Plate Match Today!

Well, it's that time of the month again. Wish me luck, or not...

Today after the match, in true holiday style, we get to shoot pumpkins off the plate stands! :-) Sounds like a blast (pun intended)!

The reason I'm up this early is I'm helping Jeffersonian get the pumpkins before the match and he doesn't have the room in his car for them all.

Oh, and NRA, if you're reading this...I still haven't received my wheelbarrow full of cash yet...

Recall Joaquin Jackson

A movement to recall NRA board member Joaquin Jackson from office has been gaining steam recently. I have just been made aware of a new blog dedicated to his removal here. Please go and show your support for this effort, and if you are a voting member of the NRA, please download the recall petition.

If you are unaware of the reasons for his needing recalling, I'll refer you to the following quotes from a television interview he gave.

"Well, I'm a person that believes in a weapon should never…I personally believe a weapon should never have over a – far as civilian – 5 round capacity. If a hunter, if you're a hunter if you're gonna go hunting with a weapon, you shouldn't need over but one round…"

and

"Well we've talked, we've discussed it you know, but uh this thing about assault weapons has been a kind of a touchy deal, but personally, I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five…"

To be fair, he did post a "spin control" retraction later on, but it is basically unsatisfying in a, "cover your ass" sort of way.

Here's the video for your reference:

People of the Gun Unite!

Laura Washington has issues:

"The People of the Gun are beating their drums on websites from Keepandbeararms.com in Washington State, to alphecca.com in Vermont. Every time a plea for gun restrictions surfaces on the Internet, the gun stalwarts furiously post hundreds of missives in homage to the Second Amendment.

Through organizing, the Internet, and plunking down plenty of cold hard cash, the gun lobby has proven it is ready for primetime. Meanwhile, its opponents are languishing in the wee-hours of late-night local cable."

Just to set the record straight, I do this because I want to, not because the NRA or anyone else is paying me. Now, if someone were willing to pay me to do this, I wouldn't turn them down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a rich man after all.

The problem with the anti's is they've been sucking at George Soros's teat for so long, they think that's how everyone else does it. They cannot grasp a true "Grassroots" effort put together by concerned citizens of their own volition, banding together to halt the destruction of their civil rights.

The good news is that we're winning and they know it. And this is what has them so panicked. Keep up the good work guys (I mean that in the generic sense)!

Words fail me...

Current NRA board member Joaquin Jackson talking to a reporter from KLRU in Texas. Mr. Jackson is a retired Texas Ranger and believes us mere citizens shouldn't have "Assault Weapons" or a gun that holds more than five rounds.



I really don't know what to say...

Both Sides Fear Firing Blanks if D.C. Gun Case Reaches High Court

Tony Mauro
Legal Times
July 30, 2007

The case of District of Columbia v. Heller is barely at the Supreme Court's starting gate, yet nearly everyone involved has a growing sense that this will be the Big One.

It is shaping up as the case that finally forces the Court to decide one of the most keenly debated issues in constitutional law: the full meaning of the right to keep and bear arms declared by the Second Amendment.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty is appealing a March 9 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that struck down the city's handgun ban on Second Amendment grounds. The Court has given the city until Sept. 5 to file, and the other side -- residents who want the ban overturned -- say they too want high court review. If the Court accepts, the case could be argued early next year.

But even as the case heats up, factions on both sides seem to be getting cold feet. The concern is that even after nearly 70 years of high court silence, the time might not be right for it to speak to the Second Amendment question.

On the pro-gun-rights side those worries, along with long-simmering rivalries, have relegated the National Rifle Association to the sidelines in a case that could fulfill its most fervent dream: a declaration by the Court that the convoluted wording of the Second Amendment ensures an individual's right to bear arms, rather than a collective right of state militias. If the right-leaning Roberts Court embraces that view, regulating firearm possession and use would become harder, though not impossible.

Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who masterminded the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, says the NRA has joined him "ever so grudgingly" only in recent weeks, after years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown. At earlier stages, the NRA sought to consolidate its own case, which challenged the D.C. law on a "kitchen sink" array of rationales, with Gura's. In a 2003 filing, Gura called the NRA case "sham litigation" aimed at muddying his Second Amendment claim.

