If for some reason, you no longer wish to receive these e-mails please accept our apologies and respond to this message with REMOVE in the subject line and we will remove your name from the mailing list.

Citizens Association for Responsible Gun Ownership = CARGO




Hello Fellow CARGO Members,


The next meeting will be held at Napoli’s on Thursday, July 16th


We will meet at Napoli's in Wylie.



701 N Highway 78 # A

Wylie, TX 75098


For the dinner portion of the meeting, we will be in the meeting room between 5:45 and 7:00 for food and fellowship.  The meeting will begin at 7:00 PM and run until about 9:00.


Member Don Bridges has volunteered his shop for the meeting.  There are a very limited number of chairs at the shop, so please bring a camp chair for the meeting.  We will meet there from 7:00 (ish) until 9:00 (ish)


The address is:


2274 EAST Brown Street in Wylie


While heading east on Brown Street, it is 1/2 mile past stop sign that's at the intersection of Brown Street and Kreymer Lane on the right hand side. 


The shop is behind a small white house with a picket fence around the front yard.





Meeting gun topics:

·         It is getting hot in Texas again and that means time for summer carry.  Do you have a favorite summer holster for your summer carry gun?  Bring your summer carry pistol and holster with you to share.

·         With Open carry in the news, what are you going to carry and how?  Please bring your future open carry gun and the holster/rig are you thinking about using to carry it in!

·         Anything new, fun or interesting to share?  Bring it with you!


Additional discussion topics / guests:

·         Fall out of the South Carolina Church Shooting.



If you have any suggestions for future speakers or topics please send your feedback to CARGO@att.net.


When was the last time you visited our web site?  Please take some time to go to the CARGO website at www.cargogunclub.org 






New laws for Concealed Handgun License (CHL) program

Summary of new laws passed in the 84th Regular Legislative Session that impact Concealed Handgun Licensing.

Open Carry

House Bill 910 Effective: January 1, 2016

Caption: Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating criminal offense.

General Information:

  • Authorizes individuals to obtain a license to openly carry a handgun in the same places that allow the licensed carrying of a concealed handgun with some exceptions. (See "Exceptions" below for more information.)
  • Unconcealed handguns, loaded or unloaded, must be carried in a shoulder or belt holster.
  • Individuals who hold a valid CHL may continue to carry with valid existing license.
  • A separate license will not be required to open carry. No additional fee will be required.
  • Individuals currently licensed will not be required to attend additional training. Training curriculum for new applicants will be updated to reflect the new training requirements related to the use of restraint holsters and methods to ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns. The new curriculum will be required for all classes beginning January 1, 2016.
  • The eligibility criteria to obtain a license to carry do not change.
  • The department will be updating website, forms and training materials to reference License to Carry (LTC) instead of Concealed Handgun License (CHL).
  • Changes to the laminated license are being developed and will be implemented at a later date.


  • Private businesses may post signs to indicate entry on the property with a handgun by a license holder is forbidden.
  • Penal Code Section 30.06 provides the language to be included on signs to indicate license holders are forbidden to carry concealed.
  • Penal Code Section 30.07 provides the language to be included on signs to indicate license holders are forbidden to open carry.
  • Posting of both signs is an indication by the business that license holders are forbidden to carry concealed or openly.


  • Open carry is not permitted by a license holder regardless of whether the handgun is holstered:

*       on the premises of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education

*       on any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage or other parking area of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education

*       by an individual who is acting as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code and is not wearing a uniform

Campus Carry

Senate Bill 11 Effective: August 1, 2016

Caption: Relating to the carrying of handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education; providing a criminal penalty.

  • Authorizes a license holder to carry a concealed handgun on or about the license holder's person while the license holder is on the campus of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state. Open carrying of handguns is still prohibited at these locations.
  • Authorizes an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state to establish rules, regulation, or other provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the institution and located on the campus of the institution.
  • Requires the president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state to establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders on the campus or on specific premises located on the campus.
  • Authorizes posting of a sign under Penal Code Section 30.06 with respect to any portion of a premises on which license holders may not carry.
  • The effective date of this law for a public junior college is August 1, 2017

Various Other Changes

House Bill 554 Effective: September 1, 2015

Caption: Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of possessing or carrying a weapon in or into the secured area of an airport.

  • Amends the Penal Code to add a defense to prosecution if the actor possessed a handgun that he or she is licensed to carry at the security checkpoint of an airport, and exited the screening checkpoint for the secured area immediately upon completion of the required screening process and notification of possession of the handgun.
  • Adds the actor cannot be arrested for the sole offense of possessing a handgun that he or she is licensed to carry, unless a police officer gives the actor the opportunity to leave the area and he or she does not immediately comply.

House Bill 1376 Effective; September 1, 2015

Caption: Relating to the application of certain concealed handgun license laws to community supervision and corrections department officers and juvenile probation officers; reducing a fee.

