Assault Weapons Ban Archives - Page 3 of 3

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

Posted on February 5, 2019February 5, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

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 Compromise Is A Losing Game For Gun Rights

Posted on January 15, 2019 by Lance Touve

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

Red Flag Gun Bills Have Nothing To Do With Mental Health And Everyone Should Care

Posted on December 14, 2018December 14, 2018 by Val Chaton

Earlier this year, during the 2018 legislative session, Colorado Republicans held a one seat majority in the state senate. This was enough to stop a poorly written and heavily rushed Red Flag Bill from becoming law. Unfortunately for those who support gun rights and due process, that single seat was lost in November’s election along with several others, and 2019’s legislative session is expected to be a fight – with a Red Flag Bill a top priority for lawmakers who are proving to be against the civil rights of the same citizens they were elected to represent.

Here’s a thorough breakdown of the last Red Flag Bill Coloradan’s faced, as well as details about the major issues within such legislation.

Colorado’s Red Flag Bill (HB18-1436) was heavily promoted through the media – both radio and TV- as a mental health bill, implying that it would help the mentally ill and get them treatment. But when Sheriff Sprulock was asked on May 7, 2018 in a Senate committee meeting, “Does this bill address how to get those people that mental health treatment?” Sheriff Sprulock answered, “No it doesn’t.”

The issuing of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) begins with the petitioner making a phone call, at minimum, to the court to request an ERPO. There is no verification or proof required for this phone call. This call could come from someone claiming to be a “dating partner” or a “family member”. Your bitter neighbor could claim to have had an affair with you. There is no limitation to how long ago you dated or who the family member is, or even if they are in the state of Colorado.

The court must issue a hearing by telephone or in person with the petitioner that same day or the following day. The judge will hear a “preponderance of evidence” from the petitioner, and only the petitioner, with the goal to convince the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is comparable to a “he said – she said” argument, only the accused gun owner is not informed or allowed to contest the petitioner. This is a Kangaroo court, and the gun owners’ damnation is absolute. In the court hearing, evidence such as access to a firearm or purchased ammunition is enough to issue a temporary ERPO.

Once the temporary ERPO is issued, the gun owner is then declared a “dangerous person” and a good faith effort is made to issue the gun owner a statement that they can no longer be in possession of a firearm. The gun owner must sell the firearms, transfer them to a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer, or hand them over to the police. It is at this point the accused even learns such a case has been brought to the court. They must comply, no questions asked, or they may face death, as we recently saw in Maryland.

Seven days after the temporary ERPO is issued the gun owner can have a court date where they are responsible to provide an attorney to defend themselves. Because they have not been accused of a crime, they will NOT be read their Miranda Rights and an attorney will NOT be provided to them. They must proceed pro-se or hire an attorney.

If this bill is for mental health, the Petitioner just cost the gun owner thousands of dollars in legal defense fees; funds which could have otherwise been spent on treatment.

This bill states that “clear and convincing evidence” is the requirement to issue a EPRO for 182 days. It also states that having any access to a firearm or the purchase of ammunition is clear and convincing evidence. Because the bill lists the purchase of ammunition as clear and convincing evidence, it has short changed the higher standard of evidence for one that is almost as low as the preponderance of evidence requirement.

Then if found innocent of everything, you are not guaranteed to be removed from the NICS database and therefore cannot get your firearms back. If you’re a resident of a city such as Boulder, where an “assault weapons” ban allowed a grandfathering period where you could get your firearms certified, if you did not certify your firearms, you will not be getting them back.

Bottom line: If you are issued an ERPO, you will have to give up your firearms, you will have to provide your own legal defense at your cost, your name will go into the NICS database as being prohibited from having a firearm, all before you go to court to prove your case, and never once will actual mental health be a topic.

Don’t be fooled, this bill is a gun grab bill in the name of mental health, where gun owners must give up their property before due processes is given.