Even after the D.C. Circuit ruled in March, says Gura, the NRA lobbied for legislation to repeal the D.C. handgun ban as a way to keep the case out of the Supreme Court. "The NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case, but we went ahead anyway," says Gura, a name partner in the firm of Gura & Possessky. "It's not their case, and they are somewhat territorial."

FRIENDLY FIRE

Gura insists that if the high court grants review, he will argue the case himself and won't defer to NRA lawyers, such as Stephen Halbrook, who have Supreme Court experience. "My decisions in the case have been the correct decisions. That's why I am arguing and he's not."

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam denies his group sought to sabotage Gura's case: "Our intent to file an amicus brief if the case progresses speaks for itself." He also noted that the NRA filed a brief supporting Gura with the circuit court.

Yet Charles Cooper of D.C.'s Cooper & Kirk acknowledges that when he reviewed the Heller case at an earlier stage for the NRA, "my concern was then, as it is now, whether our [individual rights] theory of the Second Amendment would command a majority of the Supreme Court." Even with recent changes in the composition of the Court, says Cooper, "that is still not as clear as I would like it to be, though I am much more calm." Nonetheless, Cooper says, if the high court declines to take up the D.C. case and lets the D.C. Circuit ruling stand, "that's not going to disappoint me."

Cooper's reluctance is based on legal strategy, but others say the NRA has less lofty reasons for not wanting the Supreme Court to decide what the Second Amendment really means. "The NRA would lose its loudest fund-raising drum if this question is answered," says Carl Bogus, a leading scholar who favors the militia rights view of the amendment.

The pro-gun-control side has also had misgivings about appealing to the Supreme Court. Other cities and states worry that if the Supreme Court upholds the circuit decision, their own efforts to regulate firearms will be in jeopardy. By not appealing, D.C. could have limited the damage to only its law.

"Obviously a lot of factors went into Mayor Fenty's decision to appeal. He wanted to do what he could to protect the city's laws," says Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading gun control strategist. "On the other hand, there have been some changes on the Supreme Court that could affect the outcome."

Addressing concerns about the nationwide impact of an adverse ruling, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer says, "Our obligation is to the residents of the District of Columbia." She also says, "We have a substantial chance of success on the merits" at the Supreme Court.

Singer indicated the case would not be argued by an outside Supreme Court advocate, but rather a lawyer on her staff, though she did not say which one.

A natural candidate, says Henigan, would be Alan Morrison, the former head of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, who is leaving a Stanford Law School teaching position to join Singer's staff as a special counsel beginning Sept. 4. "He's a huge talent," says Henigan, who also says the city's solicitor general, Todd Kim, is "a terrific lawyer."

Morrison, who has argued 16 cases before the Supreme Court, confirms he has been working unofficially on several projects including the gun case recently.

DODGING THE BULLET

With the Roberts Court's increasingly sharp right turn last term, it might seem that the outcome of the case is predictable: a victory for the pro-gun forces and the individual rights view.

But things aren't that clear-cut, says Bogus, the Second Amendment scholar and a professor at Roger Williams University's law school. "It does not fall out clearly on the liberal-conservative divide," he says, noting that some conservative legal scholars such as Robert Bork oppose the individual rights view, while some liberals like Laurence Tribe back it.

The justices themselves have said remarkably little about the Second Amendment through the years, though at least two of them -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- have said enough to convince most analysts that they would support the pro-gun, individual rights view.

In a 1997 decision, Printz v. United States, Thomas said, almost wistfully, "Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice [Joseph] Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms 'has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.'"

For his part, Scalia, in a book 10 years ago, described "my interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual's right to bear arms for self-defense."

During their confirmation hearings, new Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and John Roberts Jr. were asked about their Second Amendment views.

Senators grilled Alito about his 1996 dissent in United States v. Rybar, during his tenure as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision, Alito said Congress had overstepped its powers under the commerce clause when it passed a ban on machine gun ownership.

But Alito said during his 2006 hearing that his was a "very modest position," adding that Congress could cure the problem by including in the law some statement or finding that asserted a connection between the ban and interstate commerce.

Roberts, when asked directly about his view of the Second Amendment, demurred on the grounds that the issue could come before him. But he did say in his September 2005 hearing that 1939's United States v. Miller had "side-stepped the issue" and left the meaning of the Second Amendment "a very open issue."

Miller marked the last time the Court dealt directly with the meaning of the Second Amendment. It upheld a restriction on sawed-off shotguns, asserting that the laws appeared to have little to do with "a well-regulated militia."

