NRA-ILA

For years, voters in the Evergreen State have been assured that if only they approve certain gun control ballot initiatives, they would “save lives” and reduce crime. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- For years, voters in the Evergreen State have been assured that if only they approve certain gun control ballot initiatives, they would “save lives” and reduce crime. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR), the organization pushing these ballot measures, has made an industry (if the term applies to an entity funded by donations from billionaires) out of peddling a new gun control law every so often.

The first measure WAGR and its allies proposed was Initiative 594 (2014), the so-called “universal background check” law, which required a federal background check for almost every gun sale and transfer, including temporary transfers, gifts and loans. The preamble to the initiative referred to the law as “an effective and easy mechanism” to eliminate access to guns by criminals, but it applied indiscriminately to artifact loans to museums as well as transfers during firearm safety classes and by licensed professionals in the security guard industry.

The second measure was Initiative 1491 (2016), a 21-page measure to authorize courts to remove firearms from persons presumed to be dangerous, based on allegations made by past or present spouses, dating partners, cohabitants, or any other persons related by blood or marriage. As with I-594, this was presented as a means of reducing violence and saving lives.

Initiative 1639 (2018) was also premised on increasing public safety, in this case by imposing a firearm storage requirement and restricting “semi-automatic assault rifles,” a made-up term that includes rifles used for legitimate and ordinary hunting, sporting, and competition activities. According to the initiative, “shootings involving the use of semiautomatic assault rifles have resulted in hundreds of lives lost…”
The NRA and others opposed these ballot initiatives, arguing they would accomplish nothing except to further burden honest gun owners. Law enforcement groups opposed I-594 and I-1639, stating the measures would have no impact on public safety or crime as criminals would “continue to ignore the law.” The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Washington State declined to support I-1491, citing concerns with the stigmatizing of mental illness, due process protection, and its questionable effectiveness.
Washington voters, though, chose to trust WAGR and the promised results.
Several years later, one way to evaluate the benefits of these initiatives is to examine information on crime rates and crime. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) publishes an annual report on crime in the state, compiled from data submitted to the Washington State Uniform Crime Reporting Program by local law enforcement agencies. The primary objective of the report “is to implement and administer a uniform system of collecting crime and arrest statistical data … and present the information in complete, accurate, and timely method.”
Contrary to the claims made in promoting the restrictions on “semi-automatic assault rifles,” the reports establish that rifles of any kind are rarely used in murders in the state, and this has consistently been the case before I-1639 was approved. In 2012, rifles were identified as the weapon in just three murders that year, compared to knives (28), blunt objects (12), and “personal weapons” like hands, fists or feet (11). Knives, personal weapons, and blunt objects continue to exceed, by a large margin, the use of rifles in murders for every year since. In 2018, for example, rifles were used in two murders, while knives (45), drugs/narcotics (7), personal weapons (17), blunt objects (9), and even vehicles (3) were much more likely to be the weapon of choice. This trend continues into 2020.
Another useful indicator is the movement of the state’s crime rates. The WASPC reports show that the rate for “crimes against persons” (those where the victim is always an individual, like homicides, sex crimes, assaults, and violations of protective orders) has increased from 10.15/1,000 pop. in 2013 to over 13.0 in succeeding years. The rate for what the reports call “group A” crimes, a much broader class that includes the above offenses as well as burglary, kidnapping, property crimes, and others, has been climbing, too, since the first initiative was enacted. In addition to these escalations, the latest report for 2020 contains a further worrisome sign: while violent crimes overall dropped during the pandemic year compared to 2019, the number of murders statewide in 2020 jumped by almost 50% over those of the previous year.
The number of “weapon law violations,” defined as “[v]iolations of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation, possession, concealment, or use of firearms, cutting instruments, explosives, incendiary devices, or other deadly weapons,” has been increasing since 2013. According to the reports, these violations are overwhelmingly related to possession or concealment of a weapon rather than weapon use, and are therefore classed outside of the “crimes against persons” category. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the proliferation of new gun laws, violations have gone from a 2013 rate of 0.58/1,000 pop. to 0.76/1,000 pop. in 2020.
Based on the representations and assurances of WAGR and its like-minded supporters and enablers in light of this crime data, Washington’s voters are justified in asking how it is that their communities and lives have been made safer since these initiatives were imposed. Instead, by expanding state laws regulating the sale, transfer, possession, and storage of firearms, even by lawful owners, the initiatives have made it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves and their families against criminals, and much more likely that these ordinary citizens will inadvertently violate a firearm restriction and become criminals themselves.

