Gun Control Won't Stop School Massacres

Every time there is a mass shooting by a deranged shooter, talks of enacting more gun control measures resurface. On Tuesday, a 12-year-old boy at a middle school in Sparks, Nev., shot and killed a math teacher, Matthew Landsberry, with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol. Two 12-year-old boys were injured. The teacher, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan, heroically placed himself between the killer and other students and tried to talk the student out of harming others. Sadly, the teacher was unsuccessful and the student killed him then took his own life. None of the school district’s 38 resource police officers were on the school’s campus at the time of the shooting.

The Obama administration responded immediately calling for more gun control measures. But it is extremely unlikely more gun control laws would have prevented this shooting. The current effort to ban “assault rifles” again wouldn’t ban this 9mm pistol. The student got the gun from his parents because they apparently failed to keep it securely locked up. The gun control lobby will clamor for trigger locks and gun safe requirements, claiming they would have prevented this senseless murder  – some insurance companies will not provide home insurance for gun owners unless there are trigger locks in the home – but that doesn’t stop irresponsible individuals from failing to use the trigger locks and gun safes. Passing more gun control laws just means more mass shootings will involve illegal activity.

The problem isn’t guns, it is people. There will always be evil people, and there will always be irresponsible people. In the modern era, parents are permissively and lazily allowing their children to play unlimited violent video games and watch unlimited violent television. Studies have proven over and over again there is a correlation between high levels of these activities and violent behavior in children. As long as parents are allowing these savage mediums to babysit their kids, instead of taking the time to really parent them, some of these children are going to act out violent tendencies.

 Read the rest of the article at PolicyMic

My interview with the NRA's Cam & Co about Obamacare and gun control

Watch Your Guns Around Obamacare

What does gun control have to do with health care? As odd as it seems, Obamacare contains provisions that jeopardize gun ownership, especially for veterans. Anti-gun provisions were added to initial drafts of Obamacare legislation under the pretext of prohibiting people with mental illness – which can include PTSD - from owning guns. Fortunately, the NRA stepped in and got some of the worst language revised last December. Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.prohibits the creation of a firearms database and stops doctors from disclosing or collecting information relating to a patient’s firearms. Ironically, this provision was probably the only positive result of most members of Congress not bothering to read the bill before voting on it.

However, the provision does not go as far as prohibiting doctors from asking their patients if there are any firearms in their home. In January, Obama issued 23 executive actions and orders regarding firearms. Order 16 stressed that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about their firearms, and the fact sheet includes, “Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.” What constitutes a “threat of violence” could be very arbitrary. This puts doctors in a difficult position by suggesting they act as pseudo-law enforcement agents. It is damaging to doctor-patient privilege. If doctors have a patient with PTSD or mental illness, and they fail to ask the patient about their firearms, or report them to law enforcement, they could be on the hook later. It encourages them to err on the side of snooping into their patients’ guns. This is especially troubling considered the definition of mental illness keeps expanding.

The state of Florida implemented legislation that would have severely restricted a doctor’s ability to ask a patient about guns at home, but a federal court struck it down as unconstitutional. After the NRA got that provision added, the organization backed off on pressing for further changes, no doubt because trying to get more changes done at that time would have been impossible with the Democratic-controlled Senate and presidency. But there are still areas within our healthcare laws that could prohibit Americans from owning firearms – specifically our veterans.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

AG Tom Horne again found to have violated law, must return $400,000 in campaign contributions

For the second time, a prosecutor has found that liberal Republican Tom Horne violated campaign finance laws by illegally coordinating with crony Kathleen Winn on her independent expenditure committee. Both Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk found the independent expenditures were illegally made in-kind contributions. Polk wrote in part, "\“When Home sent strategic information to a supposedly independent campaign, he intentionally and blatantly broke the barrier that was supposed to exist between his campaign and BLA. The breach is so clear that Home must have recognized it to be improper,” Polk wrote, adding that it “is clear that BLA’s expenditures were based on the needs of the Horne campaign.”

