jagbender
Registered
-
🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪 -
🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥
Must see California senator made fool of
- Thread starter jagbender
- Start date
jagbender
Registered
funny but i think the second link is what makes the first one so important
Obamacare Families Provision Will Allow Forced Home Inspections To 'Eligible' People
this is one reason i would abolish DHHS. way too much treading on our rights. teachers and doctors would be in a position to see that children in need of intervention were identified. no one's home needs to be violated without due process and a warrant.
Obamacare Families Provision Will Allow Forced Home Inspections To 'Eligible' People
this is one reason i would abolish DHHS. way too much treading on our rights. teachers and doctors would be in a position to see that children in need of intervention were identified. no one's home needs to be violated without due process and a warrant.
That is the kind of guy who needs to run for president.
jagbender
Registered
More good Stuff!!
[h=2]Inside the Committee: Sam Paredes calls out Senator Yee on the Facts [SUP]Featured[/SUP][/h]Written by Mary Barb
Rate this item
(4 votes)
Inside the Committee: Sam Paredes calls out Senator Yee on the Facts
By Mary Barb, Legislative Assistant
Once again, California proved itself to be one of the least Second Amendment friendly states in the country. A package of bills passed a key legislative hurdle on Tuesday, August 13[SUP]th [/SUP]in the Public Safety Committee room, setting up a white-hot Capitol showdown.
Dozens and dozens of people showed up to face-off in the battle of ?gun-rights? versus ?gun-control?. Some, there in support of gun-control had lost loved ones to gun violence, while others were there to support the Second Amendment, as an extremely basic right is being severely threatened by the emotion and irrational reactions to unfortunate and tragic occurrences. We are here to give you an inside-look at what happened behind the doors of the State Capitol, and just what they are saying about your gun rights ?
A total of six bills were heard, all of which passed out of Assembly Public Safety and were sent on to Assembly Appropriations.
Julie Leftwitch, the Legal Director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was a witness in support of Senator Jackson?s bill. She attempted to discount the knowledge, experience, and expertise of the opposition before even hearing their testimonies by stating her understanding of the Second Amendment: ?? I am sure you will hear today, opponents of the gun violence prevention bills that are before you will argue that the Second Amendment prohibitsstrong gun laws, and it does not ? the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time in the Heller Case that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of law abiding, responsible individuals, the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. It made clear that the law is not absolute, and that many gun laws are consistent with the Second Amendment, particularly those that are dangerous weapons such as assault weapons.? While we obviously disagree with her interpretation of the ruling, there were quiet chuckles heard throughout the room, coming from some of those in support of the Second Amendment.
Our colleague and friend, Gerald Upholt, with the California Association of Firearms Retailers, responded to Senator Jackson with clear knowledge on the subject, explaining that ?? Mossberg has had that shotgun with the rifled barrel for at least 20 years that I know of. The reason that it was developed was because in the mid-west and the eastern states, the housing density is fairly high and the density of the forest is very high in many places, so the Fish and Game departments there said ?well you can?t use rifles for hunting deer because the projectiles carry too far? so they have limited the hunters to using shotguns with either buck shot or rifled slugs. The barrel was rifled to increase the accuracy of the rifle slugs. By themselves they are not very accurate but if you have a shotgun barrel that is rifled, it increases the accuracy of the rifle and you have a much better chance of actually humanely killing a deer, instead of wounding it and that?s the reason for the rifled bore on a Mossberg shotgun, it has nothing to do with getting away from the definition of a shotgun or anything like that.? Even though the bill proceeded to garner a majority of ?aye? votes, we are confident the Senator didn?t like being confronted with the facts she failed to research on her own. Well done, Gerald. Well done.
