Dick’s Sporting Goods Will DESTROY All Guns Removed From Shelves

Dick’s Sporting Goods pulled all of their guns they determined to be “assault weapons style” from the shelves in the wake of the Parkland Florida school shooting.  Now, they’ve announced that they will destroy all guns that weren’t sold because they took them off the shelves.

“We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change,” a spokesperson from Dick’s Sporting Goods told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. “We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.” Instead of  returning them to the manufacturer, the sports retailer decided to destroy the “assault-style rifles.”

Following the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the retailer had pulled modern sporting rifles from its namesake stores nationwide. When it later opened its specialty Field & Stream stores, it introduced the modern sporting rifles to its product line there. The company did not comment on what it did with the firearms it pulled from its Dick’s stores in 2012.

According to Fox News, on February 28, 2018, the Pittsburgh-based company announced it would immediately stop selling assault-style rifles and ban the sale of all guns to anyone under 21 at their Field & Stream stores. It was not immediately clear how many firearms will be destroyed but all of the rifles will be demolished at distribution centers and then delivered to a salvage company to be recycled.

“Thoughts and prayers are not enough,” the company said in a statement. “We support and respect the Second Amendment, and we recognize and appreciate that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible, law-abiding citizens. But we have to help solve the problem that’s in front of us.”  So they intend to destroy guns that good people would never use to harm anyone unless a self-defense situation warranted it.  That’s like castrating yourself because your neighbor has too many kids. But no one has ever accused a gun control activist of using logic.

Dick’s Sporting Goods is also facing a battle with the gun rights crowd over their controversial decision to deny 18-20 year-olds their Constitutional and basic fundamental human right of self-defense by refusing to sell them guns. The sporting goods store is currently facing two lawsuits due to the self-imposed age limit on purchasing firearms because legally, those who are 18 may purchase guns.

 

Supreme Court Again Ducks Second Amendment by Refusing to Hear Gun Cases

When it comes to the Second Amendment, their hands are on the other side. Why? (Franz Jantzen, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States)

“The Supreme Court turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state’s ban on assault weapons, which were used in recent mass shootings in a south Texas church and at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas,” the Associated Press reported Monday. “The justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the Maryland law that does not permit the sale of a range of semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.”

That was not the only case the court turned away.

“Perhaps the most noteworthy denials came in two cases involving gun rights: Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school; and Norman v. Florida, a challenge to the state’s ban on the open carrying of guns in public,” SCOTUS Blog explained. “In both cases, the lower courts had upheld the states’ bans, so today’s rulings leave those decisions in place.”

The denials came with no comments from the justices. One prominent oath-breaking gun-grabber in particular was happy to provide one which the media was happy to repeat.

“It ought to be a lesson to all states, and I would hope that they would look at the 4th Circuit’s decision and the tragic events around the country and come to the conclusion that this is a common-sense law,” Maryland’s Democrat Attorney General Brian Frosh crowed. And that decision in a nutshell?

“[W]e have not power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Bill Clinton nominee and 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert King wrote.

Weapons of war are precisely what “We the People” are entitled to have. That’s why the militia was deemed “necessary to the security of a free State” by the Founders. And King wouldn’t have needed to extend anything. U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 already observed a weapon would have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

As for the Florida case, falling back on the manner of bearing arms (openly vs. concealed) as an excuse to tolerate infringements flies in the face of both historical customs as well as the “shall not be infringed” proscription. That seems to be a pretty clear mandate to everyone except to those who would deny rights to their countrymen under color of authority.

The absence of further High Court action since 2010 and the lack of any explanation for declining to hear these cases mean we can only speculate on the reasons. Are judges who favor easing up on infringements waiting for a retirement or two from their ranks before they’ll deem it safe to move forward, or does this mean the majority owes its first and foremost loyalties to an establishment that thinks this business of an armed populace has gone far enough?

In either case, infringements with the force of law behind them are being allowed to continue now, and as Dr. King observed, a right delayed is a right denied.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Supreme Court Again Ducks Second Amendment by Refusing to Hear Gun Cases appeared first on Oath Keepers.

They Are Coming For Your Guns: Democrats Introduce Bill To Ban ‘Assault’ Weapons

Roughly two dozen Democrats in the Senate have banded together to create a bill that bans “assault” weapons and the bump stock.

The coalition of comrades is being led by (unsurprisingly) Dianne Feinstein of California. “We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote,” Feinstein said in a statement.

Isn’t there a similar “tool” already in play? It’s called a ban on murder. But Democrats don’t appear to care. They are concerned only with the destruction of rights. Congress previously enacted an assault weapons ban in 1994, but that legislation expired in 2004. It also failed to stop the Columbine shooting in Colorado, which happened in 1999. So claiming an assault weapons ban will “work” is naive at best, and fundamentally flawed at its core at worst.

The Democratic legislation would ban the sale, production, and transfer of military-style assault weapons, with some exceptions (because the government has to remain armed), though owners of these weapons would be able to keep those they already own. The bill would also ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

It also would require a background check on any future trade or sale of an assault weapon covered by the legislation, require any guns grandfathered under the bill to be securely stored, and prohibit transferring high-capacity magazines.