Horne defeated conservative Andrew Thomas for Attorney General in 2010 and then Democrat Felecia Rotellini in the general election. Horne campaigned running nonstop TV ads which claimed that Thomas was under "criminal investigation by the FBI." All he was referring to was the county supervisors' complaints to the DOJ about Thomas and Arpaio. Thomas and Arpaio were ultimately cleared by the DOJ through a grand jury.

Horne, on the other hand, continues to be mired in investigations that aren't going away. The feds are investigating him and he recently pled guilty to a misdemeanor for a hit and run accident, where he slammed into a car while leaving his mistress's house (Horne is married). There may be some more ongoing investigations into that.

Meanwhile, conservative Mark Brnovich is gaining steam against Horne. Inside polling reveals that Horne cannot beat Rotellini in the general election, and conservatives and Tea Parties are lining up behind Brnovich.

Read the ABC-15 article

Deja Vu: The Pretend Debt Ceiling Crisis

The impending debt ceiling vote is much more important than the budget vote of a couple of weeks ago, the delay of which allegedly “shut down government.” This is because the budget vote - which is actually just a temporary continuing resolution - can be resolved by taking out the provision that guts Obamacare. While it would be wonderful to defund Obamacare through this gimmick, sometimes it’s better to take on one battle at a time, rather than try to throw everything in there at once. The pro-life movement has learned this lesson over the years; instead of attempting to pass sweeping, multipart bills against abortion, they’ve learned to propose incremental changes. When they have tried to pack too much into one bill or initiative, it usually ends up defeated.  

The problem is Obama and the Democrats in Congress are now using the government shutdown as a negotiating card on the debt limit. They won’t negotiate with the GOP on the debt ceiling until the GOP backs down on trying to defund Obamacare as part of the budget. The GOP can’t expect to negotiate a win on the budget from a position of weakness. The Democrats control the Senate and the presidency, and to hope to pull off a coup on the budget as the underdog is unrealistic. As we’ve learned from past history, particularly the government shutdowns of 1995-96, a showdown over the government shutdown will most likely end up backfiring on Republicans. Most Americans have no idea how serious the government shutdown is, so they are taking it very seriously. They hear from the left-leaning media that the GOP is continuing to keep it shut down because of insistence on a gimmick to defund Obamacare, and so they blame the GOP.

Republicans would have been better off backing off on the government shutdown, and instead sinking their teeth into the fight over increasing the debt ceiling. There will be a more realistic opportunity to repeal Obamacare in 2016 if the GOP can retake the presidency and possibly the Senate. 

Read the rest of the article at The Christian Post

Brnovich opens campaign with appeal to grassroots conservatives

Here are some excerpts from the Arizona Capitol Times reporting on Mark Brnovich's campaign for Attorney General against scandal-plagued liberal Republican Tom Horne. The Arizona Capitol Times is paid-subscription only, but it's worth the price as the best (and fairest) newspaper in the state. Its Yellow Sheet alone is the best political tipsheet in the state. Horne had the perfect opportunity to stop Brewer's unconstitutional expansion of Obamacare with the Medicaid expansion and didn't do a thing. Brnovich would have stepped in. Horne used to be a liberal Democrat. He can't be trusted. If reelected, we don't know what he will do since he's dishonest.  Remember the SEC issue, cheating on his wife, violating campaign finance laws, even a hit and run. He's the AG, not a Democrat running for NYC mayor.

by Jeremy Duda

Newly minted attorney general candidate Mark Brnovich hit the campaign trail and laid out his case for why GOP voters should choose him over Tom Horne, bashing the incumbent attorney general for legal and ethical problems that have plagued him and alleging that Horne hasn’t done enough to defend conservative principles. 

At an Oct. 7 meeting of the Arizona Project, a north Phoenix-based Tea Party organization, Brnovich urged about two dozen conservative activists to support him over Horne for both philosophical and political reasons. Brnovich resigned from his position as director of the Arizona Department of Gaming on Sept. 20 and filed to run for attorney general several days later.

Philosophically, he said Horne has insufficiently fought federal overreach and violations of states’ rights on issues such as environmental regulations and the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. On the political side, Brnovich said they should support him because he’s the only Republican candidate who can win the general election.