Senator Darrell Steinberg?s bill (SB 374) was heard next and it sure was interesting to witness! Senator Steinberg led off his presentation to the committee by stating that, ?The state of California once led the Nation in responding to the victims and potential victims of assault weapons and over the course of the 20 plus years that California?s assault weapons ban has been in effect; the gun industry, the manufacturers have found numerous ways to get around the ban.? At one point, he even went so far as to say ?This entire package is not focused on trying to prohibit or limit law-abiding citizens from having guns. It seeks to close the loopholes that were never supposed to exist.?
Ed Worley, the National Rifle Association?s Lobbyist countered Steinberg?s ?loopholes? comment by stating that ?We are not looking at a loophole, but rather a vast expansion of government control over a constitutional right!? ? something Senator Steinberg seems to pride himself in every time.
The Democratic committee members even refused to consider the testimony of Aaron Maguire, representing the California State Sheriffs? Association, who labeled the bill as being ?vastly over-inclusive of firearms that are legitimate sporting and hunting weapons.? We are grateful to have the Sheriff?s Association on our side regarding this issue.
Republican Assemblywoman Marie Waldron stated her common sense opposition by reminding Steinberg that ??the vast majority of crimes are committed with handguns, so this won?t really have an effect on that statistic ? how will we get the criminals to register their weapons that are illegal? ? it?s not really going to affect those people because ? they are going to continue to break the law. Only law abiding citizens will once again, be affected ?? Assemblywoman, we thank you for your refreshingly sensible reminder!
Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (Republican) laughingly addressed Senator Steinberg by saying ?This will probably come as no surprise but I cannot support this bill. I know, I know you are shocked, I know you were hopeful. Ideologically, we are vastly different on our views of gun control and gun rights and I get that ? We are talking about this bill and making so many weapons illegal for so many people. It?s disturbing to me that we are going to take something about 95% of the rifles in production, or a very high number, they would now become considered illegal.? She went on to ask the Senator ?You don?t happen to hunt, do you?? He responded with ?I do not.? She then asked ?If we ban these weapons, what do you propose that our hunters use for deer hunting and things of that nature, what will they use??
Senator Steinberg was clearly not prepared for this question and stumbled over himself before responding, ?rifles which have the ability to, uh, carry 10 rounds in a magazine which cannot be detached. When the 10 rounds are completed, guns can then be reloaded with 10 new rounds, um, in the conventional, manual way.? Assemblywoman Melendez finished with ?We can?t ban everything. This is about personal responsibility of human beings- not the weapons they are using.?
Yet of course, the common sense of the pro-gun testimonies and very well educated statements of the Republican committee members fell on deaf ears, as this bill flew out of the hearing by an overwhelming majority.
But the excitement didn?t end there! Another bill that really made some feathers ruffle was SB 47, authored by Senator Leland Yee. Senator Yee led off his presentation by stating that because of yet another ?loophole? in the current assault weapons ban ?we have found that there are, in fact, weapons that are out there that skirt that particular ban. What this bill is designed to do is basically close that particular loophole.? His bill would, in essence, ban the bullet button.
With his response to Senator Yee, Sam Paredes, the Executive Director of Gun Owners of California got a real rise out the Senator when he said ?? I believe that Mr. Worley and myself are the only two people in this room, who were here when the original bill was discussed at the beginning of the ?assault weapons ban? phenomenon. The discussion included absolutely, this is not some ?loophole? as has been pointed out by the author and many people who support their bill. The use of a tool to remove a magazine was something that was specifically discussed in the legislative process, was specifically discussed in the regulation making process and the specifically included the use of a bullet tip or a cartridge as a tool and it defined it as tool in order to be able to remove the magazine. There was no misconception ? There is no loophole here. That was a part of the discussion and I think it is important that we keep honestly to what the discussion was that drove this bill in the first place. Number two, ? The reports put out by the Department of Justice that are mandated by the state of California Legislature show that these guns are not?bullet button guns are not used in commissions of a crime! ? In the state of California, 300 times a day, law-abiding citizens use all manner of firearms to defend themselves in their homes. As a matter of fact, year after year after year, it has proven out nationwide and in California that there are far more lawful uses of self-defense with the use of a firearm among law-abiding citizens than there are with police! Those are facts. And that is what we need to be talking about. This bill will only take away firearms from people who completely abide by the law and who are not part of any criminal element in the state of California. For that and a whole bunch of other reasons, we are in strong opposition. Thank you.?