  • Allows supervision officers and juvenile probation officers to establish proof of proficiency by a sworn statement that indicates the person demonstrated proficiency with a firearm instructor licensed by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement within the 12 month period preceding the application for the license to carry.
  • This provision applies to supervision officers appointed or employed under Section 76.004, Government Code, to supervise defendants placed on community supervision.
  • Reduces the fee for a license to carry to $25 for these individuals.
  • Individuals applying under this special condition will be required to provide proof they are a supervision officer or juvenile probation officer.
  • A new fee schedule will be posted on the department's website.

House Bill 2604 Effective: September 1, 2015

Caption: Relating to a concealed handgun license application that is submitted by a peace officer or a member of the state military forces.

  • Exempts applicants who are active peace officers from the requirement to submit fingerprints.
  • Repeals the provisions requiring a sworn statement from the head of the employing law enforcement agency regarding the applicant's conduct and proficiency.
  • Regulatory Services Division (RSD) is in the process of updating the online application checklist. Until the online application is updated, peace officers may disregard the notations requiring fingerprints and the sworn statement from the head of their employing law enforcement agency.
  • Updated application instructions for peace officers will be posted on the department's website upon the effective date of this law.

House Bill 2739 Effective: September 1, 2015

Caption: Relating to the use of a concealed handgun license as valid proof of personal identification.

  • Amends the Business and Commerce Code to require businesses to accept a concealed handgun license (CHL) as a valid form of personal identification for access to goods, services, or facilities.
  • Does not affect laws requiring a driver license to operate a motor vehicle.
  • Does not effect the existing requirement to present a driver license when renting a car.
  • Does not affect the type of identification required under federal law to access airport premises or to pass through airport security.

House Bill 3710 Effective: September 1, 2015

Caption: Relating to a voluntary contribution to the fund for veterans' assistance when applying for a concealed handgun license.

  • Requires DPS to offer CHL applicants an opportunity to contribute money to the fund for veterans' assistance when applying for an original or renewal CHL license.
  • The applicant will determine the amount of contribution.
  • RSD is in the process of updating the online application to accept contributions. More information will be posted here when the option to contribute is available.

House Bill 3747 Effective: June 16, 2015

Caption: Relating to the issuance of a concealed handgun license to certain retired judicial officers.

  • Authorizes retired federal judges to receive a discounted CHL in the same manner as a retired state judge.
  • The reduced fee is $25. A new fee schedule will be posted on the department's website.

Senate Bill 273 Effective September 1, 2015

Caption: Relating to certain offenses relating to carrying concealed handguns on property owned or leased by a governmental entity; providing a civil penalty.

  • Prohibits a state agency or political subdivision from posting signs stating where CHL holders are prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises, unless specifically prohibited by Texas Penal Code 46.03 and 46.035.
  • Provides a civil penalty to a state agency or political subdivision if falsely notifying a CHL holder that entering or remaining on certain governmental premises, leased or owned, is illegal.
  • Limits the scope of the governmental meeting prohibition by restricting it to the specific room or rooms in which the meeting is being held, and to public meetings for which notice is required under the Open Meetings Act.
  • Provides an opportunity for the agency or subdivision to cure the violation within three business days of receipt of written notice from a citizen.
  • Complaints of a violation are reported to the Attorney General Office.
  • Provides the Attorney General must give notice to the agency or subdivision and provide an opportunity to cure the violation before a civil penalty is imposed.


Chicago is gun control central and the anti-2nd amendment forces use this city to try and expand their failing policies…




9 Dead, 53 Wounded in Fourth of July Weekend Violence in Chicago


Among those killed was a 7-year-old boy who was shot while watching fireworks with his father


Updated at 8:17 PM CDT on Monday, Jul 6, 2015


Nine people died and 53 others were wounded in shootings across Chicago this Fourth of July weekend.


Among those who died was a 7-year-old boy who was shot while watching fireworks in Humboldt Park with his father just before midnight Saturday.


Amari Brown and his father were standing on the sidewalk in the 1100 block of North Harding when gunfire erupted around them, striking Amari and a 26-year-old woman, who was transported to John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital in stable condition, police said. Both were shot in the chest.


The boy's father said he thought the sound of gunfire was just fireworks, and he didn't realize Amari had been shot until the boy called out for him.


Amari's family say the little boy was a "jokester" and acted like a typical 7-year-old who loved to run and play. They say the best way to describe him is "a sweet, sweet little boy."


No one is in custody for the shooting. Activist Pastor Ira Acree, of Greater St. John Bible Church on the West Side, said he will offer a reward for any information leading to the offender's arrest.


Another victim of a fatal shooting was a 17-year-old boy who was shot near recently named Hadiya Pendleton Park in the 4300 block of South King. The teen, identified as Vonzell Banks, a junior at Dunbar Vocational High School, was likely not the intended target, police said.


