattered your trust in government.  That massacre being the Parkland, Florida school shooting where 19 year old Nikolas Cruz took the lives of 14 classmates and three teachers.

On February 14th, 2018 Nikolas Cruz took an Uber with a backpack equipped with an AR-15, grenades, and ammo to his old school.  He walked past the school security monitor, Andrew Medina, who knew he wasn’t allowed on school grounds and found his presence “suspicious”, although did nothing.  Cruz walked past the building where school resource officer, Scot Peterson, was talking with another student.  Peterson was employed as a sheriff’s deputy with the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, but his charge was to protect the students at Parkland High School.  It should also be noted that Peterson was the only armed person permitted to be on school grounds.  Cruz walked through the unsecured school doors into his former high school from which he’d been expelled.  In this gun free zone not one person attempted to stop him, nor was there any security measures in place.  At 2:21 pm he opened fire.  It was a rampage that would last at least 20 minutes before Cruz simply walked out of the school and into a nearby neighborhood, where he was eventually captured and confessed.

Heartbreaking.  How can this kind of tragedy happen?  It shouldn’t have.  And it wouldn’t have if the government had done their job.  

The Parkland High School Shooting spurred a gun control movement this country hasn’t seen in decades.  March for our Lives formed under umbrella groups Moms Demand Action and Everytown For Gun Safety, all which are funded by Michael Bloomberg, have taken to the streets and the halls of congress.  Frantic and misguided students, parents, teachers and individuals have exploited the Parkland tragedy calling for massive gun control across the nation – from city ordinances to federal laws.  What they should be acknowledging instead is the complete and utter government failure that allowed Parkland to happen in the first place. More laws were not needed. The current laws simply needed to be enforced.

The government has blood on their hands, and as a mother I say that unapologetically.  

• Nikolas Cruz was not a stranger to Broward County law enforcement.  In fact, police had been called to his home at least 37 times over the course of only a few years. 37 TIMES!  The reasons ranged from harming animals (shooting chickens with a pellet gun), assault on his mother, assault on his siblings, harming himself, threatening to harm himself, threatening to harm others, and more.  Not once was he charged.  Not once did the police take any action, even though action on almost all of these would have required his name to be entered into the NICS database preventing him from legally being able to purchase a firearm.

• In addition to the 37 reports law enforcement did follow up on (although ultimately ignored in the end), in February 2016 a tipster called Broward Sheriff’s Office to say Cruz ‘could be a school shooter in the making’ and had been making threats on Instagram, but deputies did not write up a report on that warning, instead they forwarded it to School Resource Officer Scot Peterson. That report came just weeks after a relative called urging Broward Sheriff’s Office to investigate if he should have the weapons he had, and possibly seize them.  In the end, both reports were ignored.

• Late in 2016 a “peer counselor” reported to School Resource Officer Scot Peterson that Cruz had possibly ingested gasoline in a suicide attempt, was cutting himself and wanted to buy a gun. A mental health counselor advised against involuntarily committing Cruz.  In Florida, such action can be done under the Baker Act, which allows the state to involuntarily commit individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. People committed under the Baker Act are legally barred from obtaining firearms.  This event was followed up on by Florida Department of Children and Families, and even though he had fresh cuts from “cutting” and his mother shared her fear that he constantly talked of wanting to buy a firearm, he was deemed stable and, once again, ignored.

• In September 2017 a YouTube user named “nikolas cruz” postsed a comment stating he wanted to become a “professional school shooter.” The comment was reported to the FBI in Mississippi, but was not followed up on.

• In November 2017 a family member called Broward County Sheriff’s Office to report that Nikolas Cruz was dangerous, had made legitimate threats, and had weapons.  Her concerns were ignored when Cruz told them he’d give the weapons to a family friend.  This again would have been a legitimate use of the Baker Act.