The main issue here is that it’s only a matter of time before the comrades on the left are successful at disarming the citizenry. For a nation already in the grips of soft tyranny (the United States is ranked 23rd in the world for individual freedom. So much for the land of the free), it won’t take much more for the few freedoms we have left to evaporate. Gun rights may be the only thing left keeping us in the top 50 on that list.

California Releases Assault Weapons Ban Language

Posted on May 19, 2017 by Beth Baumann

This morning, the State of California released their language regarding their assault weapons and high-capacity magazine bans.

In the document, the state mandates all firearms they consider to be “assault weapons” must be registered with the Department of Justice:

Any person who from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2016 inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine as defined in Penal Code section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet-button weapon) must register the firearm before January 1, 2018.

The Golden State is considering anything without a “fixed magazine” the size of the pistol grip to be an assault weapon. The focus is primarily on those who build their own AR-15 style pistols.

Residents are then required to go through a number of crazy steps to make sure their firearm is in compliance:

1. In order to be legally registered, the firearm has to have been legally acquired on or before December 31, 2016.


2. Each gun owner would have to establish an account under the California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS). The following information must be provided:
   
   • Full name
   
   
   • Address
   
   
   • Telephone number
   
   
   • Date of birth
   
   
   • Sex
   
   
   • Height
   
   
   • Weight
   
   
   • Eye color
   
   
   • Hair color
   
   
   • Military identification number (if applicable)
   
   
   • CA driver’s license or identification card number
   
   
   • United States citizenship status
   
   
   • Place of birth
   
   
   • Country of citizenship
   
   
   • Alien registration number (if applicable)
   
   


3. The following information would have to be provided on each firearm that falls under their definition of an “assault weapon”:
   
   • Firearm type, make and model
   
   
   • Caliber
   
   
   • Firearm color
   
   
   • Barrel length
   
   
   • Serial number
   
   
   • All identification marks firearm
   
   
   • Country of origin/manufacturer
   
   
   • The date the firearm was acquired
   
   
   • The name and address of the individual from whom or business from which the firearm was acquired
   
   
   • Clear digital photos of firearms listed on the application.
     
     • One photo shall depict the bullet-button style magazine release installed on the firearm.
     
     
     • One photo shall depict the firearm from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock if it is a long gun or the point furthest from the end of the barrel if it is a pistol.
     
     
     • The other two photos shall show the left side of the receiver/frame and right side of the receiver/frame.
     
     
   
   


4. If you’re like most families, you probably share your firearms amongst yourselves. If that’s the case, each family member who will be shooting the firearm must be registered as well. One person who have to be identified as the “primary registrant,” while others must register as “joint registrants.” To be a “joint registrant” you must live at the same address as the primary registrant. Everyone who is registered must be 19 by December 31, 2017.
   
   • Only direct family members (parent to child, child to parent, spouses) are allowed to be joint registrants.
   
   
   • Joint registrants have to provide proof of address showing they live with the primary registrant.
   
   

To read steps 5 thru 7, go to Bearing Arms

Source: All-Out Ban on Semi-Automatic Long Guns Coming to CA Legislature

12/20/2016 by AWR Hawkins

In a recent conversation with Breitbart News, Gun Owners of California’s (GOC) Sam Paredes told us to be ready for an all-out ban on semi-automatic long guns in California’s coming legislative session.

Paredes is the executive director of GOC, and he suggested the “assault weapons” ban and the “bullet button” ban have both been part of an incremental move toward banning all semi-automatic rifles, whether “assault” style or not.

We discussed the surge in long gun sales, which are currently taking CA by storm. The surge is the result of residents trying to beat the “bullet button” ban, which takes effect January 1, 2017. You cannot buy an AR-15 with a “bullet button” after that date, but you are allowed to keep one with such a button if purchased before the new year. (For those who many not know, a “bullet button” is a mechanism that people in the other 49 states would refer to as a magazine release. With one caveat: the button only works when depressed with the sharp point of a tool or the tip of a bullet, thus the phrase “bullet button.”)

After discussing long gun sales, we asked Paredes if there was anything on the legislative horizon we should know about. He said, “These laws are the tip of the iceberg here in California. We expect they are going to introduce legislation to totally ban semi-automatic long guns in California. They will do this because they know we will come up with a new way to beat their latest ban–the ‘bullet button’ ban–if given time.”

Parades added, “They had a bill for this last year that we were able to kill. We think they will bring it up again and they will also introduce legislation to put in place a one-gun-per-month of any kind purchase limit. This limit will apply whether it’s a handgun or a long gun, in order to try to slow down the sales of guns in California.”

It must be noted that California has universal background checks. This means the only kind of firearms sales allowed in the state are those that incorporate a background check. Consequently, this also means that all the new bans, rules, and regulations being discussed by Parades are bans, rules, and regulations that will be applied to residents who buy their guns via a background check; and this is a roundabout way of saying the bans, rules, and regulations will only apply to law-abiding citizens because they are the ones who follow the rules. Criminals, on the other hand, will buy their guns from personal and/or street connections and will face no limit on the number of guns they can buy per month nor on whether those guns are semi-automatics.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News.