Banks and a 19-year-old man were standing outside the park at about 4:45 p.m. Friday when a vehicle approached them and someone inside opened fire, police said. The 19-year-old was shot in the right foot and taken to the University of Chicago Medical Center,


Banks' aunt, LaShanda Childs, told the Chicago Sun-Times that her nephew was playing basketball with his older brother and some friends when the shooting took place. Childs described Banks as a "church boy," who loved playing the drums and who attended Cosmopolitan Church of Prayer.


The park in which Banks was fatally shot was named after Hadiya Pendleton, a King College Prep honor student who was gunned down just days after performing at President Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony with her high school band.


The first homicide of the long holiday weekend happened Thursday evening in the Little Village neighborhood. A 20-year-old man was riding a bicycle in the 2700 block of South Karlov when someone ran up to him and began to shoot him repeatedly in his upper body, police said.


The victim was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.


Another man, 46, was killed in a shooting in the South Side Washington Heights neighborhood early Friday morning, police said.


The man and a 43-year-old woman were walking in an alley in the 9100 block of South Ashland when someone in a passing car fired shots at them, killing the man and injuring the woman.

Early Saturday, a  26-year-old man was sitting on a porch at about 12:05 a.m. in the 4800 block of South Justine in the Back of the Yards neighborhood when someone walked up to him and shot him in the back, police said.

The victim was taken to John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.

A 23-year-old man was killed and two other injured in a shooting early Sunday morning in the North Side Albany Park neighborhood.

The three victims were sitting inside a van in an alley near Sunnyside and Kimball when a gunman walked up to them and fired shots.

The victims who survived the shooting were identified as a 26-year-old woman and a 17-year-old boy.

In another fatal shooting incident, two men were sitting inside a car at about 6:10 a.m. Sunday in the 1600 block of West 89th Street in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood when another man walked up to them and opened fire, police said.

One of the men, age 25, was shot multiple times and was later pronounced dead at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn. The second victim, whose age was not known, was found unresponsive in the car and pronounced dead on the scene.

The most recent fatal shooting happened Sunday afternoon in the Calumet Heights neighborhood. A 48-year-old man was shot in the chest at about 4:55 p.m. in the 9200 block of South Harper, police said.

The man was taken to Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where he was later pronounced dead, according to the Cook County medical examiner's office.

The holiday weekend is often marked by an uptick in violence in Chicago. Last year, there were a total of 67 people shot — 11 fatally — throughout the long weekend.

At least 41 other people were wounded in shootings since Thursday, including the following incidents: 

  • A 16-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl were shot at about 12:10 a.m. Sunday in the 1400 block of North Hudson in the Old Town neighborhood.
  • A man was shot in the arm and chest at about 12:10 a.m. Sunday near the Chicago Blue Line station in West Town.
  • A 19-year-old man was shot in the abdomen at about 10:05 p.m. Saturday in the 200 block of East Ohio Street, just a few blocks from Navy Pier, following the Fourth of July fireworks show.
  • A 24-year-old man was shot in the foot at about 11:45 a.m. Saturday in the 6600 block of South Bell in the West Englewood neighborhood.
  • Two men, ages 23 and 21, were shot at about 6 a.m. Saturday in the 4700 block of West Addison in the Portage Park neighborhood.
  • A 41-year-old man was shot in the back and arm while sitting in a car at about 3:20 a.m. Saturday. The incident happened in the 4200 block of West Cermak in the North Lawndale neighborhood.
  • A man was shot in the shoulder and leg at about 11:45 p.m. Friday in the 700 block of East 44th Street in the Grand Boulevard neighborhood.
  • A 19-year-old man was shot at about 11:40 p.m. Friday in the 200 block of West 104th Street in the Roseland neighborhood.
  • A 33-year-old man was shot in the chin, arm and stomach at about 7:45 p.m. Friday in the 3500 block of West 24th Street in the Little Village neighborhood.
  • A 25-year-old man was shot in the foot at about 12:15 a.m. Friday in the 2100 block of West Randolph on the Near West Side.
  • A 19-year-old man was injured at about 4:45 p.m. Thursday when a gunman on a bicycle approached him and began firing shots. The incident happened in the 11800 block of South State in the West Pullman neighborhood.



Maine Gov. Signs Bill Abolishing Permit Requirement for Concealed Carry

by AWR Hawkins8 Jul 2015292

On July 8, Maine Governor Paul LaPage (R) signed Legislative Document 652 into law, thereby abolishing the requirement for a concealed carry permit in the state of Maine.

This means Maine joins Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Montana, Vermont and Wyoming in permitless carry.

According to the NRA-ILA, LD 652 had the support of the Maine State Police and leaves a concealed carry permitting system in place for those who want to use it for reciprocal purposes with other states.