Gun owners save lives! Armed citizens stop crime with firearms more than 1.5 million times each year. Help us get this billboard up for the 2019 legislative session! Donate here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

Only Days Left For Boulder, CO Residents To Register Their Firearms

Posted on December 9, 2018December 14, 2018 by Lesley Hollywood

Rally for our Rights has been at the forefront of Boulder, Colorado’s so-called “assault weapons” ban since it’s inception. We attended city council meetings and organized messaging campaigns encouraging residents to contact their local government officials. We organized a street demonstration on April 21st, 2018 in protest to the proposed ban – an event which was attended by hundreds in the heart of Colorado’s most progressive city – even in the rain/snow. There were threats of lawsuits against Boulder, one of which came to fruition less than 24 hours after the ordinance passed, and another quickly followed. Despite these efforts, the Boulder elites who make up the city council voted unanimously on May 15th, 2018 to ban the sale and possession of many semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns as well as bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This unconstitutional move did nothing to address actual crime, but instead criminalized and demonized the law abiding.

Only Days Left For Boulder, CO Residents To Register Their Firearms : Rally for our Rights

As part of this ban, residents who owned any of the prohibited firearms prior to the day the ban went into law (June 15th, 2018) can participate in the city’s “This-Is-Not-A-Registry” program and grandfather their guns with a certification. The last day to certify a firearm is supposed to be December 31st, 2018, but Boulder Police have stated that due to the holidays, the last day will actually be December 27th. The complete ban will officially take effect on January 1, 2019, at which point possession of a banned weapon without a certificate will be punishable by 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine, and firearms will be confiscated and destroyed.

The certification process involves taking the firearm(s) being certified to the police department (unloaded and secured in vehicle) where they will be inspected. You must have a valid photo ID and a new background check will be run. If the the background check comes back clear, two certificates per firearm will be issued. The cost is $20 for the first firearm and $5 for each additional firearm.

Boulder Colorado Firearms Registration Certification

Gun owners must then keep the certificate with the firearm at all times – forever – otherwise they’re a criminal. Lose this piece of paper? The firearm can be confiscated. Don’t comply? Criminal. Allegedly there are no copies of these certificates kept.

According to Boulder Police Department, they have certified 85 firearms so far. Now, let’s make this clear – this is not 85 gun owners, this is 85 firearms. Each prohibited firearm needs it’s own certificate. With the average gun owner possessing eight firearms, it is likely less than ten people have actually complied. But this begs a question – if they aren’t keeping records, how do they know how many certificates have been issued? According to them they are keeping a handwritten tally. A handwritten tally of how many law abiding gun owners are certifying their firearms, because we know the people we should actually be concerned with aren’t certifying theirs.

Then we had to ask how many bump stocks or magazines above 10 rounds have been turned in? You guessed it, ZERO.

Boulder’s ban includes:

1.) All semi-automatic center-fire rifles that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine and have a pistol grip, telescoping stock, or off hand stabilization feature.

2.) All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine other than in the pistol grip or has any other secondary stabilization feature.

3.) All semi-automatic shotguns that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or have a fixed magazine over 5 rounds, or have any secondary stabilization features.

Read the “assault weapons” ban ordinance in it’s entirety here.

And read the bump stock/magazine ban ordinance here.

What’s Next:

One of the most common questions we receive is how is this legal, and if it has been challenged in court. It is not legal, and it is being challenged in court. The day after the ordinance passed into law, Mountain States Legal Foundation filed a suit in federal court. Not long after, the NRA filed a suit in state court. The federal suit is on hold until the state suit is decided.

Colorado has a preemption law in its state constitution that clearly states what Boulder has done is not legal.

C.R.S. 29-11.7-103:

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.

Boulder is claiming because it is a home rule city, it is not beholden to the state constitution or state laws. If this is the case, we have to wonder if more gun friendly home rule cities can claim the same, and exempt themselves from Colorado’s magazine limits and enhanced background checks. Your move, Colorado courts.

With 250,000 medical malpractice deaths each year, you are 10,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than an AR-15. Help us get this billboard up! Donate here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

mass shooting headlines gun violence poll rally for our rights mass shootings debunked

You’re Being Lied To About Mass Shootings – And It’s Worse Than You Think

Posted on November 25, 2018November 28, 2018 by Patrick McClintock

It seems like we can’t go a day without the media hyping up yet another story about yet another mass shooting. The media loves to make evil people famous. And when they start sharing numbers and stats about these shootings, a distracted populace believes them without question.