Ultimately it’s Horne’s legal and ethical issues that led some Republicans to seek a challenger in the GOP primary. The Yavapai County Attorney’s Office is investigating the campaign finance allegations against Horne. He pleaded no contest to leaving the scene after backing into a car in a downtown Phoenix parking garage. He is facing a lawsuit in federal court from an employee who alleges that Horne retaliated against her for her political affiliations and for reporting the campaign finance allegations to the FBI. And an FBI report accused him of having an extramarital affair with an employee whom he gave a six-figure job.
 
Brnovich said attorney general candidate Felecia Rotellini and other Democrats are hoping that Horne will be the nominee.

>Brnovich said Horne should have been more aggressive in challenging Obamacare and federal overreach, such as controversial Environmental Protection Agency regulations on the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station.

Brnovich questioned why Horne didn’t opine on whether Gov. Jan Brewer’s Medicaid expansion plan was subject to a constitutional provision requiring a two-thirds vote for all tax increases, chastised him for his agency’s defense of the Arizona Board of Cosmetology in a lawsuit by a Gilbert spa owner, and several times reminded the crowd that Horne used to be a Democrat.

“We need an attorney general that’s going to be more aggressive in keeping the federal government off our backs,” Brnovich said. “I think the attorney general needs to be much more aggressive in fighting federal overreach.”

Click here for the full article 

Congressman David Schweikert Calls For Civility

Or, read the transcript below. We recommend you watch the speech, though, because Schweikert is an outstanding speaker.

Can We Disagree Without Being Disagreeable? 
I want share something from the heart that actually has disturbed me watching this debate between the House and the Senate over the last few days. It’s time to take a step backwards and reflect on our use of language and tone, and reflect on our civility as a governing body over this last week. 

The President got behind the microphones and was literally talking down the stock market, suggesting that it was time that Wall Street should be concerned. One of the intelligence services officials expressed fear that the furloughed intelligence service officers are now bribable because they are furloughed. I've had members come beside me and use words like 'terrorist,' and 'gun to the head.' To all my brothers and sisters here in Congress and for the blogs and the reporters and the political operatives around this country-- You are better; We are better than this.

Take a step backward and ask why the viciousness and the fear-mongering from the liberals when this argument is actually pretty darn simple?  Those of us on the conservative side believe we have reached out-- over and over-- to negotiate a resolution.  The path to finding a solution is simple.  Senator Reid needs to agree to a conference committee, put the members in a room and let them start talking.   Two years ago, the Democrats lit up the phones in my office demanding that we talk and negotiate on other issues. So why was that demand acceptable in the summer of 2011, but we can’t demand the same today?

Unfortunately, this same rhetoric of fear is now heading towards the debt ceiling debate and the “you're going to default” discussion.  Anyone who says that is looking you in the eyes and lying. Either that or they don't own a calculator.

We've got to understand the math. This country takes in 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in taxes and we pay out 2% in debt coverage. In 2014 we have $1.6 trillion in re-financing. The fact of the matter is, any way you see the model, it’s simply implausible that we would miss making our interest payments.

I understand we have different views. I strongly believe the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare,” is causing businesses to shift full-time positions to part-time jobs and destroying opportunities for our citizens. But I also agree that we need solutions for individuals with pre-existing conditions.

We can disagree without losing our civility and descending into vicious personal attacks. Let’s elevate the discussion back to facts and data and focus on the real issues.

References: 

My Floor 5 Minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbDP3T7i3O8

The President on the Stock Market: http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/02/news/economy/obama-wall-street-ceo/?hpt=po_c1

Senator Harry Reid on Shutdown Tone: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/4/reid-apologizes-nasty-tone-senate-floor/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Trap, Skeet Or Sporting Clays: Which Is Right For You?

Reprinted from the September 2013 issue of Western Shooting Journal

Me with Western Shooting Journal’s shotgun writer, Al Hague, and his Benelli 12-gauge shotgun.

I had the opportunity recently to shoot trap and sporting clays with Western Shooting Journal’s monthly shotgun columnist, Al Hague. I’ve gone skeet shooting before, so I was able to compare and contrast all three. My husband and I met Al at the Seattle Skeet and Trap Club, where SST board member Dave Dalton showed us around, revealing the best the club had to offer.