Breitbart News previously reported that the legislation to abolish the permit requirement was sponsored by state senator Eric Brakey (R-Auburn). He succeeded by repeatedly reminding his legislative colleagues that the permitting system was cumbersome and even confusing for law-abiding citizens. He continually focused on how open carry without a permit was legal in Maine, but if someone put on a jacket that covered their gun, they were then required to have a permit. This put them in a position of having to wait on state approval before being able to carry a gun with which to defend their lives.

Brakey said, “When someone with a credible death threat against them has to wait for months before they can carry legally and defend themselves with their jacket on, that says it is not working.”

LaPage’s signature came just two days after New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan (D) buckled and vetoed similar legislation under pressure from Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control groups.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.





Carry Law: What Is A Righteous Shooting? Part I


By: Marty Hayes | June 16, 2015


What is the likelihood of a so-called righteous shooting—one in which self-defense appears warranted by all known reasonable standards—still ending up in trial? It’s a great question and one that every armed citizen should consider.


Let’s say you are involved in a self-defense shooting where there is no chance of retreat and the case meets the ‘reasonable man’ standard—that is, you could articulate fear of death or serious bodily harm. Furthermore, you are a citizen in good standing and the incident meets the standards of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy. Plus, you give the appropriate information to responding police and then contact your attorney. In other words, you think you did everything right.


What are the chances that the District Attorney (DA) will charge you with a crime even though it appears to be a clear-cut case of self-defense? Can your attorney, who knows something about you and your training, interact with the DA at this point and suggest there is little chance of a successful prosecution and argue for dismissal?


The answer depends where you happen to live: in a grand jury state, or one in which the prosecutor makes the decision to charge. If, in your jurisdiction, all shootings automatically go in front of a grand jury, then it is up to a them to decide if you will be charged.


Depending on the local court rules and customs, you may or may not get to testify for the grand jury, and you likely will not have an attorney by your side if you do testify.


If you do testify, you decide how much you want to tell the grand jury. Others will testify and then the grand jury will decide if there is a preponderance of evidence to believe that you committed a crime or acted in genuine self-defense. On the other hand, if it is up to only the prosecutor, then what you say, coupled with your attorney’s efforts, certainly can affect whether or not you are charged.


The problem lies in who decides whether or not the shooting was righteous. Sure, you know all the facts, and you know what you perceived, and you know how you felt. But, assuming you live in a state where the prosecutor makes the charging decisions, how can he or she come to understand what you knew, felt and perceived?


In a perfect world, smart, sober and uninvolved witnesses will tell the police detectives that you were reacting to a deadly threat and that you had no other choice but to shoot.  Unfortunately, our world is anything but perfect, a fact we will explore in Part II as we take a look at two very revealing case studies. And we’ll show why it’s a very good idea to activate your membership in the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network right away if you haven’t done so already.





Police Should Have 'Tried Harder Not To' Kill My Son Even Though He Shot At Their HQ And Planted Bombs

Matt Vespa | Jun 22, 2015


James Boulware decided to open fire at the police headquarters in Dallas, Texas on June 13. He was eventually shot and killed by a SWAT sniper after a 12-hour standoff. His mother, Jeannine Hammond, says the police “handled the situation very badly.” She also wondered why police didn’t seek medical attention for her son. Boulware said his van was rigged with explosives. In all, she wondered why police killed her son who shot at Dallas Police HQ and planted pipe bombs outside the building. Frankly, it’s a puzzling, puzzling question (via Dallas Morning News):


Jeannine Hammond, in an email to the news media Sunday, questioned why police didn’t seek medical attention for Boulware, 35, during the standoff or contact his parents to help negotiate with the “obviously mentally ill man.”


She also urged the release of all audio recordings and other public records related to the rampage.


“The police appear to be heroes,” she wrote, “when I think they handled the situation very badly by killing a wounded person who probably would have surrendered and then burning the evidence by detonating the van.”


Though the Police Department declined to comment, law enforcement experts challenged Hammond’s criticism, saying police followed protocol.


“It was completely justified, what the police did,” said Keith Wenzel, a former Dallas police trainer. “They followed policy, quite frankly, to a T.”


Hammond wrote that police may have felt they “needed to kill a white suspect to prove that they weren’t playing favorites, since there have been so many black men shot by police lately.”

After the 12:30 a.m. attack on the Jack Evans Police Headquarters on South Lamar Street, SWAT team members called Boulware’s cellphone and began trying to talk him out of the vehicle. During the conversation, Boulware identified himself and said he had attacked the police headquarters because officers took his child and called him a terrorist.


He also told police the vehicle was rigged to explode — a threat that became credible after police discovered a bag with pipe bombs at police headquarters.


After more than four hours, SWAT team members believed negotiations with Boulware were deteriorating.


“It is very unfortunate that Mr. Boulware has put his family in this situation,” said Frederick Frazier, vice president of the Dallas Police Association. “But it’s the harsh reality that Mr. Boulware made his own decisions that caused the police to react to this situation in the safest way possible, and unfortunately that was to stop him at all costs.”