To Henigan of the Brady Center, Roberts' stated view of Miller was telling. "When he said that, it was a signal, to my ears" that Roberts would take the individual rights view. Most gun rights advocates also say Miller sidestepped the Second Amendment question, says Henigan, while "nine circuit courts have found that Miller did in fact decide the meaning of the Second Amendment" as a militia right.

Little is known about the other justices' Second Amendment views. As is often the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy might cast the deciding vote.

No matter what the outcome of the case, even the pro-gun-rights Gura believes it will be far from the last word the Supreme Court has on the subject of the Second Amendment.

"There's this incredible temptation, which I don't understand, to think that one Second Amendment case will resolve everything," says Gura. "It doesn't work that way." Even if the Court declares it protects an individual right, the scope of the right will have to be fleshed out, he says. "It will take an eternity to resolve."

Learn Gun Safety With Eddie Eagle!

There goes that evil NRA gun lobby again! Teaching gun safety to kids. Of all the nerve! How dare they!

*snark*

We're from the government...and we're here to help!

The Gang Trailer

Here is the Trailer for the JPFO Documentary The Gang. If you are a gun owner or value your Second Amendment rights then you must see this movie.

Mack vs. Brady - 10 years after a defeat of the Brady Bill,... then the NRA Turns on us...again.

June 27, 2007; Sheriff Mack Ten Year Anniversary

On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley shot President Reagan and severely wounded his press secretary, James Brady. Richard Mack was watching the news about all this from his office in the Provo, Utah Police Station where he had just started his career in law enforcement. This was the first time he had really heard of James Brady, and 15 years later he would find himself on opposite sides of a lawsuit sitting next to James Brady in the United States Supreme Court.

Richard Mack was raised in Safford, Arizona. He graduated from BYU and stayed in Provo as a policeman for about 11 years. He left a promising career to move back to Arizona and run for Graham County sheriff. He was elected in 1988 and again in 1992. In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill (named for James Brady) into law and the wheels of Sheriff Mack's lawsuit opposing the Brady Bill began to turn.

The Brady Bill was a federal law which required the local Sheriff to conduct background checks on all of Sheriff Mack’s constituents who wished to purchase a handgun. The sheriff was responsible for all costs associated with the checks, keeping files on each purchase and notifying the gun shops and customers of his findings. Sheriff Mack told me that the most offensive portion of this legislation was that the bill contained a provision that threatened to arrest "anyone who knowingly failed to comply." Well, sheriff Mack intended to do just that; he would not comply and instead filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Tucson to have the Brady Bill ruled unconstitutional.

At the time, he was the only sheriff in the entire country taking such action. He made the decision alone, except for consulting with his wife. He told her that this would probably be very unpopular and that this type of thing could cost them dearly; including everything they owned. She gave him her full support, but it did as Mack had feared, he lost his home, his job and his career in law enforcement.

Mack's lawsuit was filed the very day the Brady Bill took effect, February 28, 1994. Approximately five weeks later another sheriff from Montana filed the same suit there. Ultimately, six other sheriffs joined the lawsuit that Sheriff Mack started, which made a total of seven; seven out of 3020.

The suit contended that the federal government had no authority or jurisdiction to compel or force any sheriff in the United States to comply with any mandate, funded or not. Sheriff Mack also objected to being forced to participate in a federal gun control scheme, but the suit had no standing on Second Amendment grounds. All the District Court cases were successful, with each sheriff prevailing except the case filed by a Texas sheriff. Losing a court case in Texas about guns and state sovereignty is of interest.

The government of course, appealed and Sheriff Mack and Sheriff Printz (Montana) headed to the Ninth Circuit court in San Francisco. They had just met for the first time a few weeks earlier as guests on the Phil Donahue Show. The case in San Francisco did not go well and this court, the most overturned court in the United States, dealt the sheriffs a crushing defeat. However, the Texas sheriff prevailed in the Fifth Circuit and this is exactly what Mack had hoped for; conflicting rulings from the Circuit courts. This all but guaranteed that the U S Supreme Court would have to take the case to settle the opposite rulings from the Circuit courts.