Causes of crime are often complex, but the message for voters in Washington State and elsewhere is simple: criminals ignore laws, so adding more laws to fix the failure of criminals to comply is not a solution. Ask questions about proposed “gun violence prevention” schemes and whether these are, in fact, the “evidence-based solutions” they are held out to be. Beware of billionaire hobbyists spending millions to bankroll gun control laws to restrict the freedom and fundamental rights of everyday Americans.

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Similar to many other urban areas of the country, St. Louis saw a dramatic increase in homicide in 2020. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Similar to many other urban areas of the country, St. Louis saw a dramatic increase in homicide in 2020. The Gateway to the West’s homicide rate per 100 thousand residents exploded from 64.5 in 2019 to 87.2 in 2020. The homicide rate was far and away the city’s highest in the preceding 50 years.

This startling increase in homicides has come under the watch of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner. Elected to the office in 2016, Gardner has worked to “reform” the city’s criminal justice system – often placing her at odds with city law enforcement. Gardner has received significant support from anti-gun billionaire George Soros. As Politico reported back in 2016, Soros is engaged in a wide-ranging effort to remake the U.S. criminal justice system by electing activist prosecutors throughout the country.

Gardner and her office’s unserious approach to violent crime was demonstrated in the high-profile bungling of a murder case earlier this month.

On July 18, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported,
Circuit Judge Jason Sengheiser on Wednesday dismissed first-degree murder, armed criminal action and unlawful gun possession charges against [defendant] after no one from the Circuit Attorney’s Office showed up for scheduled hearings in May, June and July.
Taking aim at Gardner and her office’s conduct, Judge Sengheiser went on to state,
The Circuit Attorney’s Office is ultimately the party responsible for protecting public safety by charging and then prosecuting those it believes commit crimes. In a case like this where the Circuit Attorney’s office has essentially abandoned its duty to prosecute those it charges with crimes, the court must impartially enforce the law and any resultant threat to public safety is the responsibility of the Circuit Attorney’s Office.
The accused is alleged to have shot and killed a man on April 9, 2020. Following the shooting, the defendant was the subject of a multi-state manhunt that involved the U.S. Marshals.
In a statement responding to Judge Sengheiser’s dismissal and the media inquiries it prompted, Gardner contended, “I am accountable to the public for the actions of the office and remain committed as ever to upholding the highest possible standards and practices of accountability at all levels of this office, particularly the public safety of the residents of the City of St. Louis. As a result, the individual, in this case, is in custody.”
However, shortly after Gardner’s statement, police told the Post-Dispatch that she was incorrect and that the accused murderer was in fact not in custody. As of July 21, the suspect was still at large.
Following news of the accused’s release, the family of his alleged victim was critical of Gardner’s office. A sister of the victim told local news station KDSK that they had not been informed by the prosecutor’s office of the suspect’s release and only learned about it from the media. Another sister of the deceased said “Kim Gardner is a poor excuse for a prosecutor. It’s not fair.”
Gardner and her office’s dereliction of duty taken alone is disturbing. However, Gardner’s behavior takes on a sinister character when her lethargic treatment of alleged violent criminals is juxtaposed with the enthusiasm she exhibits in using her office to pursue political adversaries.Consider the high-profile case against gun owners Mark and Patricia McCloskey.
On June 28, 2020, the couple were inside their home on a private street in St. Louis when a group of activists proceeded into the private community and gathered around their property. Fearing for their safety and property in the wake of weeks of violent rioting throughout the country, the pair retrieved firearms and went out on their lawn.
Pictures of the couple defending themselves and their property were quickly posted to social media and broadcast by the press. Those sympathetic to the aggressive left-wing political tactics and unsympathetic to property or Second Amendment rights took umbrage with the McCloskey’s unabashed exercise of self-defense and called for the couple to be prosecuted.