Police officials have not provided a detailed timeline because their investigation of the incident remains open.


They have said they think Boulware died around 4:45 a.m. when a sniper shot a .50-caliber rifle at the van. But because of the bomb threat, officers didn’t approach the vehicle until hours later

Hammond was more critical of police Sunday than she had been previously. After the shooting, she apologized to police for her son’s actions. She also said she slept with a gun because she was afraid of her son and his deteriorating mental illness.


“I felt I had to write this because something’s wrong with this entire scenario,” Hammond wrote Sunday. “It happened the very day the Texas governor was to sign open carry here in Texas and two days before Jade Helm 15 was to begin,” she wrote, referring to military exercise planned in Texas.


Wenzel also said to the Morning News that once a perpetrator shoots at police officers, the peaceful resolution pretty much goes out the window.


This situation is even more bizarre than Joy Stapleton’s frivolous pursuit to press charges against the person who killed her son, 18-year-old Tamon, who was committing an armed robbery with a 9mm handgun at a convenience store outside of Knoxville, Tennessee. In Tennessee, a gun owner can keep a loaded firearm in his car, even if he doesn’t have a permit to carry. The law went into effect last year–and it has apparently saved a life. Police considered the Samaritan’s actions as a justifiable homicide, as he was defending another person’s life when it was in extreme danger.


In the Dallas incident, this man shot at police officers. I’m not an expert in law enforcement matters, but I’m pretty sure that’s something that could get you killed.




Hillary Calls for Taking Guns From ‘Those Whose Hearts Are Filled With Hate’


June 21, 2015 11:12 am  Second Amendment


(Breitbart) – In an emotional speech that heaped scorn and blame on America for failing to pass gun control measures while it supposedly perpetuates racism, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said white Americans need to “question our own assumptions and privilege.”


“We still allow guns to fall into the hands of people whose hearts are filled with hate. You can’t watch massacre after massacre and not come to the conclusion that President Obama has said, ‘We must tackle this challenge with urgency and conviction,’” she said to applause at the 83rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco.


Clinton then outlined the steps she’d want to see.


It makes no sense that bipartisan legislation to require universal background checks fail in Congress despite overwhelming public support. It makes no sense that we couldn’t come together to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, or people suffering from mental illnesses. Even people on the terrorist watch list. That doesn’t make sense, and it is a rebuke to this nation we love and care about.


Questions of how, exactly, the U.S. government might go about restricting gun ownership from people who “hate” aside, as Breitbart News has repeatedly pointed out, background checks are ignored by the same criminals who don’t pack up their weapons and go home when they see a “gun-free zone” sign:



Elliot Rodger (Santa Barbara gunman), Ivan Lopez (2014 Fort Hood gunman), Darion Marcus Aquilar (Maryland mall gunman), Karl Halverson Pierson (Araphahoe High School gunman), Paul Ciancia (LAX gunman), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard gunman), James Holmes (Aurora theater gunman), and Jared Loughner (Tucson gunman), among many others, all went through background checks to acquire their firearms.


Clinton wasn’t finished. “I know and you know there is a deeper challenge we face,” she said, praising diversity as America’s highest virtue, rather than liberty. “And yet, bodies are once again being carried out of a black church. Once again, racist rhetoric has metastasized into racist violence.”


Clinton is clearly referring to Dylann Storm Roof, the drug-addled killer who massacred nine blacks who invited him into their Bible study out of Christian charity. But Roof’s motives are far from certain.


The accused shooter “never said anything racist,” according to his black friend, Christon Scriven.


Roof did “what he said he was going to do,” said Scriven, adding strangely, “I don’t feel no different today about him today than I feel before he did this, though. Like I said, who’s to say Dylann was in his right mind?


“Everyone is making him out to be racist, but here I am in front of you today as a black man, and telling you, I don’t feel no different today than when I looked at him last week, because he never said anything racist to me, never treated me any different than he treated Justin [a white friend],” Scriven continued.


With an almost clinical detachment, Scriven told the BBC that “That church wasn’t his primary target at all. That’s why my heart goes out to those nine families, because you guys weren’t the targets! He wanted to shoot that school up, the UCA. University of Charleston. It’s three miles up the street from that church… He had no intentions on harming those people in that church.”


Strom told Scriven a week before the attack he planned to carry out a mass shooting. “He was like, he’s ‘gonna shoot the school up,’ and I was like, ‘What?’ And he just stopped talking about it. He never said anything else about it. He was just like, ‘They all got seven days to live.’”


Roof is, by all accounts, a mentally-unbalanced man taking psychotropic drugs, who wrote a neo-Nazi, anti-American screed. He clearly surrounded himself with horrifically irresponsible friends who didn’t bat an eye when he told them he planned to shoot up a school. There are many problems here, but “assumptions and privilege” aren’t among them.