A few months later the miracle was finally announced; Mack v. USA would be heard by the Supreme Court on December 4, 1996. Mack had just lost his bid for re-election a couple of months prior. He was extremely disappointed, but not surprised. Appearing before the U S Supreme Court was an amazing and awesome experience. He spoke briefly with James Brady. He was very friendly and told Sheriff Mack that he admired him for fighting for what he believed in. After the hearing Sarah Brady called Mack and Printz "rogue sheriffs."

Upon leaving the sheriff's office Mack took a job teaching high school government. He enjoyed it and it kept him busy while he waited for the Supreme Court's decision. On weekends he still made some appearances around the country speaking at freedom rallies. Then after six and a half months of waiting, CBS news called Mack at home on June 25th and informed him that the decision would probably be announced on the 26th or the 27th. They asked him to go to a hotel in Tucson so they could interview him as soon as the decision was published. He did as they requested. Then on Friday morning at about 7:30 a.m., June 27, 1997, CBS News called Sheriff Mack and congratulated him on his victory. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs and told the federal government, i.e., the Clinton administration, that it could not compel the states or the states' officers to administer a federal regulatory program. Justice Scalia delivered the decision for the majority, which was a tenuous 5-4 split.

Mack's case has appeared in history and government text books and it was covered by every major news agency in this country. The lamentable issue here is the real impact this victory should have had never happened. The Clinton White House said the decision was meaningless and Janet Reno quickly downplayed it stating that it would change nothing. The truth of the matter is Mack's case changed history. There were actually five Brady bills scheduled for Congress' promulgation, each one to be passed one year after the other. Brady bill two was introduced just two months after Sheriff Mack filed his lawsuit by Senator Moynihan. It failed in committee and Brady bills 3, 4, and 5 were never even mentioned. Sarah Brady said at the signing of the first Brady bill that this "was only the beginning." If the rest of her Brady bills had been passed the Second Amendment would have been completely gutted and gun shows would have been a thing of the past. Mack's case had a great deal to do with stopping this. He fought the Clintons, the Bradys, Handgun Control Inc. and countless others. He received hate mail and threats and ironically had a window shot out of his mini-van. On the other hand, he is the only person in history to have received the top law awards from the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Industry of America, and the Local Sovereignty Coalition. This battle was a real roller coaster ride for this small town sheriff. It cost him a lot and it brought him a great deal of satisfaction.

“What frustrates me to this day is the fact that state legislatures ignore the door that this case opened for them to keep the feds in DC. My other concern is that Congress violates his ruling from the Supremes on pretty much a daily basis. Why would we expect anything else from them? They violate the rest of the Constitution as a matter of routine also.” Mack said.

Richard Mack was a sheriff who walked tall. He stood against political correctness and made a difference for all of us. He gave us something to believe in. His case was extremely powerful. It re-established the lines between DC and local autonomy.

His favorite quote from the ruling made this entire battle and ordeal completely worthwhile: "But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location, as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." Now if our senators and representatives would follow this ruling? Thank you Sheriff Mack and happy anniversary!

It is now 10 years later and Mack has sent a letter to Wisconsin Gunowners that were upset about increased background checks of the federal mandate that required access to mental records (unfunded mandates) first step to submitting to mental evaluation to purchase a firearm. “State legislatures are not subject to federal direction” NRA supported the Mack V. Brady litigation to the tune of almost half a million dollars and now is supporting federal legislation (HR 2640) that rips at the heart of this court victory.

Is the NRA just trying to fit in to political correctness or is there another agenda they are supporting? Sarah Brady put out a statement saying that this bill was a victory for gun control and was shocked that the NRA was supporting this.

The NRA’s cooperation with Congresswoman McCarthy and Senator Shumer isn’t a surprise to those of us that have been witness to the NRA’s authoring hand of gun control legislation, A+ endorsements of legislators that vote for legislation like the Assault Weapons Ban, provide cover for the passage of the Brady Bill in the first place and abuse the gun owner and their vote over and over.

“The Gun Control crowd is very happy that this is a step towards requiring a mental health screening before obtaining a firearm.” (Reporter Comment: …and the government gets to determine what is and is not proper mental health?) “I’m praying for the day that the NRA and Congress respect and follow the United States Constitution.” Richard Mack.

To celebrate the 10th anniversary of his Supreme Court victory Fmr. Sheriff Richard Mack will be honored at the Tucson Breakfast Club June 30th (Sat.) 520-419-4364 Mark Spear for details.