Both Al and Dave are top shooters, so at first it was a little intimidating. My husband fared slightly better than I, having grown up with shotguns in the Boy Scouts. For those who are new to the clay sports, all three sports involve shooting at moving clay targets that fly up out of a machine. The three sports were created in order to mimic shooting at birds; the targets are also commonly referred to as clay pigeons. 

My husband Brian Symes was a natural, having grown up with shotguns in the Boy Scouts.

SPORTING CLAYS IS the most difficult of the three – but ironically, because it is the most difficult, people take it the least seriously and are more likely to have a good time with it than treat it like a hardcore competition. Al told me it is virtually impossible to hit every target.

Some describe sporting clays as “golf with a shotgun,” because there are many different stations to shoot from, and each is quite different from the other. Nowadays, many ranges don’t bother to mimic the flight path of a bird, but try to make the targets as tricky as possible. The ones that do try to mimic birds in flight will name the various stations accordingly, such as a “grouse station” or “decoy duck” station. Five Stand is a scaled-down version of sporting clays, with only five stations.

Al Hague shooting sporting clays with his Beretta as Dave Dalton from Seattle Skeet and Trap releases the targets.

The best part was having Dave there to help us adjust the target stations – that’s why it’s always wise to get to know the folks running the gun range. Some of the stations had either been inadvertently moved, or purposely moved to make them extremely difficult. Dave knew how to manipulate the stations so we actually stood a decent chance at hitting them.

SHOOTING TRAP INVOLVES targets that fly away from you to the left, straight back, and to the right. You start at a station on the left side and move over a few feet at a time to several other stations, shooting from various angles around a semi-circle. If you are the type of person who is eager to achieve a perfect shooting record, and you have patience, trap may be for you.

Dave Dalton from Seattle Skeet and Trap with his Krieghoff Supersport.

SHOOTING SKEET ALSO requires intense concentration. The targets cross in front of you, unlike trap where they fly away from you. They are shot out of two stations from a variety of angles.

If you’re new to shooting, especially if you’re female or slightly built, here is some advice from me. Consider a lightweight shotgun. After shooting Al’s beautiful Benelli 12-gauge for awhile, my arms were tired. The length of pull was also too long for my arms. It weighed about 8 pounds. Whereas you can find a 12-gauge shotgun for about half that weight. The only drawback is the recoil will be stronger, so make sure you have the proper loads, or you could end up with a little bruising.

A sporting clays team that was ahead of us. Tom Curtis shooting a Blaser, father and daughter team Fred and Rachel Heistuman, and Todd Watson with a Beretta 391. Both Tom and Fred are officers in the fire department.

Overall, I had a great time learning to shoot the other clay targets. Since I am not the most patient person alive, and have poor vision, sporting clays was easily my favorite. I also thoroughly enjoy the outdoors, so walking around the range from one sporting clays station to another was an additional attraction. Shooting with a shotgun is more low-key than shooting with a pistol or rifle, because there is little or no sights to fuss with. Regardless which clay target sport you try, if you go with friends, you will enjoy it.

I, having grown up with shotguns in the Boy Scouts. For those who are new to the clay sports, all three sports involve shooting at moving clay targets that fly up out of a machine. The three sports were created in order to mimic shooting at birds; the targets are also commonly referred to as clay pigeons.

If you enjoyed this article from our paid content, why not buy a subscription? This fall we’re offering a deal of 66% off the news stand price, only $19.95 for 12 issues! SUBSCRIBE NOW

In memory of John Greene

A friend just sent us this beautiful eulogy of John Greene, who passed away Tuesday night. 

By Jim Buster

As you know, we all lost a true friend on Wednesday morning, in John Greene. Some of us have known him for many years and others not quite as long.  I think we would all agree, however, that not only was John a brilliant, talented and successful professional, he was much, much more as a man.

Professionally John was an incredibly great legislator.  If you are legally "packing heat" it was because John was a true pioneer in the concealed carry movement. Arizona was among the first states to adopt a concealed carry law and it was due primarily to John's leadership.