Clinton soldiered on. “Now it’s tempting — it is tempting to dismiss a tragedy like this as an isolated incident,” she said. She’ll resist any such temptation:



To believe that in today’s America bigotry is largely behind us. That institutionalized racism no longer exists. But despite our best efforts, and our highest hopes, America’s long struggle with race is far from finished. I know that this is a difficult topic to talk about. I know that so many of us hoped that by electing our first black president, we thought that we had turned the page on this chapter in history. I know there are truths we don’t like to say out loud, or discuss with our children.


It’s odd that as Clinton lectures about the enduring threat of racism, she has to pat herself on the back is if she’s bravely treading new ground. Meanwhile, “racism” is blamed for almost everything in the U.S. today. Consider the warnings against “white privilege” being burned into elementary school children’s brains.


“More than half a century after Dr. King marched, after Rosa Parks sat, after Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) bled, after the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and so much else, how can any of these things be true? But they are,” Clinton went on. “And our problem is not all kooks and Klansman.”


Voters who disagree with the Democratic party’s platform are only a few Confederate flag sightings away from donning a hood and burning some crosses, apparently. Is this why the U.S. is “essentially a nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race, as former Attorney General Eric Holder famously said?


Clinton then moves from the evils of racism to the threat of micro-aggressions.


It’s also the cruel joke that goes unchallenged. It’s the offhand comment about not wanting ‘those people’ in the neighborhood. But let’s be honest. For a lot of well-meaning, open-minded white people, the sight of a young black man in a hoodie still evokes a twinge of fear. And news reports about poverty and crime and discrimination evoke sympathy, even empathy, but too rarely do they spur us to action or prompt us to question our own assumptions and privilege. We can’t hide from any of these hard truths about race and justice in America. We have to name them, and own them, and then change them.


Here, Clinton sounds like a social justice warrior, telling America that one micro-aggression can undo all of the effort and trillions of dollars America has spent to bridge racial gaps and heal old wounds. She seems to think she could save the country by reminding us to check our privilege. And our Second Amendment rights.





Schumer Targets 2A with ‘Real, Effective Common Sense Gun Safety Measures’


by S.H. Blannelberry   on June 28, 2015


.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer, an ardent gun-grabber, is after the Second Amendment once again, this time with “real, effective common sense gun safety measures.”


Schumer (D-NY) unveiled his latest gun-control salvo in a press release Monday.


“If there is anything that the massacres in South Carolina, Newtown, Virgina Tech, Aurora and so many other places have taught us, it’s that we should be doing everything in our power to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of hateful, evil-doers and the mentally disturbed,” said Schumer.


“It makes no difference when guns are sold or who are selling them—we must prevent deadly weapons from falling into the wrong hands,” he continued. “Our children have seen far too many tragedies in the country involving guns and weapons, and now is the time to put forth real, effective common sense gun safety measures that can save future innocent lives from being taken, without taking away any existing rights.”


Among the gun-control measures the senator is proposing include: a universal background check bill that would criminalize private transfers between law-abiding citizens, a ban on so-called “large capacity magazines,” a bill that would appropriate taxpayer dollars to pay for gun-control research, among others.”


“I acknowledge the right—enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Heller decision—of American citizens to purchase and bear arms, however, just as the First Amendment comes with responsibilities and limits to protect public safety, the Second Amendment does as well,” argued Schumer. “We have to make sure that we as a country are safe and that everyone’s right are respected.”


Schumer’s track record — author of the Brady Bill, lead sponsor of Clinton’s Crime bill, which banned many widely popular and commonly owned black rifles — makes it abundantly clear that he is not interested in anything but rolling back the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Don’t believe his “common sense measures that can save future lives” B.S. for a minute.





DOJ accused of blocking legal gun shops, other businesses from banking

By  Mike Tobin·Published January 16, 2015·FoxNews.com


Mike Schuetz operates a small gun shop in northern Wisconsin called Hawkins Guns. In November, just before one of his peak selling times, his local credit union notified him his account needed to be closed.


"The bank manager said they made a mistake, and they were not supposed to open accounts for those people involved in high-risk industries, which the gun industry and ammunition industry is one of those," Schuetz said.


It turned out there was a list created by a Justice Department program called Operation Choke Point. The list equates legal gun sellers like Schuetz with escort services, Ponzi schemes, people who sell cable TV de-scramblers -- and at least 30 other industries.


The program, which is facing tough questions in Congress, intimidates banks with the threat of heightened scrutiny and increased audits if accounts are maintained in those industries.


Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., said Operation Choke Point began as a means of combating fraudulent businesses -- but evolved into an arbitrary list of businesses targeted by bureaucrats in the DOJ and banking regulators purely on moral grounds, backed by no legislation


"What they've done is they put short-term lenders out of business, gun dealers out of business, ammunition manufacturers out of business. Because in America, if you can't bank, you can't do business," Duffy said.