The Mack v Brady suit was directed at the Clinton Administration (The only non-sexually oriented lawsuit that I know of) but with the Bush admin in office now, the NRA has become the Gun Control darling of a Fascist Regime bent on total domination of an increasingly resistant population. And I was paying very close attention during those years in the mid 90’s when I met Sheriff Richard Mack while he was still Sheriff of Graham County. It was Sheriff Mack that confirmed for us the existence of “Project Lead” we had heard about through Maricopa County Sheriff Department Investigators. Sheriff Mack provided us the forms for this Clinton Administration effort to register every unregistered firearm in the nation that they could during any contact an individual had with law enforcement. This is when individuals were beginning to be asked if they had a firearm while being pulled over for traffic stops or any other contact with an officer. The form was adapted from the form used to track firearms involved in a crime and were traced by investigators of a crime. The forms now include providing the information of all of the people traveling with the person detained and even the license plates of other cars that might be associated with the person in contact with the law enforcement officer. This came to our attention because an officer under Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was very concerned about what they saw happening.

Many in Arizona may remember when Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that no Sheriff employee was to ever speak to the media again and that his office would be the sole media contact. This was a direct result of our published investigation into “Project Lead” conducted by the BATF in Washington that was originally to be test marketed in other large cities that did not include any in Arizona. It was Sheriff Arpaio that invited the Federal Government here and Sheriff Richard Mack’s opposition to such gun control caused a rift between the two Sheriffs that was more about who stealing Arpaio’s spotlight than the discussion of abuses of Federal Power and a Sheriff’s duty to use their powers as the _highest_ ranking law enforcement in their jurisdictions to protect the people from such abuses. This is what Sheriff Richard Mack did while Sheriff Arpaio has pursued an entirely different path.

Some of the Supreme Court’s decision is included to inform you of what should have been embraced by our government officials in what is suppose to be a Constitutional Republic. But what I fear Richard Mack’s greatest contribution to freedom has been, is that he has demonstrated just how overdue we are for a full blown revolution between the ears. It’s time we all recognize just how bad thing really are.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Gregory, supra, at 458.

To quote Madison once again:

"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." The Federalist No. 51, at 323.

"Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear `formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." Id., at 187.

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.

Richard Mack was inducted into the NRA Hall of Fame 1994 and was the NRA’s Law Enforcement officer of the year 1994. His books: “From my Cold Dead Fingers – Why America Needs Guns” 1995 republished and updated after SCOTUS Victory in 2000 – “Vicki, Sam and America – How the Government killed all Three” - 2003.

When you compromise with Evil, Evil wins!

"Victory for Gun Control in House. NRA Sees the Light" says the email I got today from the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun ownership. I am completely opposed to this bill. The fact that the NRA decided to negotiate with evil on this is incredible. I am a member, but more and more I'm becoming dissatisfied with their policies. From giving anti-gun sheriff's and politicians "A" ratings and now this blasphemy. This bill would have gone nowhere without the NRA's help. They say they will keep an eye on it and withdraw support if more anti-gun amendments are added to it, but I'm not sure I believe them. Besides, even if they do withdraw support, now that the Democrats control Washington it will get rammed through anyway.

By the way, who's hands are the "wrong hands" they refer to in the letter? Pull back from the computer, raise your arms up in front of the monitor and have a good look.

From the Brady's:

Victory: Bill That Strengthens Brady Backgrounds Checks Passes U.S. House

Dear Mr. Orlov,

That’s right! You read it correctly. With your help, we’ve been asking legislators, “What are YOU going to do about gun violence?”

And we got our first BIG answer yesterday, when, by a voice vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2640 to strengthen Brady background checks!!

The bill, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) requires states to automate their lists of convicted criminals and the mentally ill who are prohibited from buying firearms.

It also requires states to report those lists to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that was enacted with passage of the Brady Law.

And now this important bill is moving swiftly to the U.S. Senate and we need your help today to make sure it gets passed.

Please make a generous contribution of $15.00 or more today to help us make this happen.

Surprisingly, the NRA supports the bill. The Virginia Tech shootings were a horrific reminder of the gaps in U.S. gun laws. The gun lobby knew its usual opposition to any and every solution we brought forward would be unacceptable to the American public so it made this concession.

But we know we still have much more to do to keep guns out of the wrong hands and that the gun lobby will oppose us as we move forward with other sensible steps. We will work to push Congress to extend Brady background checks to all gun sales — especially those at gun shows.