• Also in November 2017, after Cruz’ mother died, he was taken in by a Palm Beach County family.  They contacted the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office to report a fight between Cruz and their 22 year old son. A member of the family said that Cruz had threatened to “get his gun and come back” and that he had “put the gun to others’ heads in the past.” The family did not want him arrested, so the report was ignored.

And again in November 2017 a caller from Massachusetts reported that Cruz is collecting guns and knives and was threatening to be a “school shooter in the making.” A Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy advised the caller to contact the Palm Beach sheriff.  If the caller ever did contact Palm Beach, it’s not on record.

• In January 5, 2018 a report came in to the FBI’s tip line claiming that Cruz has “a desire to kill people” and could potentially conduct a school shooting. The information was never passed on to the FBI’s office in Miami.  The FBI has even publicly acknowledged their failure.

And these are only the failures BEFORE the incident.  Since the incident it has come to light that:

• The only other armed person on school grounds, resource officer Scot Peterson, hid behind a concrete wall during the rampage.

• School Security Monitor, Andrew Medina, had a long history of sexually harassing female students, all which was swept under the rug.

• Broward County Sheriff took 26 minutes to enter to the school.

• Nikolas Cruz was easily able to walk out of the school, blending in with other students and walked into a nearby neighborhood, where he was later arrested.

• After a lawsuit against the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, the school district, and Parkland High, a judge determined that NONE of these entities had a responsibility to protect the students.

You would think after all of this, those closest to the tragedy would be asking why – and how – this kind of failure is possible.  You would think that in the change they wish to see, the government would be the last place they’d be seeking it.  I mean, what makes them think anything will change?  History shows it won’t and it doesn’t, and, in fact,  nearly every mass shooting the US has seen government failure like this exist behind it.

Even last summer during a counter protest Rally for our Rights held while March for our Lives was staging a “March on the NRA”, a conversation afterward between myself and the organizers of the other event resulted in agreement that these failures exist, and that before we discuss new laws, we should be discussing why our current laws are failing.

What is the solution?  We need to acknowledge our society has a violence problem and a suicide problem, but to call it a gun problem is disingenuous.  To create gun control laws that disarm and effect only the law abiding is a false sense of security.  Mental health is a strong component of this issue.  Any individual who will walk into a school and execute students is mentally ill, even if not previously diagnosed.

We have soft targets in schools such as Parkland, where someone like Cruz can simply wander in with nothing in his way, and not one person inside the school is legally given the ability to defend the students they care for as their own.  Programs such as FASTER Colorado provides no cost or low cost intensive training to school staff who voluntarily choose to be armed and is approved by their school board.  They are also provided with deep concealment training, trauma training, and psychological training.

In the end, we will never eradicate evil, but we can defend ourselves from it.  

 

Rep Jason Crow Uses Felon With Violent Record To Push For Gun Control At SOTU

Rep Jason Crow Uses Felon With Violent Record To Push For Gun Control At SOTU Rally for our Rights Colorado

Tonight, during the State Of The Union, Colorado Congressman Jason Crow has announced he will be inviting the mother of a young man who was killed by gunshot in Aurora, Colorado last year.  The Congressman is using Mary Majok, a Sundanese refugee, and the tragedy of losing her son, to exploit what he refers to as “gun violence” and the steps he believes should be taken to end it.  He even goes so far as to compare Colorado to the horror ridden civil war in Sudan which Mary and thousands of others have fled.  Pretty sure the skyrocketing population in Colorado would disagree that people are fleeing the state due to gun violence.

The use of this individual victim has a glaring problem.  The perpetrator: Joseph Lugo.  

On March 21st, 2018, Joseph Lugo shot and killed Mary’s son, Potros Mabany, 21, and wounded another man.  Mabany was shot twice.

Lugo, a native of New York, has a lengthy arrest record in Colorado. He has multiple weapons arrests — including for being a felon in possession of a weapon and for having a defaced firearm — as well as rape, assault, menacing and kidnapping charges on his record.