Although his bill passed, Senator Yee stood up and asked the lobbyists from the pro-gun organizations out into the hall to further discuss their differences. Apparently, Senator Yee didn?t like being held accountable for his misrepresentation of what happened at the initial assault weapons ban hearings.
It sure seems like we have a lot of ?loopholes? in California laws that need to be closed!
In the hallway Senator Yee was visibly distressed that he was called him on the mat and insulted for his ?loophole? characterizations.
He sputtered and emphasized with a pointed finger that he watched the videos of the original hearings. Well not only did we watch all of the available videos, we were there! There are no ?loopholes?. The Senator lost his fervor for the confrontation once the Assembly Sergeants asked us to take our loud conversations to the end of the hall. The bill was passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Last modified on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 14:28
[h=2]Inside the Committee: Sam Paredes calls out Senator Yee on the Facts [SUP]Featured[/SUP][/h]Written by Mary Barb
Rate this item
(4 votes)
Inside the Committee: Sam Paredes calls out Senator Yee on the Facts
By Mary Barb, Legislative Assistant
Once again, California proved itself to be one of the least Second Amendment friendly states in the country. A package of bills passed a key legislative hurdle on Tuesday, August 13[SUP]th [/SUP]in the Public Safety Committee room, setting up a white-hot Capitol showdown.
Dozens and dozens of people showed up to face-off in the battle of ?gun-rights? versus ?gun-control?. Some, there in support of gun-control had lost loved ones to gun violence, while others were there to support the Second Amendment, as an extremely basic right is being severely threatened by the emotion and irrational reactions to unfortunate and tragic occurrences. We are here to give you an inside-look at what happened behind the doors of the State Capitol, and just what they are saying about your gun rights ?
A total of six bills were heard, all of which passed out of Assembly Public Safety and were sent on to Assembly Appropriations.
- SB 47 (Yee) ASSAULT WEAPONS ? Bans ?Bullet Button? guns.
- SB 374 (Steinberg) FIREARMS: ASSAULT WEAPONS ? Bans all semi-auto centerfire long guns with detachable magazines.
- SB 396 (Hancock) FIREARMS: MAGAZINE CAPACITY ? Makes all grandfathered Hi-Cap (10 rounds or more) illegal to possess.
- SB 567 (Jackson) FIREARMS: SHOTGUNS ? Revises the definition of a shotgun.
- SB 683 (Block) FIREARMS: Requires all gun buyers to get a Firearm Safety Certificate before buying any gun.
- SB 755 (Wolk) FIREARMS: Expands the number of crimes that are punishable by a 5 or 10 year ban on firearms ownership.
Julie Leftwitch, the Legal Director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was a witness in support of Senator Jackson?s bill. She attempted to discount the knowledge, experience, and expertise of the opposition before even hearing their testimonies by stating her understanding of the Second Amendment: ?? I am sure you will hear today, opponents of the gun violence prevention bills that are before you will argue that the Second Amendment prohibitsstrong gun laws, and it does not ? the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time in the Heller Case that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of law abiding, responsible individuals, the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. It made clear that the law is not absolute, and that many gun laws are consistent with the Second Amendment, particularly those that are dangerous weapons such as assault weapons.? While we obviously disagree with her interpretation of the ruling, there were quiet chuckles heard throughout the room, coming from some of those in support of the Second Amendment.