To do the work ahead, we need your support today to sustain this strong momentum. This is the BEST time for you to make a contribution to help our fight to make Brady background checks stronger ... step-by-step we are making progress.

Show us what YOU’RE going to do to help stop gun violence by making a contribution of $15.00 or more right now.

Thanks for your support! We’ll keep you posted ...

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

Hmmm, I feel the need to make another contribution to the gun Rights organization of my choice. I suggest you do the same.

A Brief History of the NRA

...clicky...

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.

An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.

Political opposition to the promotion of marksmanship in New York forced the NRA to find a new home for its range. In 1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to the state and NRA's matches moved to Sea Girt, New Jersey.

The NRA's interest in promoting the shooting sports among America's youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. By 1906, NRA's youth program was in full swing with more than 200 boys competing in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Today, youth programs are still a cornerstone of the NRA, with more than one million youth participating in NRA shooting sports events and affiliated programs with groups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Legion, U.S. Jaycees and others.

Due to the overwhelming growth of NRA's shooting programs, a new range was needed. Gen. Ammon B. Crichfield, Adjutant General of Ohio, had begun construction of a new shooting facility on the shores of Lake Erie, 45 miles east of Toledo, Ohio. Camp Perry became the home of the annual National Matches, which have been the benchmark for excellence in marksmanship ever since. With nearly 6,000 people competing annually in pistol, smallbore and highpower events, the National Matches are one of the biggest sporting events held in the country today.

Through the association's magazine, The American Rifleman, members were kept abreast of new firearms bills, although the lag time in publishing often prevented the necessary information from going out quickly. In response to repeated attacks on the Second Amendment rights, NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934. While NRA did not lobby directly at this time, it did mail out legislative facts and analyses to members, whereby they could take action on their own. In 1975, recognizing the critical need for political defense of the Second Amendment, NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA.

Meanwhile, the NRA continued its commitment to training, education and marksmanship. During World War II, the association offered its ranges to the government, developed training materials, encouraged members to serve as plant and home guard members and developed training materials for industrial security. NRA members even reloaded ammunition for those guarding war plants. Incidentally, the NRA's call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain's defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).

After the war, the NRA concentrated its efforts on another much-needed arena for education and training: the hunting community. In 1949, the NRA, in conjunction with the state of New York, established the first hunter education program. Hunter Education courses are now taught by state fish and game departments across the country and Canada and have helped make hunting one of the safest sports in existence. Due to increasing interest in hunting, NRA launched a new magazine in 1973, The American Hunter, dedicated solely to hunting issues year round. NRA continues its leadership role in hunting today with the Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), a program that allows youngsters to build on the skills they learned in basic hunter education courses. YHECs are now held in 43 states and three Canadian provinces, involving an estimated 40,000 young hunters.

The American Hunter and The American Rifleman were the mainstays of NRA publications until the debut of The American Guardian in 1997. The Guardian was created to cater to a more mainstream audience, with less emphasis on the technicalities of firearms and a more general focus on self-defense and recreational use of firearms. The Guardian was renamed America's 1st Freedom in June of 2000.

Law enforcement training was next on the priority list for program development. Although a special police school had been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors. Additionally, top law enforcement shooters compete each year in eight different pistol and shotgun matches at the National Police Shooting Championships held in Jackson, Mississippi.

In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading. Additionally, nearly 1,000 Certified Coaches are specially trained to work with young competitive shooters. Since the establishment of the lifesaving Eddie Eagle® Gun Safety Program in 1988, more than 12 million pre-kindergarten to sixth grade children have learned that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should "STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." Over the past seven years, Refuse To Be A Victim® seminars have helped more than 15,000 men and women develop their own personal safety plan using common sense strategies.

In 1990, NRA made a dramatic move to ensure that the financial support for firearms-related activities would be available now and for future generations. Establishing the NRA Foundation, a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization, provided a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public. Contributions to the Foundation are tax-deductible and benefit a variety of American constituencies, including youths, women, hunters, competitive shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement agents and persons with physical disabilities.

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

The Clinton Gun Ban & Ballistic Fingerprinting

From NRA Videos

What Rebecca Peters and the IANSA really want

It is quite clear from the following video excerpts, from a debate between Rebecca Peters of the IANSA and Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, what the ultimate goal of the gun control forces really is.

Parts 1 - 4:

-Yuri