In northern Wisconsin, Schuetz became suspicious that something strange was happening after his issue with the local credit union. So he concealed an audio recorder and visited his credit union.


A manager and then a regional manager told Schuetz the credit union wanted his business, but he had indeed been placed on a list of "high risk" industries.


"We're really not anti-gun as a company but our hands are tied, and I feel horrible about this. I didn't sleep last night," regional manager Troy Ewer said.


Fox News found several more businesses -- from payment processors to ammunition dealers to pawn shop owners to short-term lenders -- who all had their bank accounts closed. In response to an inquiry from Fox News, a spokesman for the DOJ wrote, "We do not target businesses operating within the bounds of the law, and we have no interest in pursuing or discouraging lawful conduct."


Duffy said, "That's a bald-faced lie."


Fox News was provided a DOJ memo in reference to short-term or payday lenders that seems to suggest an indifference to harming legal businesses. "Although we recognize the possibility that banks may have therefore decided to stop doing business with legitimate lenders, we do not believe that such decisions should alter our investigative plans," Michael Blume, director of the department's Consumer Protection Branch, wrote.


A spokesman for the DOJ said that the "high-risk merchants" list was produced by the FDIC.


However, Brian Wise, of the U.S. Consumer Coalition, pointed out that the FDIC sits on the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which is the driving force of Operation Choke Point and is chaired by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. Also, starting in August of 2013, the DOJ issued subpoenas to banks and payment processors.


The spokesman also said the FDIC has since rescinded the "high-risk merchants" list.


Wise, with the Consumer Coalition, says there are hundreds and even thousands of businesses across the nation who have had bank accounts closed, and they may not even know their bank was intimidated by Operation Choke Point. "This is one of the greatest abuses of power that the country has never heard of," Wise said.


The businesses owners who spoke to Fox News say they have been able to find alternative bank accounts, even Mike Schuets. However, Duffy thinks those accounts will only stay open until federal investigators scrutinize the alternative banks.


"They might be able to get banked for a short time, but once that bank goes through its next examination, Hawkins Guns might find itself without a bank," he said. 


Schuetz was told by his local credit union, after an overhaul, they may be able to accommodate his business in February. However, he says he would have lost his business if he didn't find somewhere to bank between November and February.


Michael Tobin joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Chicago-based correspondent.





'No one helped her': NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit


By  Perry Chiaramonte ·Published June 10, 2015 ·FoxNews.com

Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days.


Bowne, 39, had a restraining order against Eitel when he killed her in her driveway last Wednesday, but she was still waiting for Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check to approve the gun permit she had applied for on April 21. Tragically, she had gone to the township police department just two days before her death to check on the status of her languishing application. In another indication of her fear of Eitel, Bowne had recently installed surveillance cameras around her home, and the equipment recorded the 45-year-old ex-con attacking her as she arrived home and got out of her car.


“She should have been granted that permit in a timely matter, especially given her status as a domestic violence victim,” said Evan Nappen, a New Jersey-based attorney who specializes in Second Amendment cases.



“Carol would have qualified for a permit since she was attacked; only now it’s too late.”


- Evan Nappen, New Jersey-based attorney and gun rights advocate


New Jersey's gun laws are among the nation's strictest, but law-abiding citizens are eligible to purchase and possess handguns after filling out forms available at their local police stations, submitting to a background check on any possible criminal history or mental health issues, giving fingerprints and paying a fee. Once those steps are taken, local police conduct a 14-point investigation and the chief is supposed to approve or deny for cause within 30 days.


Check did not return requests for comment, but gun rights advocates say it is not unusual for Garden State police chiefs to take several months to approve handgun permits for qualified applicants.



“The gun law’s intention is to be as difficult and cumbersome as possible,” Alexander Roubian, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, told FoxNews.com. “They need to be repealed.


“The system is so outdated," Roubian continued. "In most states, you go to the store, get a background check, and purchase a weapon. A police chief should have no part of the process. This woman had a legitimate issue and no one helped her.”


A manhunt for Eitel, who had done time on a kidnapping conviction and had repeatedly threatened Bowne, began shortly after the murder and ended Saturday, when he was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot in another ex-girlfriend's garage.


Bowne's case prompted state senators Dawn Addiego, Diane Allen and Jennifer Beck to announce plans to introduce a bill that will fast-track the handgun permit process for applicants who have obtained a restraining order.


“The tragic murder of Carol Bowne shows that there are sensible changes we should make to public safety laws to help people protect themselves,” said Addiego, a Republican whose district is in southern New Jersey. “This legislation will make sure that those who need protection the most are given priority when it comes to the lengthy process of applying for a firearms permit.”


However, Nappen said even if Bowne had obtained her permit and used a gun to protect herself, she could theoretically be facing charges today because she would not have been allowed to legally carry the gun outside with her.