Gardner obliged.
In July 2020, Gardner charged the couple with “unlawful use of weapons” for “Exhibit[ing], in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.” The crime is a Class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison.
Now, a handful of well-meaning members of the firearm community have taken issue with some of the finer points of the McCloskeys’ gun handling as the crowd descended upon them. However, even if one subscribes to these critiques, it would be reasonable to expect an unbiased prosecutor to use their discretion to bestow mercy on an individual for suboptimal gun handling on their own property in what was likely one of the most harrowing moments of their life.
Gardner, of course, is biased. In December, a judge was forced to remove Gardner and her office from the McCloskey case after Gardner boasted of charging the McCloskeys in a fundraising email.
Even though progressive criminal justice “reformers” professes opposition to overcharging criminal defendants, Gardner had no qualms about employing the tactic against the McCloskeys. Despite Gardner’s best efforts, in June the couple pled guilty to minor misdemeanors.St. Louis under Gardner is emblematic of a broader trend in politicized prosecution. Under this disordered regime, the politically disfavored are doggedly persecuted while violent criminals go free.

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Today, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary will hold public hearings on both pro-and anti-gun bills. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary will hold public hearings on both pro-and anti-gun bills. Please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT H. 1570, and OPPOSE S. 942 and H. 1734.

CLICK HERE TAKE ACTION!
Pro-Gun Bill:

House Bill 1570 legalizes civilian ownership and use of suppressors for legal purposes in Massachusetts. Firearm suppressors also referred to as “silencers”, are currently illegal to own under Massachusetts state law, as a civilian, despite the fact that they are legal to own under federal law and in 42 states. Suppressors are commonly used by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans who appreciate the many benefits of reducing harmful sound.

Anti-Gun Bills:
Senate Bill 942 and House Bill 1734 limit the number of firearms that can be sold or otherwise transferred to any person, to 15 firearms during any 1 year period, with limited exceptions. The legislation also would limit federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to only sell firearms designed or equipped with the ability to “micro-stamp” ammunition.
This type of “feel good” legislation will not get illegal guns off the streets or have any meaningful impact on reducing violent crime. Instead, it will only serve as a roadblock to law-abiding citizens who wish to practice their Second Amendment Rights. Freedom should never be diminished for those who abide by the law. Freedom should be diminished only for those who break the law.
Again, please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT H. 1570, and OPPOSE S. 942 and H. 1734.

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Biden reiterates the call to ban 9mm handguns. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- During a July 21 CNN “presidential town hall,” Joe Biden expressed his support for a ban on commonly-owned handguns. Responding to a question about the recent increase in violent crime, the career politician stated,

I’m the only guy that ever got passed legislation, when I was a senator, to make sure we eliminated assault weapons. The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether — whether it’s a 9-millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.

Of course, any semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine has the “ability to fire” in the manner Biden deemed objectionable. Therefore, the seasoned grandstander’s statement was a call to ban all semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns capable of accepting a detachable magazine.

This wasn’t the first time Biden advocated for such a wide-ranging gun ban.