As senate president from 1993-1997 John proved to be a successful leader. It wasn't because he was a media hog and a bloviator . . . he was a capable public speaker, but that was not his forte.  He was successful because he was a true team player and someone who wanted his fellow caucus members to get the accolades.  John was the embodiment of the Reagan maxim, "Much can be accomplished provided nobody cares who gets the credit."

So John led his caucus to be successful in tax and regulatory reform in the 90's as Arizona consistently led the way in economic growth. These things don't happen by accident.  John was also a champion in tort reform and presided over the biggest revolution in public education the country had ever seen up to that time.  There is a reason Arizona leads the nation in charter schools per capita.  With John's leadership he and other caucus members as well as House members showed the nation what could be done with educational choice.

I could go on, but space will not permit.  You may not have heard about this, because the press doesn't typically heap praise on Republicans, but then again, you didn't hear it from John either.  You didn't hear it from John because he was the most humble, self-effacing, team playing public servant I ever met.  He was kind, generous and had a servant's heart.

John was a very successful tax attorney, but those who knew him also knew that he didn't really love practicing law. What he loved was public service and not only did he serve as president of the senate, but he served as the director of the Arizona Department of Insurance and most recently as the director of the Arizona Department of Revenue.  He also served as the director of Arizona Board of Equalization and as deputy treasurer for Maricopa County.

In the last few years I watched John grow spiritually. He carried the same zeal he had for everything else in wanting to understand the Bible and the claims of Jesus Christ.  John never did anything halfway and in his spare time studied extensively while getting a theology degree over the internet!

John was always a busy guy, but he loved his wife and doted and bragged on his kids.  Those who knew John will miss him greatly.  He was a rock and a loyal friend. We can take great comfort in knowing that for the believer when we are absent from the body we are present 
with The Lord.  (II Cor. 5:8)

Republican Mark Brnovich Announces Candidacy for Arizona Attorney General

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                   CONTACT: Ross Groen
October 2, 2013                                                                                         (480) 221-7545
                                                                                                         mark@mark4az.com

PHOENIX – Mark Brnovich (pronounced burn-o-vich) today entered the race for Arizona Attorney General. Brnovich most recently served as director of the Arizona Department of Gaming, a law enforcement agency charged with regulating tribal casinos. Mark successfully led the agency for four years, during which he cracked down on illegal gambling operations and increased seizures of illegal gambling devices. “I am running for Attorney General to restore the dignity of the office and make sure it is dedicated to serving the people of Arizona,” said Brnovich.

Raised in Arizona, Mark Brnovich is a graduate of Arizona State University. After law school, Mark prosecuted felonies in the Gang/Repeat Offender Bureau of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and worked as an Assistant Attorney General for Arizona and as Assisting US Attorney for the District of Arizona.  Mark also served his country as Command Staff Judge Advocate for the 153^rd Field Artillery Brigade of the Arizona Army National Guard for eight years.
  "I am proud to support Mark Brnovich for Attorney General,” said Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, “Arizona needs someone who not only has a proven track record of being tough on crime but someone whose integrity is beyond reproach."

Mark met his wife Susan while both were working as prosecutors. They live in Phoenix with their two daughters.

                                                                    ###

Donate Now

AZ GOP Gubernatorial Forum on October 3rd - can watch live online

click to enlarge

Common Core For All

“The schools [utilizing Common Core]… are organized in a highly centralized government-run system. They [Common Core courses] have the following characteristics in common: they are overwhelmingly secular in orientation; a common school is provided through at least grades seven or eight; little or no tuition charge is made; schools are mostly coeducational; the curricula are tightly prescribed, as are the textbooks...students are offered few electives…”

Sound familiar? Although this sounds like Common Core, with the exception of the inserted text, it’s actually a description from “Common Features of Education System in Communist Nations.” Common Core is a top-down national curriculum currently being forced on our public schools that attempts to treat every student exactly the same regardless of ability. It is reminiscent of the slogan popularized by Karl Marx, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” which means no matter how hard someone works, or how intelligent they are, everyone will be treated the same. But due to flaws inherent in human nature, such as laziness and greed, this slogan is incapable of ever becoming reality, and attempts to implement it have resulted in the deaths of millions in Stalinist Russia and Mao Tse-Tung's China.