In fact, Lugo is a prime example of what gun rights advocates repeat almost ad nauseam: criminals don’t follow laws, only the law abiding do.  Reg flag legislation, universal background checks, and banning “military-style assault rifles” wouldn’t have stopped Lugo – all gun control slated on Congressman Crow’s agenda.

Lugo was a public safety threat and we are glad he is off the streets.  People like him are why people like us carry.  People like him are why we want to have rifles available to defend our homes.  And if Congressman Crow really cared about the safety of his constituents, he’d be talking about how they can keep themselves safe, not pushing to disarm them.

We will never eradicate evil, but we can defend ourselves from it. 

 

Why Common Sense Gun Laws Only Criminalize The Law Abiding

Why Common Sense Gun Laws Only Criminalize The Law Abiding : Rally for our Rights Colorado

The alleged “common sense” gun laws start to sound more and more like denial of rights, firearms seizures and criminalization of law abiding citizens than solutions to gun safety.

For me, and many of my friends, common sense gun laws would include: firearms safety training *gasp* IN SCHOOLS and elsewhere, taught by qualified firearms instructors. It is, well, asinine, to see that in today’s society, when students post pictures of themselves behaving safely or training with firearms, schools suspend, expel or contact police. They should encourage safe training. Common sense, eh?

Additionally, these same hypocrites claim, “Only trained people should BE ALLOWED to have/use firearms.” Okay, so if we even compromise and give them that point, they are hysterical when they encounter pictures or videos of people training. “Look what they are doing! They are preparing for war, to kill people.”

Umm, what do they call training? It no doubt does NOT involve actually handling a firearm.

It is obvious they don’t want law-abiding citizens to be trained in safe weapons handling.

When one of Longmont, CO’s citizens proposed the city recognize a “Firearms Safety Day,” via a proclamation, the mayor (allegedly a strong 2A supporter) nixed it as “too controversial,” and another council member claimed she would walk out and not be part of it. So are they opposed to gun safety? Or in favor of unsafe firearms use?

Clearly, safety training with firearms is obviously NOT considered “common sense.”

Perhaps we should breakdown the deaths involving firearms. According to a recent New York Times article, in 2017 the United States saw 39,773 deaths from firearms. This number INCLUDES self-defense shootings, police shootings of criminals, accidental deaths and – the largest percent – suicides.

Almost 24,000 (60%) were suicides. Tragic, yes, it is. But that should be dealt with through mental health programs and intervention, NOT by attacking the rights of law-abiding citizens. Where is the outcry on that issue? Common sense.

Since doing completely away with the Second Amendment has been so difficult, the big trend now is to deny the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh and probably more. I am referring to Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO or Red Flag laws). These laws allow virtually anyone to claim to police they feel threatened, overheard scary gossip, or just don’t like you – and police can seize your firearms (actually any “weapons”) for anywhere from weeks to months to forever. No need to prove guilt – you must prove your innocence! 

It’s been asked before, repeatedly, and never answered: How does restricting – nay, infringing – on the rights of law abiding citizens by passing more laws stop criminals? Can someone please explain how lawbreakers will be foiled by more laws? In fact, somewhere over 80% of the recent mass shootings have been in “gun free” zones. Not working too well, eh? Trash them; common sense.

The real problem, as I and others have said before, isn’t firearms. It is NOT “gun violence.” It is violence. Guns can – and do – protect us from violence.

Let’s address the issue of VIOLENCE. Address how to deal with the perpetrators of violence, how to prevent suicide and get help for the chronically depressed. Not demonize our protection from the evil in society.

If the anti-rights crowd wants to sit down and have a REAL conversation about common sense and compromise, I think we would listen. But as long as all they want is to push an agenda and dismantle the United States‘ Constitution….keep your hands off my guns – and my God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights.

Tired of being demonized as a law abiding gun owner?  Help us get these billboards up!  Donate here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

gun rights save lives billboard colorado rally for our rights

Why Compromise Is A Losing Game For Gun Rights

There has been a lot of talk lately about “common sense” gun laws. Anti-rights groups have been crowing for them and boasting that the vast majority of United States’ citizens want them.

