The Arguments Against the [Remington 870] Stakeout

March 21, 2017 | Gabe Suarez, The Gabe Suarez Blog |

suarezinternational.com
suarezinternational.com

It was only a matter of time. The “gun media mafia” is now anti-stakeout. The astounding thing is that they don’t seem to be anti-Mossberg Shockwave, when our Stakeout 870 is used in the same way. I suspect if Larry Vickers had come out with the concept, these same detractors of the Stakeout would be rubbing their man-parts all over it and then wiping it down with canola oil…but there I go on a tangent.

So the arguments…lets discuss them one by one shall we.

1). They say that these weapons are difficult to shoot well.

Truth: We all recall the anti-red dot rhetoric where the same guys would claim that the red dot slowed them down, that they had to hunt for the dot, and the dot would disappear when they shot. We showed that all of these issues are training issues and that any new technology has a learning curve. The problem is that the lazy do not care for learning curves.

Continue reading at The Gabe Suarez Blog.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Trump Supreme Court Nominee Neil M. Gorsuch Would Respect the Second Amendment

February 3, 2017 | NRA-ILA | This week, President Trump kept one of his most important campaign promises by nominating an originalist judge – Neil Gorsuch – to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last February. Scalia was the court’s foremost practitioner of originalism and textualism, judicial philosophies that seek to resolve constitutional questions by reference to the language of the document, as publicly understood at the time of its enactment.

This approach led Scalia to author the historic opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes.

Judge Gorsuch’s embrace of originalism is a bulwark for our Second Amendment rights. When given the opportunity to consider the matter in his professional capacity, Judge Gorsuch has made clear that he understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.

In a case concerning a technical question of what the government must prove to establish a violation of the Gun Control Act, Judge Gorsuch noted that the “Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.” His statements in that case strongly indicate that he would hold the government to a high standard before allowing it to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading at NRA-ILA.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Exposing Judge Merrick’s Anti-gun Bias

March 24, 2016 | Bob Adelman, The New American |

Merrick Brian Garland (shown), nominated by President Obama on Wednesday to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court with the untimely passing of Antonin Scalia, has left footprints. They tell of a judge who isn’t interested in supporting the rights America’s citizens enjoy under the Second Amendment.

In 2007, Garland voted to rescind a D.C. Circuit court’s decision that invalidated Washington D.C.’s strict ban against handgun ownership. That law, which even prohibited guns citizens might keep at home for self-defense, was struck down by a three-judge panel, but Garland voted to reconsider the ruling. He was joined by Judge David Tatel, known for his anti-gun bias.

In 2000, the National Rifle Association challenged egregious and illegal expansions of the Brady Bill in a lawsuit against then-Attorney General Janet Reno, in NRA v. Reno. The NRA challenged a Justice Department regulation that provided for a temporary gun registry to be generated during background checks — just exactly the type of registration Congress explicitly previously prohibited. In finding for the Justice Department and against the NRA (and, by extension, every legal gun owner in the country), Judges Tatel and Garland wrote:

Finding nothing in the Brady Act that unambiguously prohibits [the] temporary retention of information about lawful [gun] transactions … we affirm the [lower] court’s dismissal of the complaint [by the NRA].

Continue reading at The New American.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail