Category Archives: Second Amendment

Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro opposed the mandatory gun buyback program proposed by rival Beto O'Rourkebut it's not because he believes it violates the Second Amendment.

Instead, the former Obama administration official pointed to the recent killing of Atatiana Jefferson by a police officer in Fort Worth, Texas, to demonstrate that he wouldn't want to create more scenarios in which police are going to people's homes. And the only way for a "buyback" to be truly "mandatory" is if officers are going door-to-door to get the guns.

"There are two problems I have with mandatory buybacks," Castro said during Tuesday night's Democratic debate. "No. 1, folks can't define it, and if you're not going door-to-door then it's not really mandatory. But also, in the places that I grew up in, we weren't exactly looking for another reason for cops to come banging on the door."

Castro went on to summarize the Jefferson story, explaining how she was fatally shot by a police officer who came to her home after a neighbor called the nonemergency line to have someone check on her.

"I am not going to give these police officers another reason to go door-to-door in certain communities," Castro said. "Because police violence is also gun violence, and we need to address that."

Castro was responding to O'Rourke's advocacy of "mandatory buybacks," which is the term of choice for Democrats instead of "confiscation." O'Rourke said that people who don't comply with the mandatory buybacks can expect to get a visit from the police. Meaning people who don't want to sell their guns to the government will have them taken by force.

Although Castro is approaching it from a different perspective, his overall point is something that many on the right agree with: If you send police officers to people's homes to take their guns, there are likely to be some violent consequences.

Read more from the original source:
2020 Dem candidate opposes mandatory gun buybacks not because of the 2nd Amendment, but because of police brutality - TheBlaze

By Kylie Chisholm, Special to the Telegram and Gazette

ThursdayOct17,2019at7:12PMOct17,2019at8:05PM

STURBRIDGE - A Sturbridge man is making his mark in the gun community with his YouTube series "Riding Shotgun with Charlie."

Charlie Cook was inspired by shows like "Carpool Karaoke" and "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee" when he started his series. Cook wanted to talk to locals in the gun community from the comfort of his own vehicle and started making videos doing just that.

Cook interviewed a friend whose story was featured in the book "Lessons from Unarmed America" by Mark Walters and Rob Pincus. Walters connected Cook to the Second Amendment Foundation, an organization dedicated to educating people about the constitutional right to bear arms and the gun control debate.

"I was given the opportunity to speak at the Gun Rights Policy Conference for the past four years," said Cook. The Second Amendment Foundation has hosted the conference annually for 34 years.

Cook was presented with the Blogger of the Year award at this year's conference, last month in Phoenix. This was the first year the award extended to video bloggers, known as vloggers.

The conference had more than 1,100 attendees and 90 speakers. Cook said the panels covered a variety of perspectives on gun safety and gun laws.

Cook posts his content to a variety of platforms. His videos are posted to his YouTube and Facebook pages, and the audio is posted as podcasts available from Apple Podcasts, Spotify, IHeart Radio and Google Play.

Attending national conferences has allowed Mr. Cook to interview people across the country. He said at this year's Gun Rights Policy Conference he interviewed several people for the series during his time in Phoenix.

Since starting the show, Cook said, he is amazed at how generous the community has been to him.

"The people I have met doing this are the greatest people," said Cook. He said his guests are always willing to help and share their stories about why they are pro-gun activists.

Cook hopes to spend next summer traveling across the country interviewing people for the series. He also works as a firearm instructor in Massachusetts.

View post:
Sturbridge gun rights advocate is Blogger of the Year - Worcester Telegram

WASHINGTON It's never just a deal.

President Donald Trump's penchant for overselling his accomplishments has been on vivid display in recent days as he hailed his Syria cease-fire as a boon for civilization and claimed his trade agreement with China was the biggest ever. The economy is the "greatest" ''in the history of our Country," the military is the "most powerful" it has ever been, regulations have been cut at record rates, and, in his telling, America is "winning, winning, winning" like never before.

Trump has been a master of the art of exaggeration for decades, as he famously explained in his 1987 book, "The Art of the Deal."

"People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular," he wrote. "I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration, and a very effective form of promotion."

A search of Trump's Twitter feed turns up more than 1,200 mentions of the words "biggest," ''best" and "smartest."

Critics, for their part, accuse him of creating problems in order to solve them essentially setting fires and then demanding credit for putting them out.

Here's a look at some recent inflated claims.

THS SYRIA CEASE-FIRE

Trump made big news Thursday when he announced that Vice President Mike Pence and other top administration officials had secured a five-day cease-fire deal with Turkey in northeast Syria something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had said he wouldn't do.

Trump quickly took credit, insisting his "unconventional approach" including a pullback of U.S. troops that paved the way for a Turkish invasion targeting Syrian Kurds was responsible.

Rather than bemoaning the loss of life that resulted, Trump spent much of Thursday minimizing the carnage and hailing the deal in epic proportions.

"It's really a great day for civilization," Trump said. He insisted that because of his intervention, "millions of lives will be saved."

"What Turkey is getting now is they're not going to have to kill millions of people, and millions of people aren't going to have to kill them," Trump said. In all, over the more than eight years of Syria's devastating civil war, hundreds of thousands have been killed.

__

THE CHINA DEAL

Trump last week announced with great fanfare a reprieve in the U.S.-China trade war that has resulted in tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of goods.

"The deal I just made with China is, by far, the greatest and biggest deal ever made for our Great Patriot Farmers in the history of our Country," Trump tweeted the day after. "In fact, there is a question as to whether or not this much product can be produced? Our farmers will figure it out. Thank you China!"

But despite his big talk, there is much left to be done, with many details to be determined and no documents signed. And some of the thorniest issues such as U.S. allegations that China forces foreign companies to hand over trade secrets and a major dispute over the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei were dealt with only partially, or not at all, and will require further talks.

"The president is acting as if a lot of Chinese concessions have been nailed down, and they just haven't," said Derek Scissors, a China specialist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

__

CRITICIZING DEMOCRATS

Plenty of politicians criticize their rivals for having a bad idea or pushing ill-conceived policies. Trump paints them as an existential threat to the Republic and democracy. Throughout the 2016 campaign, the 2018 midterms and at his recent rallies, Trump has demonized Democrats as the enemy, claiming Thursday that they are out to "destroy America as we know it."

"At stake in this fight is the survival of American democracy itself," he told the crowd at a Dallas campaign rally. "I don't believe anymore that they love our country."

He warns the stock market will crash if he loses, and says Democrats want to destroy health care and repeal the Second Amendment.

__

HIS CROWD SIZE

Trump's exaggerations of his crowd sizes are well documented. On Thursday night he offered a doozy.

"So outside, they have close to 30,000 people," he reported to the enthusiastic crowd. Then he asked local officials whether they might be able to "fill up this little area, let 'em in. It would be so nice."

"You know they have a certain max," he added. "We broke the record tonight."

Tamika Dameron, a public information officer with the Dallas Police Department, said that wasn't even close.

The Dallas Fire-Rescue Department and American Airlines Center calculated the total number inside was 18,500, less than the 20,000 or so capacity of the arena, and said there were "about 5,000 on the outside."

During the Mavericks 2011 NBA Finals series, the highest attendance at the American Airlines Center was 20,433.

__

Associated Press writers Jake Bleiberg and Stephen Hawkins in Dallas contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
The art of the boast: Trump's a master - Star Tribune

Published: 10/11/2019 2:12:49 PM

Modified: 10/11/2019 2:12:37 PM

I am not a constitutional scholar, by any means, but there is something about the way that everyone speaks about the Second Amendment to the Constitution that is very puzzling to me.

The Second Amendment is simply one sentence, containing two ideas. The first idea is almost never mentioned in discussion of the amendment. The only thing ever mentioned is the second idea: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why does the first idea never get mentioned? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

That part of the sentence gives me the impression that people who keep and bear arms are meant to be part of a well-regulated militia, like, for example, the state National Guard. That would be quite a change. It would mean that people who use guns would need to be registered as part of a militia. That is, they would undergo some sort of group basic training, and regular periodic reviews to maintain their skills.

Why is this half of the Second Amendment never discussed and certainly never implemented?

Marianne Preger-Simon

Whately

Read the original post:
Marianne Preger-Simon: Why is half of the Second Amendment ignored? - GazetteNET

The Supreme Court will hear a gun control case in December that could significantly limit the ability of state and local governments to regulate guns for public safety reasons.

The case involves a New York City regulation on transporting handguns that was repealed in July. Although that original rule is no longer in effect, for now the court has not determined the matter to be moot, so the case will move forward.

In this dispute and others, opposition to gun regulations is often grounded on the premise that once an individual interest is identified as a fundamental right, that interest prevails over all countervailing public concerns.

That premise is profoundly mistaken. And, importantly, it is inconsistent with the way that constitutional doctrine has developed with other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Second Amendment rights should be treated no more favorably, despite the political rhetoric of gun rights supporters who claim that any firearm regulation is an unconstitutional infringement on their rights.

Of course, a constitutional right does carry with it a strong presumption against government interference with that particular activity, even though the exercise of the right involves a societal cost. We protect freedom of religion, for example, even though we know that some religious practices like pulling children out of school after the eighth grade might be considered problematic or harmful.

But there is a critical difference between assigning a high value to a constitutional right when balancing it against social concerns, and arguing that the right necessarily overrides the publics ability to regulate that activity in ways that may be needed to protect the community.

The doctrine surrounding freedom of speech is instructive. No one doubts that speech rights are taken seriously in America. Yet the right to free speech is not absolute and can be regulated in numerous circumstances. Courts subject government regulations that affect speech to different standards of review that balance the publics interest against the individuals liberty. Among factors considered are the kind of speech involved and the location and manner of the restriction.

For example, a ban on rallies on public streets in residential neighborhoods after 9 p.m. would likely be upheld even though it burdens speech, so long as the law did not discriminate based on the message rally speakers expressed.

So too with protections for personal privacy under the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. That amendment doesnt bar all searches and seizures, but instead requires that such intrusions be reasonable, a concept that inherently involves some kind of balancing of interests. Hence, we all must endure airport security screening searches because they are a reasonable means to protect air travel safety.

The individual right to bear arms for self-defense, as announced by the Supreme Court in 2008, is likewise not unlimited. Even though the court in that case struck down a flat ban on possession of handguns that might be used for self-defense in peoples homes, it observed that states could for historical and public-policy safety reasons prohibit people with felony convictions or people with mental illness from possessing guns, demonstrating that the very scope of the 2nd Amendments protection takes account of countervailing public objectives. For instance, some states require that gun owners keep their firearms locked up if there are children living in the home, even though gun owners might prefer easier access to firearms for self-defense.

Or consider the contours of self-defense itself. A 2nd Amendment right to keep guns for self-defense does not eliminate the need for society to think about how guns should be responsibly employed, even in self-defense situations. If someone uses a gun purportedly for self-defense purposes and kills another person, the 2nd Amendment does not preclude an evaluation of whether the alleged threat was sufficient to justify the use of deadly force or whether the killing involved excessive force because reasonable non-lethal alternatives were available for the shooter to defend himself.

The national debate now has focused on proposed regulations such as background checks and assault weapons bans. Whether specific measures would be permissible under the Constitution depends on their particulars, but the big point is that particulars matter.

In evaluating gun control regulations, its legitimate to take into account the social harms and risks arising from individuals keeping, bearing and using firearms. Constitutional analysis of the 2nd Amendment, as with other fundamental rights, requires some kind of balancing of interests, which includes considering the states need to promote public safety.

Vikram D. Amar is dean and professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Alan E. Brownstein is professor of law at the UC Davis School of Law.

Continue reading here:
Opinion: What the gun lobby gets wrong about the 2nd Amendment - Los Angeles Times

Mickelle Bisbee Staff Writer

Since the United States of America has a militia that is necessary for the security of keeping this nation free, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and according to the second amendment of the constitution, that right shall not be infringed.

This amendment has become a heated conversation between political parties, asking whether laws concerning guns shall be stricter or not. To come and talk about this issue is Lucas Botkin, CEO of T-REX ARMS.

[Turning Point USA] likes Lucas because he is bold and passionate, two things which certainly make him stand out, said Lily Guthrie, president of the Recognized Student Organization, Turning Point USA. This event is one everyone can enjoy and find informational because the topic of guns and the 2nd amendment is not an everyday event here on campus.

Today from 6 to 8 p.m. in the College of Agriculture Auditorium, Botkin will be breaking down the firearm culture and how that culture affects peoples views on guns, according to his Instagram post on the event.

Students should be interested in this event because issues such as guns and the 2nd amendment impact their daily lives, no matter what views they hold on the subject they owe it to themselves to hear all sides of the argument and be as informed as possible, Guthrie said.

Guthrie said that they chose Botkin to come to the university and talk to students because of his passion and expertise on firearms and the 2nd amendment.

The 26-year-old took a leap into starting his company in 2013. With little money, he began playing around with Kydex, a type of thermoplastic, and was making holsters with the material for himself and a few others.

After a while, he decided that it would be a good idea for him to build a company to make high-end products that dont exist in the market right now, according to an interview he had with ARBuildJunkie.

When it began, all I had was a very small toaster oven that cost about five dollars at Goodwill. In total, I started the company for about 1,000 dollars, Botkin said in the ARBuildJunkie interview. At first, the products were not that great. But as time went on, I started experimenting with new designsthe first of which was the Sidecar [a T-REX ARMS holster].

As someone who is an expert in his field, Guthrie said she is excited to see students get exposure on the different views of firearms and to learn something from Botkin.

People interested in Botkin can follow him on his social media platforms for updates and videos on his products, as well as education insights on the 2nd amendment: Facebook at T.REX ARMS and Instagram at lucastrexarms.

Go here to see the original:
CEO talks second amendment freedom - The Branding Iron

Weiser and House Majority Leader Alec Garnett are working together on the details for implementation.

The law, set to take effect Jan. 1, 2020, will allow judges to issue Extreme Risk Protection Orders at the request of family members or law enforcement. It would require police to temporarily remove guns from a person they fear could be dangerous or suicidal.

Critics say the law goes too far in infringing on Second Amendment rights and doesnt do enough to protect the due process rights of gun owners. Gun rights groups have held sessions for firearms owners around the state, warning them of ways they believe the law could be abused.

Some sheriffs have said they will not enforce it and a number of county commissions have passed resolutions to prevent local law enforcement from carrying out ERPOs.

Almost all those ordinances say the following, we dont want our sheriff in our county to implement an unconstitutional gun law to which I have always said in those counties, I dont either, Weiser said. And the extreme risk protection law is constitutional and will be upheld.

A Second Amendment rights group has challenged the law in court, arguing state lawmakers violated legislative rules when they passed it. Weiser has asked for that suit to be dismissed.

Weiser said if a sheriff refused to comply with a judges ERPO, he could be held in contempt of court. In that situation, Weisers office would defend the judge if the sheriff appealed the decision.

State Rep. Garnett said he is working with law enforcement to give them maximum flexibility on how to retrieve the guns once an ERPO is handed down from a judge. That includes allowing law enforcement, with a warrant, to go into a house when someone isnt home.

Democratic Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son died in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting, said Colorados soaring suicide rate is a good reason to get the controversial ERPO law right.

This is something that will save lives. Maybe not in the situation that affected my son Alex, he said while sharing a stage with Weiser. But three-quarters of the people in this state who died by gun violence died by suicide ... We can do something about that.

Read the original:
Weiser: Sheriffs Will Enforce Red Flag Orders When Faced With Reality Of Dangerous People - Colorado Public Radio

In light of Beto ORourkes viral comment, Hell, yes, were going to take your AR-15, many residents in Hood County became concerned about where local law enforcement stood on the issue.

I have people ask me all the time, What are you going to do to protect my gun? Are you gonna work with the feds to take my AR-15? said Hood County Sheriff Roger Deeds a few weeks ago. Were not. Were not going to do that. Im going to work with the court. Were going to try to pass a sanctuary county bill.

On October 8, the Hood County Commissioners Court passed a resolution declaring a Second Amendment sanctuary county for gun-owners by vowing not to enforce any unconstitutional firearm laws that could be enacted by the state or federal government.

I overwhelmingly support this initiative, said state Rep. Mike Lang (R-Granbury), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, and it would not have been possible without the courageous support of Hood County Sheriff Roger Deeds who has championed the issue and who would ultimately, along with the people, be the one to ensure the measure is enforced.

Deeds push for Hood County to become a sanctuary county for the Second Amendment follows in the footsteps of four other Texas counties to pass such resolutions.

Get started today for free and become the most informed Texan you know after your first month, it's just $9.00.

Edwards County passed the first resolution in Texas in June 2018. The official Facebook account for the county published a photo of the document along with a post arguing that the number of gun-related deaths is small compared to other fatalities.

If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, the post reads, even a 10 percent decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

The resolution, signed by the county judge and three of the four commissioners, stated that any gun law violating the federal or state constitutions would be viewed as unconstitutional by the commissioners court and that it would not authorize any enforcement of those laws.

Several potential laws were specifically mentioned, including registration requirements for existing lawfully owned firearms, prohibitions, regulations, and/or use restrictions related to ownership of non-fully automatic firearms, and expanded background checks.

Not quite a year after Edwards County passed their resolution, other counties in Texas began to follow suit.

In March 2019, Hudspeth County became a sanctuary county at the request of Sheriff Arvin West; the Democratic Commissioners Court in Presidio County made that county one in July; and Mitchell County joined the growing number in September.

Proponents of the measure point out that in some placesespecially in rural areas police officers can take up to an hour to respond to 911 calls. In such places, owning a gun is the most reliable means of self-defense.

Supporters want assurance that local law enforcement will not encroach on their constitutionally protected rights if ORourkes gun confiscation policies or, more likely, red flag laws or Lt. Gov. Dan Patricks suggestion of expanded background checks are enacted.

Not all counties are embracing the idea, though. Three court commissioners in Brewster County, which neighbors Presidio County along the Texas-Mexico border, blocked the proposal in September to become a sanctuary for gun owners.

According to Marfa Public Radio, Brewster County Commissioner Sara Colando said that she was afraid the resolution would put the county in dicey legal territory.

The first Texas counties passing the resolution are certainly not among the first counties in the nation, though. Over half of the counties in Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, and Washington have passed resolutions to become Second Amendment sanctuaries.

Those states have seen stricter gun regulations in recent years.

The New Mexico legislature, for instance, passed a bill to expand background checks and looked into implementing some form of a red flag law.

According to Reuters, Sheriff Tony Mace of Cibola County said that he did not want to waste resources enforcing the new background check regulations.

There are whole sanctuary county, city, and state movements, and those are essentially saying Hey, we can shield immigrants from the federal law, Mace told Pacific Standard. Theyre picking and choosing which laws they want to follow as a state, so were thinking as a county, why cant we take this back to our commissioners and say were going to draft a resolution that says our counties are Second Amendment sanctuary counties.