But what are these “common sense” laws?

While parading a few, with the common disclaimer, “We do NOT want to take your guns!,” in fact, they DO. Along with this, the anti-rights fanatics have blathered for “compromise” and plead that lack of action has cost lives.

What, exactly, do they mean by “compromise?”

Some history:

Since 1927 the federal government has been attacking citizens’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They began by banning mail-order firearms (some exceptions); then (in 1934), short-barreled rifles and shotguns and silencers were taxed and fully automatic weapons were strictly regulated. All done in the name of “stopping crime.” In 1938 they began licensing dealers and manufacturers of firearms, and compelled them to keep records. They also banned sales to felons. It was in 1968, driven by (initially) JFK’s assassination, Martin Luther King’s murder and Robert Kennedy’s murder that federal government really stepped up restrictions on sales to minors, criminals, drug addicts and interstate firearm sales.

Finally, in 1993 (after surviving a 1981 assassination attempt on then-president Reagan, for whom he was press secretary), James Brady saw his more than a decade of campaigning for stronger gun control come to fruition: congress passed the Brady Bill and president Clinton signed it into law.

The bill required background checks for gun sales and a waiting period for handgun sales (waiting period later removed, due, in part, to legal concerns over liability in self defense purchases).

Many states (and cities) have been passing assorted “laws” restricting certain firearms with arbitrary features, assorted magazines – based on capacity, and various accessories deemed “too dangerous” (read: it looks scary!). The interesting facts here are that virtually all of these restricted or banned items still turn up in the hands of criminals. It appears the only people suffering from governmental overreach are law-abiding citizens.

So; let’s get back to the cries for “compromise:” to date, law-abiding citizens have seen rights taken at every turn, with few reversals or repeals to the restrictions (record keeping was deemed unconstitutional and later removed as a provision, some interstate sales were allowed and some import restrictions lifted).

Compromise? It appears that the anti-rights groups define compromise as trampling Constitutional rights and “allowing” law-abiding citizens to practice SOME rights protected by the Constitution – at their discretion and after paying a fine. AND – rather than defend our rights, elected charlatans and prima donnas seize the opportunity to do SOMETHING (ANYTHING!) and pass laws to infringe on the LAW-ABIDING among us. Then they crow about how they care and ignore the fact that criminals continue to commit crimes.

Remember; laws passed will have NO impact on criminals, other than to simplify their goal to steal, harm, rape and murder.

For me, and many like me, compromise means give and take. We have given much and received NOTHING, anti-rights groups have taken much and given NOTHING. So let’s stop this talk of compromise, no matter how nice it sounds to others. It is a seizure of rights, infringement, plain and simple.

“Infringe”
in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/

– to actively break the terms of a law or agreement.
– act so as to limit or undermine.

Now we’re getting somewhere. “Infringement” sounds more like what anti-rights groups term “compromise.” Why do you suppose compromise is the endorsed word? Could it be that “infringement” is specifically cited as forbidden in the text of the Second Amendment? That “compromise” sounds so friendly and reasonable, while “infringement” sounds more like the attack on rights that they are endorsing?

It appears compromise is not what they are after, so we move on.

Who decides what laws equate to “common sense” gun control? It sure SOUNDS reasonable. Unfortunately, the anti-rights groups don’t mention that they alone get to set the parameters of “common sense.” There will be no dialogue with supporters of Constitutional Rights to determine where the boundaries lie. Anti-rights fanatics will determine:

• Who is allowed to own a firearm

• How many firearms a law-abiding citizen may own

• What fee must be paid to allow law-abiding citizens to practice their Constitutionally-protected right

• EXACTLY what type of firearm law-abiding citizens may own

• How many bullets law-abiding citizens may carry said weapons

• When and where law-abiding citizens my carry or store their weapons

• How law-abiding citizens MUST store allowed weapons (often unloaded, making quick use impossible)

• In some cases, how much ammunition law-abiding citizens may possess

I repeat “law-abiding citizens” because, remember, criminals don’t worry about what laws “feel good” politicians pass.