Common Core was quietly started five years ago by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. It was stealthily implemented state by state before opponents were even aware of it. It seeks to impose the same left-leaning curriculum upon every public school in the country. Since I last wrote about Common Core in March, not much has changed. The national curriculum is still progressively being adopted around the country despite the massive outcry. About the only change is opposition is now emerging on the left. 

Read the rest of the article on Townhall

Why Suppressor Legislation Is So Controversial

 

(CANSTOCKPHOTO)

This interview appeared in the September 2013 issue of Western Shooting Journal


The Lobbyist for the American Silencer Association Explains

We had the opportunity to chat with Todd Rathner, the lobbyist for the American Silencer Association. He has successfully been getting legislation passed around the country legalizing the use of suppressors, which are also known as silencers. We asked him how he was able to get it done, considering there is considerable opposition.

RACHEL ALEXANDER Why are you able to get the legislation passed in some states but not others?

TODD RATHNER It’s a process of education. There are a lot of misconceptions about what suppressors do. There are some legislators who believe that the suppressor makes a gun completely silent, like what you see in the movies. Their stated concerns have been that it would affect or violate the tenets of fair chase, that a landowner will not be able to hear someone shooting on their property, and that a person could shoot an entire herd of elk. They are afraid it would lead to increased poaching.

All of that is nonsense. Those arguments are really a product of ignorance. The reason for these misconceptions is that Hollywood for years has portrayed suppressors as being completely silent, as if you can fire a high-powered rifle silently. It’s just not true. Part of the problem is that the original patent was for “silencers.” Additionally, federal law calls them “silencers.” So there is an expectation that they make guns “silent” when in reality, they do not.

The average high-powered rifle unsuppressed fires about 160 decibels. The best sound suppressors can get it down to is 130 decibels. That level is roughly equal to the loudness of a chain saw. It makes a high-powered rifle hearing safe so it doesn’t hurt your ears or cause long-term damage. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and others who have studied the effect of sound on your ears found that 140 decibels or less is roughly hearing safe. The goal of suppressor companies is to get it under that. Suppressors prevents ringing, tinnitus and long-term damage to hearing.

There are a lot of people in game departments who have misinformed legislators about what a suppressor really does. They assert that suppressors will make it so we can’t hear poachers, won’t be able to enforce poaching laws, and people will be able to shoot at night completely undetected. To buy into that, you’d have to believe that an elk or deer that can hear a twig snap in the woods, is not going to hear something as loud as a chainsaw.

Why would they say that? I’m trying to figure out what motivates these game wardens to lie.
They’re not conservationists, they’re preservationists. I just faced this in Montana. Jim Crop from Montana Game and Fish testified to the legislature that less than one percent of the hunters in Montana own suppressors – so my question is how will that have any appreciable impact on game herds even if they were a detriment to tame which they are not! He is asked if he has ever even heard a gun fired with a suppressor. The answer? No!

(CANSTOCKPHOTO)

You can listen to his testimony on the Montana legislature’s website. Find the testimony by him there, it’s about 20 minutes long. Shooting older bulls has very little effect on the health of the rest of the herd. He talks about actively managing for more critters. That’s why you don’t shoot does during fawning seasons and calves during calving season. In the Western states, we have very strict regulations on antlerless animals. It is rarely permitted to shoot does. It is o.k. to shoot some antlerless elk. Regardless, sound suppressors do not violate the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation tenets.

There is no biologically based reason to ban hunting with sound suppressors. It is therefore 100% consistent with the North American model of wildlife conservation which has served North American game species and hunters so well for over a century.

The Boone and Crockett Club, an organization that tracks game hunted and shot in the U.S. They measure animals that have been shot, and enter it into the recordbooks. But they only track game that is shot if it meets the tenets of fair chase. So they don’t include game shot from a helicopter, with electronic devices, or if it was behind a fence. They are the ones who came up with the phrase “fair chase.” This year, the Boone and Crockett Club discussed whether an animal taken down with a suppressed firearm should be entered into their record book. They decided to take no action, issue no opinion on the subject, which means it is acceptable to record.