A November 2019 article in the Seattle Times chronicled Biden’s attendance at a pair of high-dollar private fundraisers in the Emerald City. While speaking to attendees at one of the soirees, Biden reportedly asked attendees, “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?” Biden also shared his tired claim that because there is a shot-shell restriction for migratory bird hunting, “We protect geese from Canada more than we do people.”
Hunters are limited to using shotguns capable of accepting three shells or less while hunting migratory game birds. Biden’s comment suggests that he supports restricting the number of rounds Americans are allowed to have in a self-defense firearm to three or less.
Biden’s proposed ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms capable of accepting a detachable magazine is unconstitutional. The landmark Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller concerned a complete prohibition on the ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. The opinion made clear that the Second Amendment at a minimum protects the right to acquire and possess firearms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes such as self-defense.
In the context of commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles, Heller author Justice Antonin Scalia made clear that the Second Amendment prohibits governments from banning America’s most popular rifle – the AR-15. In 2015, Justice Scalia joined Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Justice Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

A ban on semi-automatic pistols is even more at odds with the law. Semi-automatic pistols are America’s favorite category of firearms. Moreover, pistols chambered in Biden’s dreaded 9mm are the most popular pistol in this category.
According to ATF’s Firearms Commerce in the United States FY 2020, there were over 3.8 million pistols manufactured in the U.S. in 2018. This was more than 1 million more guns than the next most popular category of firearms, rifles. Further, nearly 3 million handguns (including revolvers) were imported into the U.S. in 2017.
In its annual report on the U.S. firearm industry, Shooting Industry has reported that 9mm caliber pistols are the most commonly produced pistol and have been for many years. In 2018 alone, there were more than 2 million 9mm pistols produced in the U.S. Cumulatively law-abiding Americans own tens of millions of 9mm pistols.
At the same time, semi-automatic handguns have become ubiquitous, support for a ban on handguns has plummeted. For six decades, Gallup has periodically asked Americans “Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?” In 1959, 60 percent of respondents supported such a ban. In 2020, a mere 25 percent supported this unconstitutional measure.

Perhaps if Biden had spent more time studying, and less time transcribing, in law school he would have a firmer grasp of Constitutional law. As it stands, gun rights supporters will need to educate Biden and his political allies at the ballot box.

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

The NRA-ILA offers an inside look into how anti-gun research works. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The objective world mistrusts most gun policy research because it’s clear the objective is to produce an anti-gun outcome rather than an honest analysis. Politicians and professional activists claim the mantle of evidence but will ignore any findings that threaten their anti-gun agenda.

Anti-gun politicians continue to advocate for policies that the very researchers they champion have contradicted, if not found to be ineffective. Researchers and activists cherry-pick data, but they also cherry-pick which findings to use – even from a single study. Can you imagine if the same low threshold for credibility was applied to pro-gun findings?

Let’s try an exercise. Vermont – one of the safest states in the nation, one that had Permitless Carry for centuries – enacted a magazine capacity restriction in 2018. Let’s look at the violent crime rate in Vermont and the U.S using data from the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer. The national violent crime rate decreased from 2018 to 2019 but the rate in Vermont increased – and even increased more than it had from 2017 to 2018.

Anti-gun researchers and activists have used a trend line like this as evidence of an effect. Surely, the violent crime rate increase and the magazine capacity restrictions must be related because they happened seemingly simultaneously.
Like many anti-gun researchers, we excluded any years that make our point look less dramatic if not outright unsupported.
Let’s try some rudimentary statistical analysis. The magazine capacity restriction and the violent crime rate have a correlation coefficient of 0.8 for the years 2009 through 2019. Does this strong correlation suggest any relationship between the magazine capacity restriction and the increase in violent crime?
Of course not; this, like nearly all social science research related to firearms policy, does not identify causation and excludes highly relevant social, cultural, and economic variables.
Narrow data selection or deliberate exclusions are not a new phenomenon, but it is persistent. Anti-gun researchers also curate their datasets to ensure their findings support their pre-determined conclusion. If this happens to produce other unreasonable or even outrageous findings, no big deal. The gun control crowd has no problem overlooking inconvenient findings.
A recent example of picking-and-choosing research findings occurred in real estate. Investment firms, including BlackRock, went overtly anti-gun several years ago and wanted to use their financial power to force gun manufacturers and retailers to change their legal business strategies. Gun control organizations rated banks to shame them into cutting off the legal firearms industry, and even the Obama Administration got in on the act. Large investment firms were recently reported to be buying up residential real estate to realize long-term profits on the rental income.
Investment firms turned on legal firearms-related businesses because of the supposed associated harm, but now they’re encouraging behavior that is near twice as risky – according to the grandfather of gun control research – as keeping a firearm in the home.