Only self-aggrandizing, foolish politicians would think restricting the rights of all will impact the actions of criminals.

Tired of being demonized as a law abiding gun owner?  Help us get these billboards up!  Donate here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

gun rights save lives billboard colorado rally for our rights

 

Gun Owners Across US Woke Up Criminals In The New Year – And They Did Nothing Wrong

Gun Owners Across US Woke Up Criminals In The New Year - And They Did Nothing Wrong - Rally for our Rights Blog

While the masses across the United States were out ringing in the New Year – some of whom were undoubtedly engaging in illegal activity such as drunk driving and illicit drug use – gun owners in multiple cities and states simply stayed home, watched the ball drop on their TV, and went to bed without incident.  Yet this morning, they are the ones who woke up as criminals.

2018 was a year that put the anti-gun community and gun rights advocates toe to toe.  There is something both sides agree on though – they agree that tragedies like we saw in Parkland, FL are devastating and we don’t want them to happen.  What we disagree on are the solutions.

The gun grabbers have chosen to ignore research that highlights two things: 1.) gun control doesn’t work and 2.) current laws are being ignored.  In nearly every instance of a tragic shooting, a little research into the perpetrators background shows failure and incompetence on the part of government.  So what do the gun grabbers do with this information?  They demand more laws be created that do nothing to curb crime, but instead create a false sense of security and criminalize the law abiding.

Many of those laws went into effect at 12:00am today, January 1st, 2019.  Here are a few of them:

Boulder, CO: If you own a so-called “assault weapon” that you didn’t register with the police department between June 15th and December 31st, 2018, today you are a criminal.  Never mind Boulder has never seen a murder committed with one of the banned firearms, but it has with a baseball bat.

Washington: If you’re under 21 and are in possession of a long gun outside your home, the government has deemed you a criminal before you’re even old enough to drink. Welcome to a life of crime.

Illinois: If you purchase a rifle but you don’t wait 72 hours after the purchase to take possession of it, you are breaking the law.  But who abides by a waiting period?  That’s right, the law abiding.

California:  Similarly to Washington, it is also now illegal to be under the age of 21 and own a shotgun or rifle.  That will certainly deter a violent, evil person from obtaining one. <insert heavy sarcasm>

In addition, several states enacted draconian “Red Flag Laws“, which allow someone’s firearms to be confiscated by law enforcement with little evidence and no due process.  Other states have adopted “Mental Health Laws” which will prevent those who have had certain types of mental health treatment from possessing firearms (with the unintended consequence of making those who own firearms not seek mental health treatment).

Undoubtedly, with anti-gun candidates winning elections across the nation this past November, we’re in a for a doozy of year.  Make sure you’re paying attention.

You can help us continue to fight back with boots on the ground.  Get connected on social media here and/or make a donation here.

When Self Protection Is Needed The Most, Red Flag Laws Can Be Used To Disarm You

red flag law bill ERPO emergency risk protection order colorado rally for our rights womens rights

Red Flag Laws are all the rage these days, almost trendy.  It seems that’s what the anti-gun community cares about when creating laws – being trendy – even though many of these trendy laws make people less safe.  And that’s exactly what Red Flag Laws do.

As a woman who chose to leave an unhealthy marriage only to be harassed and stalked by my ex-husband, and then when he remarried, spent nearly two years in a bitter custody battle as him and his new wife tried to move my daughter across the country, I have unfortunately witnessed how easy it is to manipulate this system.

I have faced temporary restraining orders based on fabricated accusations, police at my door for false reports, and CPS visits multiple times.  Through each encounter, I held my head high, defended myself with poise, and had faith the truth would be on my side.  In my case it was; each time I was victorious.  But it did not come without anxiety and fear.  Since that time, my ex-husband and his new wife have moved away, and I sleep much more soundly at night – with my daughter in the room across the hall.