Old school game managers are concerned about what they perceive as new technology. Remember Internet hunting from a few years ago? Where you’d see a deer from a camera and shoot it. Well that’s not hunting, that’s ridiculous. There is an element of fear of new technology. That’s understandable when it comes to Internet hunting. But suppressor technology has been around 100 years. There is nothing new about them.

ALEXANDER Have you thought about renaming suppressors to a word that makes it clearer that the sound isn’t completely muffled?

RATHNER Some people want to rename them “moderators” or “mufflers.” We’ve talked about it. One of the concerns in the industry is the federal government calls them silencers, so it should be the same term. I like the word moderator. Generally once we get to explain it, people agree. Our biggest ally is a demonstration. We get a bunch of legislators out to a shooting range so they can see what a suppressor actually does. Afterwards they say the arguments against them are ridiculous and where do I buy one. For the first time in their life they can shoot a high-power rifle without hurting their ears. 

ALEXANDER How were you able to get legislation permitting suppressors recently passed in Wyoming?

RATHNER Because we were able to take legislators out and demonstrate how suppressors work and what they do and what they don’t do, educating them. We had opposition from the Game Department and the AFL-CIO. The union represents game rangers working in the field. We were able to cut through all of the nonsense. Once the legislators saw the demonstration, they were convinced. The opposition tried to make all kinds of noise there about all these arguments against suppressors.

One argument the opposition brought up was all the new ammunition coming out that is completely silent. We were able to show the legislators the new ammo, called the 300 blackout cartridge which is subsonic, meaning it travels slower than the speed of sound, eliminating some noise. The opposition said you could shoot a deer at 300 yards and they’d never hear. Well, even if that were true, and it’s not, subsonic ammunition does not meet the minimum power factor requirements for use in Wyoming, so it’s already illegal to use in Wyoming. Many states say you have to use a cartridge that meets a certain number of foot pounds of energy in order to legally kill a deer. 750 or 800 foot pounds is usually the minimum. We exposed all of this, and the legislators worked through and said we were right and the game department was wrong.

On a more serious level, this calls into question everything else the game department testifies about. If they willingly misinform legislators about this, what else are they misinforming them about? We pay them to conduct game management fairly. They ouught to do their research and be honest. As soon as game departments and legislators are educated, generally they are on our side.

ALEXANDER Who else opposed the legislation in Wyoming?

RATHNER I think there were one or two small sportsmens groups. The American Silencer Association, the NRA, Wyoming Sportsman for Wildlife, and Wyoming Gunowners supported it.

ALEXANDER Which side had more money?

RATHNER I don’t know that money is a huge factor in this type of lobbying. It’s not like traditional lobbying where they make huge contributions and throw big parties. This is more hands-on face-to-face. I talk to Democrats too. I kind of expect Republicans to vote for pro-gun legislation. We try to do a lot of demonstration shoots. We show them the truth.


ALEXANDER What other states are you lobbying currently?

RATHNER We’re going back to Montana. The governor there vetoed the bill last session, I believe largely because the game department lobbyists completely misinformed him. He will look at it again I sense. We’re working in Georgia, and I believe we’ll be looking at Ohio. We also just passed laws in Louisiana making it easier to take possession of suppressors. It was legal before, but they put some local hoops to go through on top of the federal hoops. Those local hoops are now eliminated.

ALEXANDER Any thoughts on the the omnibus bill that just passed in North Carolina and was signed into law by the governor?

RATHNER It’s interesting that it passed in an eastern state, yet not in Montana. Montana was a matter of misinformation.

ALEXANDER Any thoughts on getting legislation passed in Ohio?

RATHNER The American Silencer Association is growing very quickly, and more and more manufacturers, dealers, and individual owners are getting involved. They want to change the law in as many states as possible. We think Ohio could be a next step.

ALEXANDER Why are game wardens so opposed to suppressors? Are any in favor of it?

RATHNER I believe in North Carolina the game dept was the catalyst behind the legislation. They brought it to the state legislature. There are some game department managers that get it. The ones that are willing to listen get it quick, because they’re genuine hunters. We take them out and do a demo. I’ll go to any state to take the game and law enforcement director out to shoot.

ALEXANDER Why do opponents want to prohibit hunting with suppressors at night?