According to Arthur Kellerman’s 1993 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, keeping a firearm in the home had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7 compared to an adjusted odds ratio of 4.4 for renting (instead of owning) a home. The odds ratio represents an increase in the risk of homicide.
Renting presented the largest increase risk of homicide in the model while gun ownership was the smallest, but big gun control salivated at Kellerman’s misfocused conclusion. The findings related to renting vs. owning have been ignored, which may explain why supposedly socially conscious investment firms are encouraging consumers to engage in the riskiest behavior.
Kellerman’s study led to the Dickey Amendment because it was so obviously contrived to advance gun control. Based on the results, there is something very seriously wrong with Kellerman’s methodology. But, Kellerman’s paper has somehow held on and even continues to be cited in new papers. At least thirteen papers published so far this year cite Kellerman – and this should also tell you something about the state of gun policy research.
Anti-gun researchers Philip J. Cook and John J. Donohue published a letter in Science in 2017 that acknowledged the necessary data, time, and resources are readily available to academics who want to conduct research on gun policy. But all we hear about it the need for federally funded gun control research, even after admission from the paper of record.
Make no mistake –professional gun control activists want to trade on the perceived credibility of the federal government. This is not sincere, sterile research. Consider the sort of ridiculously flawed anti-gun research that has been published and the shortcuts required to produce an anti-gun talking point. Think about the voluminous criticisms leveled at Gary Kleck and yet no one has reproduced his research with a different finding.
Anti-gun researches will continue to use the flawed methodology and bad data as long as a fawning media and gun control establishment continue to fuel any “research” with the “right” conclusion

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

The NRA-ILA reports on al the latest pro and anti-2a legislation in Maine. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Following a busy year, the Maine Legislature adjourned from its 2021 Legislative Session on Monday night.  The legislature saw the introduction and advancement of multiple pro- and anti-gun bills.  The below bills were a few that were passed into law:

Pro-Gun Legislation:

Legislative Document 884 prohibits the Department of Public Safety from retaining any information or data concerning firearm purchases within the activities performed by the Department’s information analysis center.

Anti-Gun Legislation:
Legislative Document 759 places unnecessary risk and burden on law-abiding gun owners in their own homes.  The measure unnecessarily amends the statute governing reckless endangerment of a child, when current law already regulates access to firearms by minors, and the corresponding responsibilities of adults.
Thank you to NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters for continuing to contact their lawmakers about the above gun bills.  Stay-tuned to NRA-ILA for more information and updates on Second Amendment issues in The Pine Tree State.​

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Yesterday, SB 118, Constitutional Carry, was defeated due to several Senators reversing their initial vote of support on the bill. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, SB 118, Constitutional Carry, was defeated due to several Senators reversing their initial vote of support on the bill.  Two of the Senators who flip-flopped were Senators Patrick Connick (SD-8) and Louie Bernard (SD-31).  These two actually had the nerve to speak on the Senate floor to try to explain their reason for betraying the Second Amendment.  They admitted they did not do their “research” when they voted the first time in support of your right to carry.  Apparently, this “research” entailed meeting with rogue, anti-gun sheriffs in their districts and succumbing to their pressure.

The other two who don’t support expanding your self-defense options were Republican Senator Franklin Foil (SD-16) and Democrat Senator Gary Smith (SD-19).

Our freedom is dependent on preserving our Constitution and we now know these four Senators cannot be trusted.  We cannot, and will not, let others pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights they would like to follow, and we will continue our fight next legislative session to ensure we keep that freedom.

Thank you to the bill sponsor, Senator Jay Morris (SD-35), for his hard work, and to those Senators who stood up to the bullying and were resolute in their support of the right to self-defense.  Thank you, also, to those members and Second Amendment supporters who called, emailed, and attended the rally. Without you, we could not have gotten this far. 

