The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition and related industries, tonight expressed its strong support for President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to become an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
“We are pleased to lend our support to President Trump’s nomination of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and urge the Senate to approve his nomination in as expeditious manner as possible,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “We are confident that Judge Gorsuch will serve our nation with distinction as an Associate Justice of our nation’s highest court and that his service will do honor to the legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the protection of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 12,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.
Firearms industry group National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has released a statement backing President-Elect Donald Trump’s pick for Attorney General.
The trade association for the firearms, ammunition and related industries, today expressed its strong support for the nomination of the U.S. Senator from Alabama as the 84th Attorney General of the United States.
“During the last eight years, through numerous attacks on our Second Amendment liberties, Senator Sessions has worked tirelessly to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, including through his staunch support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “We are confident that with Senator Sessions as the top law enforcement officer in the nation that our public will be safer, that criminals will be taken off the streets, that justice will be served, law enforcement priorities will take precedence over politics and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans will be respected.”
Frankly, we here at GunLink are just excited to see someone other than anti-gun Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch filling the roll, whose duties as the head of the United States Department of justice include being at the helm of the BATFE.
Ask any concealed carry license holder who does any appreciable amount of travel and they can tell you that the United States can be a patchwork of state and local laws. Can you have a loaded firearm in your car? Are rifles and handguns treated differently? Does a loaded magazine count as “loaded,” or must a round be chambered? Do No Guns Allowed signs carry the force of law? Can you carry in restaurants which serve alcohol? Is your concealed carry permit even good in your destination state?
These issues might represent a lot to consider when traveling with firearms, but a new bill introduced in the House might solve at least one of them.
Yesterday marked the first day of the 115th Congress and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC-8) kicked it off with a piece of pro-gun legislation in the form of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. HR38 would eliminate the confusing hodgepodge of laws across the nation by allowing individuals who legally carry a concealed firearm in their home state to exercise the same right in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry – a concept known as National Reciprocity.
NRA-ILA Executive Director, Chris Cox, supported the bill, saying “the current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home.”
Hudson, a strong advocate of Second Amendment rights, has introduced similar legislation in the past, including last session’s HR986 during the 114th Congress. Despite decent support from among his congressional peers, this bill failed to make it through the legislative process. Now, with republican control of the House, Senate, and White House – along with at least one Supreme Court seat to be filled by the incoming President Trump – the new iteration of the national reciprocity bill has a chance at passing. It is already off to a good start with a bi-partisan field of more than 60 co-sponsors. Continue reading
The BATFE recently published an open letter to Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) regarding the January 41F ruling (fmr 41P) which makes changes to the way in which NFA applications are handled for legal entities and individuals.
In part, the letter specifies “that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm, and the responsible person questionnaire, if applicable, be forwarded to the [CLEO] of the locality in which the applicant, transferee or responsible person is located (“CLEO notification”)” and that the ruling “eliminates the requirement that an applicant obtain a certification signed by the CLEO before the transfer or making of an NFA firearm may be approved.“
The letter goes on to explain that there is no action required by the CLEO upon receipt (or lack thereof) of the paperwork – to include even confirming receipt of the documents. Further, the letter says that it is up to each CLEO to determine how they dispose of or retain (and whether or not they do either).
Of immediate concern are several potential issues regarding this lackadaisical hands-off approach to record keeping and privacy mandates. One concern would be with how an applicant would prove that they met the new CLEO notification requirement if there is no acknowledgment of receipt by the CLEO, and what future repercussions might be. Application denials? Revocation of approved applications with forced surrender of the firearms? The ATF has already proven that they are not above such tactics in the recent Form 1 Machine Gun debacles, which are still in litigation. Or worse?
The second concern would be how the CLEOs are protecting applicants sensitive information that is contained in the notification paperwork. As the $200 cost associated with making or transferring NFA firearms ($5 for transferring AOWs) is not a fee or a price for goods or services sold but, rather, the tax paid for making or transferring the item, the application could well be considered a tax document. This document details the what firearms are being made or transferred, at which physical address, and – for many applicants – their home address, photograph, fingerprints, signature, and other sensitive information. This information could potentially be problematic if it fell into the wrong hands, which is not outside the realm of possibilities when the CLEO is able to simply toss your notification paperwork into the trash bin for dumpster divers to find or leave it laying around on a desk at the PD for petty crooks to have a look at as they are brought through.
As if identity theft wasn’t enough of an issue, without any mandated safeguards on how this information is to be protected, consider the possibility of a motivated criminal coming to Joe Gunguy’s house at 123 Anystreet Lane to steal the expensive 7.5″ Noveske 5.56 AR-15 pattern rifle to use on the streets. If this firearm is so much more dangerous than an off-the-shelf firearm that it requires owners to to register them and pay an extra $200 tax on them and notify the government when we travel with them, does it make sense for the CLEOs to treat the information about those weapons so recklessly? Or is this just another spotlight on the absurdity of the NFA in general?
Did Crew Send a Producer to Commit a Felony?
Not long after the deceptive editing used in Katie Couric’s “Under the Gun“ was brought to light, it looks like there might be more controversy surrounding the anti-gun film masquerading as a documentary.
If you are not familiar with the situation, Couric’s film crew edited in roughly 8 seconds of silence and uneasy glances from gun owners after she asks them a question about how to prevent bad guys from obtaining firearms. To many, this made the interviewees look like “idiots.” What actually happened was that several of the interviewees immediately provided sound, cogent responses to her question.
Now, in a recent interview with LipTV’s Ondi Timoner, Under the Gun producer Stephanie Soechtig seemingly admits to sending another producer (from Colorado) to Arizona, where he “was able to buy a Bushmaster and then three other pistols.” Unfortunately, this is a federal crime – despite what Soechtig says – as interstate purchases of long guns must be performed through an FFL in that state (when allowed at all), and interstate purchases of handguns are flatly illegal.
We sent a producer out and he was from Colorado. He went to Arizona and he was able to buy a Bushmaster and then three other pistols without a background check in a matter of four hours. And that’s perfectly legal. He wasn’t doing some sort of, like, underground market.
As many readers likely already know, to legally purchase a handgun from out of state, the firearm must be shipped to an FFL in your state, and then transferred to the purchaser as usual, including a NICS background check.
A number of producers are listed on the film’s credits page, however, it appears that there are only two male names which would match up with Soechtig’s claim that the producer they sent was a “he.” Interestingly, one of the male producers named operates a twitter page listing his location as Denver, Colorado – where Soechtig claims the producer who made the illegal purchases was from.
We hope for the sake of the producer and the Arizona seller of the firearms, that what this “documentary” film maker says in the interview is just more lies from the anti-gun left, otherwise she may have just created two new felons!
Shipping a firearm can be a confusing ordeal and the plethora of conflicting information and anecdotes floating around online and at gun counters doesn’t make the matter any clearer. Is it illegal to ship a firearm with a particular carrier? Is it against this carrier’s company policies? What about the USPS? Can it go across state lines? Does it matter who I ship it to? Can I ship it to myself instead of flying with a firearm?
First off, the rules are different for licensees (FFL holders) versus non-licensees. We are mainly going to cover the rules for the non-licensed average Joe here since, if you are an FFL you probably already know how to ship firearms. We will briefly touch on some aspects of FFL shipping, however, since having a licensee do your shipping can often be easier and more affordable than doing it on your own.
If you ship incorrectly, you may end up facing consequences like denied insurance claims if your firearm is lost or damaged or, worse, going to jail. With these kind of high stakes, it pays to do it right at all levels when shipping a firearm. Continue reading