Our colleague and friend, Gerald Upholt, with the California Association of Firearms Retailers, responded to Senator Jackson with clear knowledge on the subject, explaining that ?? Mossberg has had that shotgun with the rifled barrel for at least 20 years that I know of. The reason that it was developed was because in the mid-west and the eastern states, the housing density is fairly high and the density of the forest is very high in many places, so the Fish and Game departments there said ?well you can?t use rifles for hunting deer because the projectiles carry too far? so they have limited the hunters to using shotguns with either buck shot or rifled slugs. The barrel was rifled to increase the accuracy of the rifle slugs. By themselves they are not very accurate but if you have a shotgun barrel that is rifled, it increases the accuracy of the rifle and you have a much better chance of actually humanely killing a deer, instead of wounding it and that?s the reason for the rifled bore on a Mossberg shotgun, it has nothing to do with getting away from the definition of a shotgun or anything like that.? Even though the bill proceeded to garner a majority of ?aye? votes, we are confident the Senator didn?t like being confronted with the facts she failed to research on her own. Well done, Gerald. Well done.
Senator Darrell Steinberg?s bill (SB 374) was heard next and it sure was interesting to witness! Senator Steinberg led off his presentation to the committee by stating that, ?The state of California once led the Nation in responding to the victims and potential victims of assault weapons and over the course of the 20 plus years that California?s assault weapons ban has been in effect; the gun industry, the manufacturers have found numerous ways to get around the ban.? At one point, he even went so far as to say ?This entire package is not focused on trying to prohibit or limit law-abiding citizens from having guns. It seeks to close the loopholes that were never supposed to exist.?
Ed Worley, the National Rifle Association?s Lobbyist countered Steinberg?s ?loopholes? comment by stating that ?We are not looking at a loophole, but rather a vast expansion of government control over a constitutional right!? ? something Senator Steinberg seems to pride himself in every time.
The Democratic committee members even refused to consider the testimony of Aaron Maguire, representing the California State Sheriffs? Association, who labeled the bill as being ?vastly over-inclusive of firearms that are legitimate sporting and hunting weapons.? We are grateful to have the Sheriff?s Association on our side regarding this issue.
Republican Assemblywoman Marie Waldron stated her common sense opposition by reminding Steinberg that ??the vast majority of crimes are committed with handguns, so this won?t really have an effect on that statistic ? how will we get the criminals to register their weapons that are illegal? ? it?s not really going to affect those people because ? they are going to continue to break the law. Only law abiding citizens will once again, be affected ?? Assemblywoman, we thank you for your refreshingly sensible reminder!
Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (Republican) laughingly addressed Senator Steinberg by saying ?This will probably come as no surprise but I cannot support this bill. I know, I know you are shocked, I know you were hopeful. Ideologically, we are vastly different on our views of gun control and gun rights and I get that ? We are talking about this bill and making so many weapons illegal for so many people. It?s disturbing to me that we are going to take something about 95% of the rifles in production, or a very high number, they would now become considered illegal.? She went on to ask the Senator ?You don?t happen to hunt, do you?? He responded with ?I do not.? She then asked ?If we ban these weapons, what do you propose that our hunters use for deer hunting and things of that nature, what will they use??
Senator Steinberg was clearly not prepared for this question and stumbled over himself before responding, ?rifles which have the ability to, uh, carry 10 rounds in a magazine which cannot be detached. When the 10 rounds are completed, guns can then be reloaded with 10 new rounds, um, in the conventional, manual way.? Assemblywoman Melendez finished with ?We can?t ban everything. This is about personal responsibility of human beings- not the weapons they are using.?
Yet of course, the common sense of the pro-gun testimonies and very well educated statements of the Republican committee members fell on deaf ears, as this bill flew out of the hearing by an overwhelming majority.
But the excitement didn?t end there! Another bill that really made some feathers ruffle was SB 47, authored by Senator Leland Yee. Senator Yee led off his presentation by stating that because of yet another ?loophole? in the current assault weapons ban ?we have found that there are, in fact, weapons that are out there that skirt that particular ban. What this bill is designed to do is basically close that particular loophole.? His bill would, in essence, ban the bullet button.
With his response to Senator Yee, Sam Paredes, the Executive Director of Gun Owners of California got a real rise out the Senator when he said ?? I believe that Mr. Worley and myself are the only two people in this room, who were here when the original bill was discussed at the beginning of the ?assault weapons ban? phenomenon. The discussion included absolutely, this is not some ?loophole? as has been pointed out by the author and many people who support their bill. The use of a tool to remove a magazine was something that was specifically discussed in the legislative process, was specifically discussed in the regulation making process and the specifically included the use of a bullet tip or a cartridge as a tool and it defined it as tool in order to be able to remove the magazine. There was no misconception ? There is no loophole here. That was a part of the discussion and I think it is important that we keep honestly to what the discussion was that drove this bill in the first place. Number two, ? The reports put out by the Department of Justice that are mandated by the state of California Legislature show that these guns are not?bullet button guns are not used in commissions of a crime! ? In the state of California, 300 times a day, law-abiding citizens use all manner of firearms to defend themselves in their homes. As a matter of fact, year after year after year, it has proven out nationwide and in California that there are far more lawful uses of self-defense with the use of a firearm among law-abiding citizens than there are with police! Those are facts. And that is what we need to be talking about. This bill will only take away firearms from people who completely abide by the law and who are not part of any criminal element in the state of California. For that and a whole bunch of other reasons, we are in strong opposition. Thank you.?
Although his bill passed, Senator Yee stood up and asked the lobbyists from the pro-gun organizations out into the hall to further discuss their differences. Apparently, Senator Yee didn?t like being held accountable for his misrepresentation of what happened at the initial assault weapons ban hearings.
It sure seems like we have a lot of ?loopholes? in California laws that need to be closed!
In the hallway Senator Yee was visibly distressed that he was called him on the mat and insulted for his ?loophole? characterizations.
He sputtered and emphasized with a pointed finger that he watched the videos of the original hearings. Well not only did we watch all of the available videos, we were there! There are no ?loopholes?. The Senator lost his fervor for the confrontation once the Assembly Sergeants asked us to take our loud conversations to the end of the hall. The bill was passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Last modified on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 14:28
jagbender
Registered
Arkansas Christian school!
jagbender
Registered
jagbender
Registered
[h=1]n the Best of Hands: NYPD/Bloomberg press conference points hundreds of guns at reporters[/h]By BearingArms.com Staff / 19 August 2013 / 77 comments
Charles W. Cooke at National Review Online found this headdesk moment in the twitter feed of J. David Goodman, the NYPD police reporter for the New York Times. Goodman covered a joint NYPD press conference featuring Mayor Michael Bloomberg today that saw hundreds of guns pointed directly at the audience.
While we hope that the NYPD had the good sense to clear each and every firearm on display, what they failed to do is as undeniable as it is unforgivable. They clearly left magazines in, with bolts closed, on numerous firearms pointing at the press corpse.
I mean, press corps.
At least one of the guns picture above, third up from the bottom on the left, clearly has the bolt-closed and the safety off as it points towards the assembled reporters.
Clearly, chamber flags and Bloomberg?s much called for ?common sense? about firearms must not be within the NYPD?s budget
Charles W. Cooke at National Review Online found this headdesk moment in the twitter feed of J. David Goodman, the NYPD police reporter for the New York Times. Goodman covered a joint NYPD press conference featuring Mayor Michael Bloomberg today that saw hundreds of guns pointed directly at the audience.
While we hope that the NYPD had the good sense to clear each and every firearm on display, what they failed to do is as undeniable as it is unforgivable. They clearly left magazines in, with bolts closed, on numerous firearms pointing at the press corpse.
I mean, press corps.
At least one of the guns picture above, third up from the bottom on the left, clearly has the bolt-closed and the safety off as it points towards the assembled reporters.
Clearly, chamber flags and Bloomberg?s much called for ?common sense? about firearms must not be within the NYPD?s budget
jagbender
Registered
[h=1]University blows $60K on useless bullet-resistant shields for professors[/h]By BearingArms.com Staff / 17 August 2013 / 85 comments
The administration and faculty of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore have apparently determined that prominently posted ?gun-free zone? signs don?t seem to stop deranged madmen intend on murder the way they should. Their solution? Encourage the faculty to become slightly more shot-resistant:
Take a good, long look at these pictures. How much of ye olde professor is covered?
On the upside, there is always the possibility that any potential shooter will be laughing too hard to aim accurately.
The administration and faculty of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore have apparently determined that prominently posted ?gun-free zone? signs don?t seem to stop deranged madmen intend on murder the way they should. Their solution? Encourage the faculty to become slightly more shot-resistant:
Calling ?campus violence a reality? to prepare for, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore announced plans Thursday to spend $60,000 on the Clark Kent of teacher supplies: an innocuous-looking white board that can stop bullets.
The high-tech tablet ? which hangs on a hook, measures 18 by 20 inches and comes in pink, blue and green ? can be used as a personal shield for professors under attack, according to the company that makes it, and a portable writing pad in quieter times.
Here?s the device.The high-tech tablet ? which hangs on a hook, measures 18 by 20 inches and comes in pink, blue and green ? can be used as a personal shield for professors under attack, according to the company that makes it, and a portable writing pad in quieter times.
Take a good, long look at these pictures. How much of ye olde professor is covered?
On the upside, there is always the possibility that any potential shooter will be laughing too hard to aim accurately.
jagbender
Registered
jagbender
Registered
[h=1]Justice: Retired Army Vet Gets $15,000 From City After Being Threatened By Police[/h]By Corbin Spiegel / 15 August 2013 / 106 comments
Over the past couple of months open carry has become a form of protest for pro-gun owners wanting to have their voices heard. The process is usually peaceful, and requires extensive knowledge of your local carry laws. But what happens when you?re carrying just for self-defense?
KiroTV reports on how a chance encounter can turn dangerous:
Over the past couple of months open carry has become a form of protest for pro-gun owners wanting to have their voices heard. The process is usually peaceful, and requires extensive knowledge of your local carry laws. But what happens when you?re carrying just for self-defense?
KiroTV reports on how a chance encounter can turn dangerous:
John Laigaie (lah-GAY?) III is a 64-year-old, retired U.S. Army master sergeant and Second Amendment advocate. He says he was walking his dog in the park on Dec. 19, 2011, and openly carrying his 9 mm handgun on his hip when an officer approached him, demanded identification and told him it was illegal to have a gun in the park.
Laigaie says that when he told the officer it wasn?t illegal and offered to show him a copy of the state law, the officer drew his gun and pointed it at Laigaie?s chest from three feet away.
Laigaie was eventually allowed to leave the park with his gun. His attorneys, with the Lustick Law Firm of Bellingham, say the city also agreed to provide police and 911 operators with additional training to prevent similar confrontations in the future.
Lawyers say Bellingham agreed to pay $15,000 to Laigaie.
When open carry is legal officers have no right to bully and/or confiscate your firearms. It?s a sad day when one of our veterans can?t defend himself without being harassed by an overzealous officer. And if something tragic had occurred from that exchange, the media would have been partially to blame for igniting these anti-gun groups into a frenzy. They?ve been trained to seize any and all guns regardless of legality?and that right there is the real crime.Laigaie says that when he told the officer it wasn?t illegal and offered to show him a copy of the state law, the officer drew his gun and pointed it at Laigaie?s chest from three feet away.
Laigaie was eventually allowed to leave the park with his gun. His attorneys, with the Lustick Law Firm of Bellingham, say the city also agreed to provide police and 911 operators with additional training to prevent similar confrontations in the future.
Lawyers say Bellingham agreed to pay $15,000 to Laigaie.
Standard Donkey
Registered
University blows $60K on useless bullet-resistant shields for professors
By BearingArms.com Staff / 17 August 2013 / 85 comments
The administration and faculty of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore have apparently determined that prominently posted ?gun-free zone? signs don?t seem to stop deranged madmen intend on murder the way they should. Their solution? Encourage the faculty to become slightly more shot-resistant:Calling ?campus violence a reality? to prepare for, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore announced plans Thursday to spend $60,000 on the Clark Kent of teacher supplies: an innocuous-looking white board that can stop bullets.Here?s the device.
The high-tech tablet ? which hangs on a hook, measures 18 by 20 inches and comes in pink, blue and green ? can be used as a personal shield for professors under attack, according to the company that makes it, and a portable writing pad in quieter times.
Take a good, long look at these pictures. How much of ye olde professor is covered?
On the upside, there is always the possibility that any potential shooter will be laughing too hard to aim accurately.
how funny would that be if the teachers mistakenly held up a regular white board while getting fired upon?
this is already done under the current law from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act for those that receive TANF. I personally know girls in Vegas that went through it 2-3 years ago, it's not just those that live in federal funded housing.
there's nothing new about home inspections. the people that think you just sign up sit back and receives checks don't know jack shit they are all up in your house and in your bank accounts.
jagbender
Registered
The difference Marketing versus Gun control!
A new investigative report says that the National Rifle Association collects and maintains an expansive database of information on gun owners.BuzzFeed contributor Steve Friess reports that the NRA keeps the stockpile of information at its national headquarters in Virginia and that it goes well beyond the group?s estimated 3 million members.
Wayne LaPierre addresses the annual NRA national convention in Houston (AFP)
?That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines, and more,? Friess writes.
Defenders of the policy note that the NRA is a private organization and therefore its efforts to collect information on gun owners is not a contradiction to its opposition to a government mandated gun ownership registry.
?It?s probably partially true that people don?t know the information is being collected,? former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman told BuzzFeed. ?But even if they don?t know it, they probably won?t care because the NRA is not part of the government.?
The story has also sparked a reaction from NRA supporters who argue that the NRA?s database is more of a marketing tool than an actual ?gun registry." The conservative Ace of Spades blog writes, ?There's a world of difference. The ?gun owner? classification is mostly assumed, based on interests and behavior. It's not even particularly important to the NRA whether they are gun owners, so long as they have an interest in gun rights and the second amendment.?
Information obtained for the report shows that the NRA has purchased lists of gun owners from state governments in Virginia and Iowa, and uses its own relationship with states through licensed gun safety instructors to collect the information, often without the knowledge or consent of those on the lists.
Other states including Arkansas, Louisiana, Oregon and Tennessee have received similar information requestsfrom the NRA.
?There?s nothing that prevents them from mailing those people,? Feldman said. ?The more you know about people, the more targeted the message you can communicate with them, the more the message will resonate with them.?
Feldman says he estimates the NRA has files on ?tens of millions? of individuals.
In February, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said gun background checks were tantamount to creating a national gun registry. The website FactCheck.org said that was a false claim, noting that current federal law prohibits the government from creating a national gun registry.
A 2009 email obtained by BuzzFeed shows a representative from a private firm hired by the NRA reaching out to Virginia government officials for access to lists containing the names of concealed carry permit owners.
?Can you please let me know if you offer 2008 and/or 2009 names?? Preferred Communications' Michele Wood wrote to the Virginia State Police on behalf of the NRA. ?Can you please let me know the address to send the check to and also whom to make it payable to??
In a separate email, NRA lobbyist Christopher Rager wrote to the Iowa Department of Public Safety making a similar request.
?If the NRA wanted to collect data from DPS? permit holder files, is there a specific process or any rules for us to acquire the records?? Rager reportedly wrote. ?Can we pay to have the files copied or sent to us??
When BuzzFeed reached out to the NRA about its information gathering policies, spokesman Andrew Arulanandam reportedly declined, saying, ?That?s not any of your business.?