Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well.

Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line.

And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly.  The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal.

For more than twenty years, Gun Owners of America has pushed constitutional carry (also known as Vermont-style carry) at the state level.  Such legislation recognizes the right to carry without having to first get the government’s permission.

After all, how much of a right is protected by the Second Amendment if citizens must first pass tests, fill out applications, take classes and, in many cases, be fingerprinted and photographed to obtain a license—in essence, to prove to the authorities that they’re not criminals before being allowed to carry?

Vermont had it right for over a century.  Any person can carry a concealed firearm—whether they are a resident of the state or not—except for use in the commission of a crime. That’s it. No registration, no paperwork, no arbitrary denials by anti-gun bureaucrats.

And the result?  Vermont consistently ranks among the safest states in the country.

And other states are finally starting to follow suit.  Three states (Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming) have passed constitutional carry laws for their own citizens.  Texas passed a modified version, allowing for a concealed firearm anywhere inside one’s vehicle, including motor homes.  And since 1991, constitutional carry has been allowed in more than 99% of the state of Montana.

Even with these improvements, however, reciprocal agreements between states are written in such a way that an actual permit is still required in order to carry concealed from state to state.

And in many instances, there is NO way to legally carry concealed in another state.

Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life—without needing a permit from the government.

Just as GOA works to eliminate government restrictions on carry at the state level, GOA has never supported a bill at the national level that stops short of recognizing constitutional carry.

After all, a bill that requires states to implement a permitting system risks setting back the efforts of the many states seeking to pass real concealed carry reform.

The SAFE Act also respects the Constitution and states’ powers in that it does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor does it provide for a national carry permit or require a state like Vermont to move to a permit system (in order for its citizens to carry out-of-state).

In fact, the Broun bill will do nothing to change what the states already do in terms of allowing or denying their citizens their right to carry firearms.  This bill simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home state, to also carry in every other state that allows concealed carry.

Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause.  The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

Constitutionally-protected rights, including the right to self-defense, do not disappear at the state line.  Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act will simply allow lawful gun owners who have the right carry concealed firearms in their home state to also carry in other states.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act.

Click Here to Send Your Representative a prewritten email message

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2010s/op10339.htm

 

The above link is to the opinion issued by Michigan’s attorney general yesterday making it legal for those of us in Michigan to own suppressors, per ATF regulations.

This has been in the works for several years to get him to issue an opinion on this issue, AG Cox issued the opinion on Full-Auto in 2005, and now this one by Scheutte, make MI join the already over 45 states that allow suppressors.

Suppressors so far are still not legal to hunt with, though I’m sure we will be petitioning the DNR to change that ruling as well.

Suppressor will however make ranges and recreational shooting a lot quieter.

The process for acquiring a suppressor is as follows.

You must :

 

• • Must be 21 years old when purchasing from a dealer
• • Typically, if you can buy an handgun, you can buy a silencer
• • Must not have been convicted of a felony or pleaded guilty to

domestic violence charge(s)

• • Must be a United States Citizen

 

 

• • Pick a silencer to buy  (I have included a list below of several manufacturers.)
• • Find a Class 3 Dealer (I recommend Port City pistol for those in the greater Muskegon area)
• • Fill out and complete the required paperwork IN DUPLICATE (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf)
• • If an individual, obtain Law Enforcement signature on the forms

be fingerprinted and paste or tape two photographs of yourself

onto the forms

• • If a Corporation or Trust, you may skip the above step
• • Pay the $200 Transfer Tax to BATFE
• • Wait for your paperwork to clear
• • Fill out a ATF Form 4473
• • Take your silencer home

 

Note that most silencers will run from 500+ and you have a transfer fee as well as the $200 tax stamp for each can, some cans may be used on more than one firearm and more than one caliber, so choose wisely.

 

 

http://www.gem-tech.com/store/pc/home.asp

http://www.libertycans.net/

http://www.qsmsilencers.com/

http://www.sai.dk/

http://www.awcsystech.com/about/

http://www.yhm.net/

http://www.advanced-armament.com/

 

 

 

 

Kevin Rought

Tools of the Trade Sales and Service

www.tottss.com

Gun Owners of America is working with several members of Congress to repeal a gun ban on land controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Currently, guns are prohibited on Corps land, even when firearms possession is otherwise allowed by state law.  Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) introduced legislation—the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act (H.R. 1865)—to allow state law to govern firearms possession.

You may recall that in July, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) offered similar language as an amendment to an appropriations bill.  Gosar’s amendment passed the House on a voice vote, but its fate is uncertain as it heads to the Senate.

The Gibbs bill, as well as the Gosar amendment, is modeled after a similar measure that became law in 2009 affecting National Park Service land.  Army Corps of Engineers land was not part of that bill, something the Corps was quick to point out after that law took affect.

The Corps said, in a statement: “Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects of facilities . . . [and the Army Corps] will continue to prohibit loaded concealed weapons on Corps properties regardless of the new law and notwithstanding any contrary provisions of state law.”

Rep. Gibbs’ bill will reverse the Corps’ decision.

“The Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act is a bipartisan effort to restore Second Amendment rights to law-abiding citizens while they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on the 11.7 million acres of Army Corps recreational property,” Gibbs said. “Families and sportsmen taking advantage of this federal land should not have to worry that their legally obtained concealed weapon permit is invalid.”

Gun Owners of America applauds the efforts of Reps. Gibbs and Gosar, and will continue to push for repeal of the gun ban affecting over 400 lake and river projects, 90,000 campsites and 4,000 miles of trails controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H.R. 1865, the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act.

Fresh from the camera….looks like my spot may pay off this year!

(click pic for full size image)

 

The good news is that 30 Senators have signed onto a letter opposing any UN treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.

The bad news is that a global small arms treaty could still pass unless more Senators come out in opposition.

Last week, a so-called UN “preparatory committee” met for the third time to work on the massive Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The ATT is the most comprehensive treaty of its kind and would regulate worldwide trade of weapons on everything from battleships to bullets.  Few details of the treaty have been made public, but it is widely expected that the final draft will:

* Require gun owner registration
* Require ammunition “microstamping”
* Define “manufacturing” so broadly that any gun owner who adds so much as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license
* Include a ban on some types of semi-automatic firearms
* Include a ban .50 caliber firearms
* Demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.

Of course, we know that the Obama administration supports all of these proposals and would love to get them passed into law.  Obama’s negotiators at the UN have already expressed full support of the treaty and will work to include gun control provisions they haven’t been able to push through the Congress.

The deadline for a final version of a treaty is July 2012, at which time it will be sent to the various member countries for ratification.

Kansas Senator Jerry Moran (R) drafted a letter to President Obama stating that our Second Amendment rights are “not negotiable” and pledges to “oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items.”

In the Untied States the treaty will go to the Senate, where it requires 67 votes to be ratified.  Conversely, we need 34 votes to kill the ATT.

So we’re still four commitments short of defeating the treaty – and that doesn’t account for any Senators who are “playing politics” and who may end up supporting the ATT with the right amount of pressure.

And you can bet that the pressure will be on to get this treaty ratified before the 2012 elections.

Coming soon! Vanguard Series 2

Welcome to the next generation of Vanguard® rifles. Our new Series 2 takes the proven advantage of our popular Vanguard® action and gives it a whole new look, feel and level of performance. And, every Vanguard Series 2 is guaranteed to shoot SUB-MOA (.99″ or less at 100 yards) right out of the box.