With the support of the New Mexico Sheriffs Association, chaired by Mace, 25 out of the states 33 counties have passed some sort of resolution.

Gun restriction laws in other states may have prompted the majority of counties there to pass the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions, but the four Texas counties becoming sanctuaries this year could be a sign that Texans are concerned that their right to bear arms is also threatened by politicians here.

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

Here is the original post:
Sheriff Leads Charge for Hood County to Become Fifth 'Second Amendment Sanctuary' in Texas - The Texan

Beto ORourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrouscampaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto ORourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto ORourkehas now been unabashed in championing the policy. ORourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto ORourkes latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto ORourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto ORourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches;each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use civil rights law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto ORourke is original. Hes just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isnt a new ambition. Socialism is atheistby its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church,often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is neveran end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto ORourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto ORourkes policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists arent floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto ORourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

Link:
Attend the 2nd Amendment Rally: November 2, 2019 - NOQ Report

The Nov. 5th election may bethe most consequential ever for our Second Amendment rights in the Commonwealth. Thats because every seat in the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate is up for grabs and gun control advocates, bankrolled by an out of state New York billionaire, are trying to buy the election. In contrast, the NRA is focused on our tried and true grassroots model of educating our supporters on candidates positions on the Second Amendment, and working to ensure they turn out to vote on Election Day.

For a behind-the-scenes look at how the NRA is fighting for you in Virginia, we sat down with Glen Caroline, head of NRAs Grassroots Programs and Campaign Field Operations Division.

Q. How does our Virginia grassroots operation compare with what weve seen in the past from the NRA?

A. Without a doubt, this has been among our most robust campaign efforts ever. We have made tens of thousands of targeted contacts to our supporters using phones, texting, at events, and showing up on their doorsteps. Our Campaign Field Representatives (CFRs) have been working tirelessly to ramp up their efforts as we prepare for a massive Get Out The Vote operation in the closing weeks of the election cycle.

Q. What are we up against from our opponents this year?

A. We are facing the most well-organized and well-funded gun control lobby in our countrys history. It really is unprecedented. The various Bloomberg-backed gun control groups have committed to spending $5 million dollars to win this election, apparently focusing primarily on expensive and misleading television ads and digital efforts.

Q. What do you take from that?

A. We fully expect to be outspent by the control groups, but they will never outwork us. No organization in the country has members as informed and as passionate as the NRA. They are the reason we win elections. Ive been at this for nearly 30 years, and throughout my entire career beginning in the early 90's, Ive seen time and again our voters can swing key elections. I am aware of all the money our opponents are spending, but Im not intimidated. As we often say in Grassroots, dollar bills dont vote, but NRA members do!

Q. Whats themessage to voters?

A. If Bloombergs gun control politicians win in November, its goodbye to our gun rights in Virginia! Its really that simple. These anti-gun politicians want to ban our rifles, criminalize virtually all private firearm transfers, reinstate the failed one-gun-a-month law, and expand gun-free zones. We dont have to guess what will happen, as they tipped their hand earlier this year by pushing this aggressive gun control agenda in a special legislative session.

Q. How can our members get involved?

A. First, you must vote on Election Day. Your vote is your voice, and if you dont exercise your right to vote, you will lose your right to keep and bear arms. Second, get actively involved with our on-the-ground CFR efforts or contact the NRA-PVF endorsed campaign in your area to volunteer to help. You can amplify your voice by educating other pro-Second Amendment voters in Virginia as to whats at stake, and making sure they turn out to vote. If a few hours of your time between now and Election Day arent worth preserving your freedom, what is?

For more information on NRAs grassroots efforts in Virginia and how you can help, call (800) 392-VOTE (8683). If you are unable to personally volunteer with our grassroots efforts, but wish to help support them, please click here.

Read more:
Grassroots Spotlight: NRA-ILA Fighting the Bloomberg Money In Virginia 2019 Elections - NRA ILA