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

The NRA-ILA applauds efforts by the House of Representatives in supporting the Second Amendment. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA-backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. NRA-ILA’s opening brief is located here.

Yesterday, NRA-ILA applauds Rep. Claudia Tenney (NY-22) and the 175 other members of the U.S. House of Representatives who filed an amicus brief supporting this case.

Rep. Tenney and her colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives declared their support because they have “sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and have an obligation to defend and uphold the rights recognized in the document, including the right to keep and bear arms.” They urged the Supreme Court of the United States to “restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place as a guarantee for all Americans.”
NRA-ILA greatly appreciates the tireless work that New York Rep. Tenney and her 175 colleagues invested into this pro-Second Amendment brief that is now before the Supreme Court of the United States. We commend these 176 Members of Congress for their proven dedication to the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens.

To read this brief yourself—and see if your Representative signed on to it—please click here.
The case is captioned New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights.

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA-backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA-backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. And just last week, NRA-ILA filed the opening brief in this crucial case, which is located here.

Today, NRA-ILA applauds the 43 amicus briefs filed supporting this case. Among these groups, NRA-ILA is heartened to see support from numerous elected officials including 176 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives led by Rep. Claudia Tenney (NY-22), 25 U.S. Senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), 26 Attorneys General led by Mark Brnovich (AZ) and Eric S. Schmitt (MO), and Governor Greg Abbott (TX).

NRA-ILA greatly appreciates this outpouring of support. These amicus briefs come from all types of groups and individuals interested in protecting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This support demonstrates the deeply held belief in this country that the Second Amendment is for all law-abiding citizens, not just the select few who are deemed worthy by the state, and does not stop at your front door.

To view the full list of amicus briefs that have been filed in this case, please click here.
The case is captioned New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights.

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Canada is confiscating guns again. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On June 29, Yves Giroux, Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer, released a report on the estimated cost of implementing the firearm confiscation (“buyback”) program that is part of the sweeping Order-in-Council announced by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on May 1, 2020. That law immediately banned more than 1,500 models of firearms (along with any current or future firearms that could be considered a “variant” of the listed guns) and established a time-limited amnesty that allows the owners of these formerly lawful guns to possess the guns until April 30, 2022, without incurring criminal liability. Owners would be offered the “choice of either grandfathering or compensation if they surrender the firearm,” with the details “announced later.”

More than a year later, gun owners in Canada still have no information about how the grandfathering, confiscation, or compensation will work, although the government assures Canadians that it is “committed to a buy-back program that would allow you to return [turn in] your firearm for fair compensation.”
Taxpayers are likewise still waiting for answers regarding the costs of implementing this law. Last fall, Bill Blair, the federal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness overseeing the implementation of the gun ban, refused to answer questions about the price tag for this gun control scheme, although he had previously indicated that the “buyback” program alone was expected to cost between CAD$400 million and $600 million.

Unfortunately, the new report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) fails to shed much light on the compelling question of cost. What the report does provide is a very inexact estimate for just the firearm confiscation/compensation program, ranging from CAD$47 million to $756 million.