RATHNER We don’t have a position on hunting at night, we’re neutral on that. Every state has its own laws about hunting at night. States overrun with high populations of hogs like Texas allow night hunting. Arizona doesn’t. As a guy who has been hunting for years, as long as it’s based on science I’m ok with game regulation, it’s when it’s made based on emotion is when I have a problem. Feral hogs aren’t indigenous like deer, elk, antelope, sheep. Once hunting regulations impact the indigenous animals, then the laws need to be carefully crafted.

ALEXANDER Any final thoughts, what would you like our readers to know?

RATHNER I want hunters to know that hunting with suppressors is not crazy new-fangled new technology, it’s 100-year old technology, and will not affect wildlife populations it will only have a postiive effect on safety. It makes high-powered rifles safer.

A lot of us talk about hunter recruitment and retention. I’ve got a 12-year old and 6-year old getting into shooting. My 12-year old is going to go game hunting for the first time. One of the challenges of teaching a 12-year old how to shoot a high-powered rifle is the sound and the recoil. What do we do to solve those problems, we put ear protection on, which is moderately effective, since you still have hearing loss. And we put muzzle brakes on rifles to lessen the recoil. Well, muzzle brakes make the gun louder. But if you can add a suppressor, it will not only reduce the sound to a hearing safe level, but it will reduce the recoil. And there is an added advantage – if you‘re out hunting with a 12-year old, you want to be able to whisper to them quietly. You can’t with ear protection on. With a sound suppressor, you can speak with them all the way through the shot.

ALEXANDER What about the argument that you’re being selfish by protecting your ears?

RATHNER You could say the same thing about a seatbelt.

Editor’s note: Todd J Rathner of rathnerandassociates.com is a lobbyist whose practice focuses on Second Amendment and firearms industry related issues, as well as other issues related to 
individual freedom. He practices in multiple state level legislatures, which is his primary specialty.

Glenn Beck coming to Arizona in October - includes workshops on Common Core

Copyright & Trademark Notice  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Advertising Policy  |  Unsubscribe Glenn Beck Program | 1270 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10020 Glenn Beck - Premiere Radio Networks - All Rights Reserved 2012

AG candidate Mark Brnovich commended by governor for heading Dept. of Gaming

Although Mark Brnovich spent most of his career as a public prosecutor and civil lawyer, he most recently served as head of the Department of Gaming. While there, he had an outstanding record under Governor Brewer and was considered one of the most conservative department heads. He used to work for the Goldwater Institute prior to that, heading up their constitutional department. The Goldwater Institute is now suing Brewer over Obamacare. He has now resigned to run for Attorney General as the conservative choice. (click image to enlarge)

The Most Amusing Responses to My Article in the UK Guardian About Starbucks and Guns

I wrote an article this week for the UK Guardian about Starbucks' reversal of its policy tolerating gun-toting customers. Some of the 438 comments left after the article - mainly by the English - were so amusing I thought I would compile a few of them. They cannot believe that the liberal UK Guardian would publish such a conservative viewpoint. I have to hand it to The Guardian, after publishing Edward's Snowden expose on the NSA spying when our own American newspapers wouldn't, they actually are fairer than our supposedly more conservative mainstream media.

Click here to read the top comments

Gun Control Debate: Navy Yard Shooting Another Poor Excuse For More Laws

The left is falling all over itself to demand more gun control laws after the most recent mass shooting at the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard which left 13 people dead including the shooter. Yet, D.C. is home to some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The shooter apparently lawfully purchased a shotgun in neighboring Virginia, then brought it with him to the D.C. Navy Yard where he opened fire. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) held a press conference after the shooting, reporting that “the killer was armed with an AR-15, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol.”  She said, “This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time.”

Feinstein championed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban in Congress, and would like to see it brought back again. However, it turned out she was wrong about the killer and the AR-15, as well as the pistol. He did not own an AR-15 or pistol; he illegally took them off the bodies of those he killed, including a security guard who was carrying the pistol for his job.

Read the rest of the article at PolicyMic

Rachel is offering a 66% discount off the cover price of her magazine Western Shooting Journal this fall. 12 issues for only $19.95! To purchase,click here.