On November 8, 2018 – the day after the heartbreaking Thousand Oaks shooting – Denver Channel 7, USA Today, Yahoo, and several other mainstream news outlets released articles claiming that there have been 307 mass shootings in the United States during 2018. Rally for our Rights decided to look into this and what we found surprised even us. The American public is being grossly lied to – and they should care.

In order to determine how many mass shootings there are, we need to know the definition of a mass shooting. Finding that definition seems easy enough, right? Think again. There are actually many definitions of “mass shooting” and most seem to be arbitrarily made up to fit the narrative an organization or publication wishes to push.

Mother Jones defines mass shooting as: “Indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker, excluding the death of the attacker.”

The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as: “Four or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. They also do not remove any subcategory of shooting – meaning they don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot – including crime, gang activity, and domestic/familial incidents.”

The “experts” at Reddit have decided to make up their own definition, therefore Reddit defines a mass shooting as: “Four plus people injured or killed by firearm, including the gunman.”

Finally we come to the Congressional Research Service’s definition: “The incident takes place in a public area involving four or more deaths—not including the gunman, the shooter selects victims indiscriminately, the violence in these incidents are not a means to an end.” It should be noted that CRS breaks up shootings involving four or more individuals as public, familial, and felony (robbery, gang activity, etc). This is because the motives behind each vary greatly.

To make matters even more confusing, the FBI has separate definitions for “mass murder” and “active shooter”.

There are several inconsistencies between each of these definitions. For such a severe issue that allegedly only occurs in the United States, why do we not have a universal definition for this type of event? And why is it the government can agree on the definition, but the gun grabbers won’t use it?

For the sake of this investigation, we used the definition put forth by the Congressional Research Service. The CRS’s website explains that it “works exclusively for the United States congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and members of both members of the house and senate, regardless of party affiliation.” The website further explains that the CRS is a “shared staff to congressional committees and members of congress. CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process.” To put it simply, congress uses the CRS’s research to develop policy and create laws.

THE LIE

Now that we’re “armed” with the facts we need, lets dissect the statistics being pushed by the media.

The stats used in the news sources cited above stating there have been 307 mass shootings thus far in 2018 are from the Gun Violence Archive. Okay, let’s look a little deeper into the GVA. The mission statement on their website states it is a “non-profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun related violence in the United States.”

We dug into the website’s “mass shooting” report for 2018. We filtered the list by lowest deaths to highest. Immediately 11 out of the 13 pages were disqualified, as there were between 0 and 3 deaths per incident. That means right away, 287 incidents out of 307 do not qualify as a mass shooting by definition. In fact, 155 of these incidents resulted in zero deaths. This is unbelievable.

That leaves only two pages to dig through. The most common theme with the remaining list of incidents is that they were primarily either family or domestic violence related. Using the definition used by the CRS, that removes all but six shootings that actually count as a public mass shooting. Yes folks, there have only been SIX mass shootings this year in the United States – not 307.

Here are the six qualifying incidents:

February 14, 2018, Broward County Florida (Parkland), 17 dead, 17 injured.
April 22, 2018, Antioch, Tennessee, 4 dead, 3 injured.
May 18, 2018, Santa Fe Texas, 10 dead, 13 injured.
June 28, 2018 Annapolis, Maryland, 5 dead, two injured.
October 27, 2018, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11 dead, 7 injured.
November 7, 2018, Thousand Oaks, California, 13 dead, 2 injured.

Six mass shootings compared to 307 is a substantial difference. The media easily plays off the ignorance of the public, taking advantage of the fact that there is not a universal definition of “mass shooting”, and blowing up an issue that, although very tragic, is only part of a larger picture of violent crime, most of which does not involve firearms.