This upper range exceeds, by a considerable amount, the maximum of $600 million given by Bill Blair. Moreover, a careful reading of the PBO document indicates that the common thread that runs through the entirety of the 16-page report is uncertainty – the document is replete with hedging and qualifications and disclaimers. It is apparent the authors simply weren’t given much to work with, but the clear implication nevertheless is that the actual cost has the potential to climb far above the $756 million maximum.
For starters, the number of guns that are “eligible” for the mandatory surrender is unknown. The report uses two datasets, one from the government and a survey-based one from the industry (Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, CSAAA). The government data pegs the number of affected firearms at approximately 150,000, while the CSAAA estimate is around 518,000. The “PBO was unable to fully reconcile the competing estimates.”
A second variable is a compensation. Despite repeated requests by the PBO, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness advised that no details would be forthcoming about the firearms pricing and compensation models because the department was “not in a position to share programmatic details, exact timelines, and costs against which such a program would run.” Absent these key details, the PBO looked at both a “tiered” model (used in New Zealand), where compensation took into account the firearm’s condition to a maximum of 95 percent of a set value, and a “market value” model. Both apparently used, as a base, the prices in the CSAAA dataset (the government data did not list firearm values or prices). The average retail value of all firearms from the CSAAA’s dataset was used where there was no indication of a specific average retail value. The report adopted the percentages regarding gun conditions from New Zealand’s 2019 confiscation program, where 58 percent of firearms surrendered were in “new/near new” condition, 40 percent in used condition, and two percent were in poor condition. The analysis also factored in various “take up” rates (how many of the estimated firearms are actually turned in), possibly because of the as-yet-undetermined grandfathering option.
Applying this to the government dataset, the result is a preliminary cost estimate ranging from $47 million to $188 million (tiered compensation), and $56 million to $225 million for the market value approach. Applied to the CSAAA dataset, the estimate amounts are $158 million to $632 million (tiered compensation), or $180 million to $756 million using market value.
The PBO report emphasizes that these amounts do not (and cannot) account for other variables which will affect these estimates. Besides the unknown compensation structure, other “program design factors” that could impact the cost include whether compensation will also be provided for firearm ammunition and parts and whether dealers will be compensated for their businesses losses.
Another huge variable is the administrative costs, broken down in the report as including at least eight categories: consulting services, personnel costs, technology (software and computer equipment), appraisal (if condition is a factor in compensation), and transportation, storage, and destruction of confiscated firearms. The PBO document states that “in the absence of a plan, it is currently impossible to estimate the program administration costs,” but adds that the experience in New Zealand was that such “program administration costs” were almost twice the amount that had been originally anticipated.
As you may have guessed by now, the report concludes that there are “too many outstanding questions on how this program will be implemented to currently develop a complete picture of the true potential cost of the program.”
One professor has recently expressed the viewpoint that gun rights advocates should stop pointing to the extravagant costs associated with the Trudeau government’s gun ban, as these “enormous estimates may have an unintended consequence for gun owners: it could lend support to the idea of prohibiting assault rifles without taxpayers doling out compensation.” In short, instead of questioning the wisdom of another publicly funded fiasco like the Liberals’ long gun registry, or government fecklessness and waste more generally, “gun groups might be wise to work with the government to ensure reasonable compensation, rather than inflating the potential cost of the program to undermine it.”
The government – as the PBO report confirms – has made and “reiterated its commitment to offer fair market compensation” for the confiscated property. Canada’s gun owners and taxpayers alike have a right to know how government resources are being managed and spent —especially, as the professor notes, now that “COVID has placed enormous pressures on public finances.” It’s obvious (and alarming) that at this point no one—least of all the politicians responsible for the gun ban – has any accurate idea of what this confiscation program will cost.What Canadians do have is at least one credible reason to believe that the “complete picture” on cost will exceed whatever estimates are being disclosed currently, given that it’s a hallmark of Liberal gun control measures that the cost astronomically exceeds both projected estimates and any public benefit that results. Is it really a good policy to disregard or talk down the fiscal red flags raised by this compulsory government expropriation of private property to avert the same kind of government thievery on a more blatant scale? Surely, if cost is the critical factor in these post-COVID times, why not call on the government to repeal the Order-in-Council and scrap the program entirely?

As we’ve said before, all signs point to the Liberal government having had no implementation plan, cost projections, or feasibility studies at the time it imposed its May 2020 gun ban law. The gun control scheme was going to go ahead regardless of its lack of effect on gangs and violent criminals, the economic impact on sporting, hunting, and farming communities and the gun industry, or the ultimate cost to the taxpaying public. All this, together with the informational blackout on just how this gun ban will work, months away from the expiry of the amnesty period, are just some of the things “undermining” the program.
Many government programs appear sensible and workable in theory, before all those things that go wonky actually start going wrong. As demonstrated by the PBO report, though, the Trudeau government’s gun ban doesn’t even look good on paper.

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org