I no longer have to take a different route home each time I’d meet him to drop off or pick up my daughter because I knew he was following me.  Or be informed by a watchful neighbor that he has been sitting at the end of my street for two hours in sub-zero weather.  I no longer have to wonder if the knock on my door on Saturday morning is the sheriff’s office following up on more false accusations, or the neighbor kid wanting to play with my child. I no longer have to fear what may be next.  I was fortunate that I was still there to worry about those things.  Others were not.

Due to my experiences, when I saw what was hidden inside this year’s Red Flag Bill, I was shocked.  Certainly these politicians know how easy this is to manipulate – and of course, their “job” is to protect people like me.  But when I researched it further, my shock turned to anger.  Not only was this proposed law as easy to get as the temporary protection order my ex-husband had gotten against me at one time, it was easier.  It allows reports by phone, and hearings by phone.  No one even has to show their face.

Red Flag Bills put the most vulnerable in our society at risk.  The same citizens these politicians claim to care about, they are putting at risk.  Domestic violence affects women and men of all demographics, and although 40% of the victims are men (if not more), when it comes to fatalities in domestic and familial incidents, a shocking 97% of the victims are women.

Now the anti-gun, pro-women, newly elected government has made promises to come to our rescue – yet all they are doing is putting us in harms way by opening a door to have OUR means of self protection removed – legally.

Although I use my own experience as a woman as an example, this applies to anyone, regardless of gender or other demographics.  If your life is in harms way, Red Flag Laws can be used to disarm you. And if you manage to beat a system that is stacked against you and get your firearms back, there are no repercussions to the person who falsely reported you.  They walk away unscathed, having wasted time and resources that could have been used to follow up on legitimate threats and crime.

If you’re not familiar with Red Flag Laws, you’re not paying enough attention (seriously, connect with us on social media so you always know what’s up).  Red Flag Laws are already in place in some states, and are undoubtedly coming to yours.  Here’s how a HB19-1177, Colorado’s proposed Red Flag Law would work:

• Almost anyone can request an ERPO without even showing their face or providing their address. The definition of “family or household member” is so broad it includes ex-lovers who you have never even lived with!  Or someone *claiming* you once had an affair.  And even old roommates.

• The initial report and hearing can be done over the phone, all while the accused is completely oblivious proceedings are taking place to have his or her firearms confiscated.  There is no due process at this first hearing – which is the hearing where permission is given to confiscate gun!  Even Colorado Attorney General Weiser admits to the lack of due process.  Watch his testimony here.

• The first time the accused learns someone has reported them will be when local law enforcement shows up at their door with an order AND a search warrant prepared to raid your home – while the accused never even committed a crime.  This search warrant is a BRAND NEW type of warrant that is created in the bill – a gun owner specific civil search warrant.  Read all about that here.

• 14 days later is the first time the accused will have a chance to defend themselves against this non-crime.  The burden of proof will fall on the accused, not on the petitioner who can actually provide affidavits rather than attend court!

• The guns will be confiscated for 364 days, during which time the accused only has one opportunity to ask the courts to lift the order.

• There is zero accountability for false accusers. In fact, the filing fee is $0! For comparison, requesting a Temporary Restraining Order in Colorado is $97.  Attorney General Weiser also admitted false claims will be par for the course. Listen to his statements here

• This bill is being touted as a “suicide prevention” bill, when in fact, the fear of having your firearms confiscated will make people terrified to ask for help when they need it, and will undoubtedly escalate situations rather than deescalate them..

• It is so rife for abuse, it can easily be used by someone’s stalker or abuser to have their victim disarmed – legally.

• The ERPO will go on a person’s permanent record EVEN if it is dismissed, meaning it will show up on background checks, etc.

Read a complete write up of the bill here: www.rallyforourrights.com/colorados-red-flag-erpo-worse-than-you-think

READY TO HELP STOP THIS BILL??  Click here for more detailed info about which legislators to contact.