WHY THIS MATTERS

This clearly shows that the media has a blatant disregard for the truth. They either have an ulterior motive in what they report, or they are too lazy to verify what is being given to them. It’s likely a bit of both, but the former is rather frightening. They are manipulating the general populace by creating hysteria through a skewed mass shooter narrative. This in turn will influence public opinion, and ultimately public policy.

Rally for our Rights founder, Lesley Hollywood, released a poll on her Facebook page in coordination with this article. Lesley was curious what the general public thought had happened when they heard the term “mass shooting.” Out of 508 votes, nearly half of the individuals who participated thought a mass shooting was like what happened in Parkland, FL or Thousands Oaks, CA – not the definition being used by the Gun Violence Archive or many of the others.

This manipulation of perception and public opinion will ultimately be used to conjure up reasons to demonize guns – portraying the objects as evil, with the means of using a lie to go after your ability and your right to keep your family safe and yourself safe. It also misses the mark terribly at addressing WHY these tragic incidents are happening, and how we can prevent them without infringing on the rights of the law abiding.

*This article has been updated to include the Annapolis, MD incident on June 28, 2018.

No, Most AR-15 Owners Are Not Mass Murderers

Posted on November 20, 2018April 26, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

In the world of Twitter, it’s easy to say ridiculous, unfactual things with no consequence – and people will readily validate you with a retweet or praise. In the blink of an eye millions of people are exposed to yet another lie.

This happened just a few days ago when political writer for Newsweek, Nina Burleigh tweeted, and I quote: “Almost every single person I’ve ever heard of with an AR-15 has been a mass murderer.”

Almost every single person I’ve ever heard of with an AR-15 has been a mass murderer. Based on Twitter sample the rest of them are scarily paranoid. Get on the right side of history @DLoesch @Rambobiggs #gunsense https://t.co/rFtHFBpvLM
— Nina Burleigh (@ninaburleigh) November 17, 2018

This tweet was in response to California Congressman Eric Swalwell letting gun owners know if they were to refuse to comply with a hypothetical gun confiscation, they just might be nuked.

Well, Ms. Burleigh clearly lives in a very small, very shallow bubble.

There are well over 6 million AR-15’s in the United States, and that is undoutedly on the low end. These numbers are extrapolated from manufacturer production and the ATF. AR-15’s are commonly used for sport, hunting, and self-defense. They are preferred by many, including women and those with disabilities, because they are lightweight, easy to modify to best fit the user, and highly accurate. As I’ve said many times, if God forbid someone were to enter my home with the intent to harm myself or my daughters, I want the firearm that will stop them the fastest and with the best accuracy – and for myself that is going to be a rifle.

Out of these over 6 million AR-15’s, only 13 have been used in mass murders since 2004.

So, in honor of Ms. Burleigh, I thought it would be fitting to highlight some AR-15 owners. They’re your neighbors and your friends. They’re your co-workers and your classmates. They’re your average, everyday people who give back to their communities and care about society.

Name: Emily Baker
Age: 21
Occupation: Software Developer
Pets: Mookie, American Bulldog
# of Mass Murders Committed: ZERO
# of Community Acts of Service: SIX
• Adopt-A-Highway Cleanups
• Humane Society Donation Drive
• OUR Center Coat Drive
• Volunteers with Special Needs Kids
• Helped organize donation drive after Hurricane Harvey
• Volunteered after Joplin, MO tornado

About Emily: As a baby I was abandoned and left to die on the streets of China. By the Grace of God, I was rescued and adopted to a couple from the United States where I grew up. Learning about the communist land I came from has given me a great respect and appreciation for our Constitutional rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms. You can follow Emily on Instagram at @patriot_panda www.instagram.com/patriot_panda

Name: Jason Boros
Age: 37
Occupation: Mechanic/Service Writer
Pets: 2 dogs, 1 cat and a Guinea pig
# of Mass Murders Committed: ZERO
# of Community Acts of Service: SIX
• Volunteers with terminally ill
• Adopt-A-Highway Cleanups
• Humane Society Donation Drive
• OUR Center Coat Drive
• Donation drive for Mountain States Legal Foundation
• Organizes free community events to help better educate gun enthusiasts

About Jason: Animals love me. All of our pets are rescued. I’m a loving family guy. The only thing on my criminal record is a misdemeanor dog off leash ticket. Mass murderer? That’s insulting.

Name: Haley Marcantonio
Age: 19
Occupation: Server at retirement home & full time college student
Pets: Bonnie & Clyde, Chihuahuas
# of Mass Murders Committed: ZERO
# of Community Acts of Service: SIX
• Domestic violence shelter support
• Volunteers with adoption agency
• Christmas gift drives for needy
• Volunteers with puppy mill awareness campaigns and efforts
• Adopt-A-Highway cleanups
• OUR Center Coat Drive

About Haley: I’m your typical Basic White Girl – I love my Starbucks, shopping, make up, getting my nails done, and hanging out with my friends. I also have seven younger siblings who I love more than the stars in the sky. Follow Haley on Instagram @basicwhitegirlforgunrights www.instagram.com/basicwhitegirlforgunrights

Get a “Straight Outta Compliance” sticker with any size donation of $5 or more to Rally for our Rights. All proceeds directly support the fight to defend your gun rights!

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

Gun Grabber Goes Nuclear – Literally

Posted on November 19, 2018November 24, 2018 by Michael Bacca

Michael Bacca I Will Not Comply Boulder Colorado Eric Swalwell assault weapons ban second amendment

The American people have become accustomed to politicians often making uneducated statements, but Congressman Eric Swalwell takes the cake with his most recent tweet regarding resistance to gun confiscation.

Earlier this year, the congressman proposed banning and buying back weapons he would classify as “assault weapons” and criminally prosecuting those who would defy this law. He suggests that those refusing to comply with a blatantly unconstitutional law should be punished.

When confronted on Twitter by Joe Biggs, who pointed out that this law would result in war between the government and its people, Eric Swalwell escalated his rhetoric. He replied, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.”

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

When an elected representative suggests the government’s possession of nuclear weapons would quickly end opposition, patriots are motivated to buy a few hundred rounds of additional ammunition and perhaps even another AR-15.

His proposed law is both unconstitutional and tyrannical, as it would strip citizens of their right to self-defense. To prevent laws like this, the Second Amendment was included in our Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers knew that government officials would seek to consolidate power for themselves. The Second Amendment was not for hunting and it was not for sport. It was intended to protect its citizenry from a tyrannical government. Perhaps Swalwell has forgotten the oath he took to uphold this Constitution.

Let us never forget why ‘We the People’ have the right to keep and bear arms. Because when politicians push to remove our liberties and tyranny arises, US citizens burden the responsibility to defend our freedom.

Power-hungry politicians have steadily pushed for the disarming of American citizens since this country’s inception. However, lately this movement has gained attention and momentum. It’s up to patriotic individuals to join together, rally for our rights, and stand up to these politicians. I implore you all to take a more active role in your community. Join or create an activist group like Rally for our Rights, write your congressman, make your voice heard. Your fellow countrymen need you. Your liberty needs you.

God bless America,

Bacca

Here’s What Boulder, CO Is Making Gun Owners Do!

Posted on November 18, 2018November 19, 2018 by Lesley Hollywood

Boulder Colorado Firearms Registration Certification

A Boulder, CO resident who had their firearm “certified” under the city’s new “assault weapons” ban brought this to us. We’ve been wanting to see one but not many people are interested in registering their firearms.

In order to be part of Boulder’s “This-Is-Not-A-Registry” program, anyone who owned one of the banned firearms prior to June 15th, 2018 must go to the police department and have it “certified” before Dec 31st, 2018. They must then keep the certificate with the firearm at all times – forever – otherwise they’re a criminal. Lose this piece of paper? The firearm will be confiscated. Don’t comply? Criminal. Allegedly there are no copies of these certificates kept.

Requirements for certification include: Valid photo ID, the firearm being certified (unloaded and secured in vehicle), and a new background check. If the the background check comes back clear, two certificates per firearm will be issued. The cost is $20 for the first firearm and $5 for each additional firearm.”