“New Jersey does not allow law-abiding citizens to get a carry license,” Nappen said.


Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @perrych






Chicago group sues 3 communities over gun store regulations


Published July 08, 2015·FoxNews.com

Two mothers who lost sons to gun violence joined ministers and an activist Tuesday in a lawsuit against three Chicago suburbs, alleging that weak oversight of gun shops has allowed criminals to easily obtain weapons flowing into a city besieged by gun violence.


The lawsuit accuses Lyons, Riverdale and Lincolnwood communities of violating the civil rights of residents in Chicago’s largely African American neighborhoods by failing to take concrete steps to make sure gun stores are not selling weapons to people who shouldn’t be allowed to carry them.


"Those illegal firearms are flowing into a pocket of communities violating the civil rights of the individuals who reside there, who are afraid to go near their windows or let their children play in the park, much less their own yards," said Kathleen Sances, a member of the Coalition for Safe Chicago Communities, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.


Five individuals – including two ministers and two mothers whose children were victims of gun violence – joined the lawsuit that demands the communities to improve the oversight of the businesses and implement security measures the stores must implement.


Seven people were killed in Chicago gun violence during the three-day Fourth of July weekend, including 7-year-old Amari Brown, focusing national attention on the city’s gun violence and statistics showing the number of homicides and shootings has climbed.


One of the plaintiffs is Annette Nance-Holt, whose son Blair was killed in 2007 shielding a friend on a city bus after a gang member boarded and opened fire on a rival group.


"Our communities are being flooded with guns," she said. "We have to do something... to take a stand to help get these guns off the street."


Attorney Michael Persoon said he knows of no other similar suit in Illinois and doesn’t know of anywhere else in the country where a lawsuit has been filed alleging that municipalities violated someone’s civil rights by failing to adequately oversee the actions of local businesses.


A gun rights advocate agreed, though he called the lawsuit as a twist on a longstanding attack on gun owners.


"It's is just another harassment lawsuit," said Richard Pearson, the executive director of Illinois State Rifle Association. "They found the gun shops did nothing wrong so they are trying to put pressure on the communities to do something that will drive (the stores) out of business.


Though the city of Chicago is not a party in the lawsuit, Lyons Village President Christopher Getty said in a statement released by a public relations firm characterized the lawsuit as an effort by Chicago to "pass the blame onto outside communities and businesses for the crimes and short-comings in dealing with crimes" in the city. An official with Lincolnwood declined comment, and a call to Riverdale was not returned.


Though they sued the communities and not the stores themselves, members of the group pointed to a Chicago Police Department study that showed that between 2009 and 2013, 2,000 guns sold in the stores in Riverdale and Lyons were used in crimes.


But, they said that they can dramatically reduce the flow of illegal guns into their communities if the three suburbs are required to do such things as install surveillance cameras and train employees on how to stop straw purchasers who buy legally guns and provide them to criminals.


The Associated Press contributed to this report





Fast food chain asks customers not to open carry


7/07/15| by Chris Eger


Texas-based Whataburger clarified last week it would prefer their customers not openly carry firearms, much to the delight of gun control advocates.


Founded in Corpus Christi in 1950, the regional fast food company has some 780 locations across the South from Arizona to Florida. In a statement released July 2, Whataburger President and CEO Preston Atkinson said the privately-owned chain long ago established a policy against open carry but chose to explain the reasons behind its decision.


“We’ve had many customers and employees tell us they’re uncomfortable being around someone with a visible firearm who is not a member of law enforcement, and as a business, we have to listen and value that feedback in the same way we value yours,” said Atkinson, who is an avowed hunter and concealed carry permit holder. “We have a responsibility to make sure everyone who walks into our restaurants feels comfortable. For that reason, we don’t restrict licensed concealed carry but do ask customers not to open carry in our restaurants.”


With Gov. Greg Abbott’s recent signature on legislation to bring the open carry of modern handguns to the Lone Star state, businesses across Texas have found themselves having to explain their stand on the subject.


Gun rights advocates argue the policy is misguided and the company is acting out of response to fear mongering.


“This statement by Whataburger is extremely premature and ignores reality all across the United States that open carry is not an issue,” CJ Grisham, president of Open Carry Texas, told Guns.com.


Whataburger’s announcement confirming its policy prohibiting open carry follows an armed robbery last month of a Houston area location by three gunmen who forced a manager to empty the store’s safe.


Although Atkinson advised repeatedly in the statement of his own personal feelings on gun rights and contends the chain supports the Second Amendment, Grisham is calling foul.


“When a business subscribes to this idea that open carry is somehow less acceptable than any other carry, they are not a pro-2A business,” Grisham said. “When they treat some gun owners different than others, they are not a pro-2A business. When they restrict my rights as a peaceful, law-abiding citizen, but allow cops to do it, they are not a pro-2A business. In fact, these policies go completely against the purpose of the 2A.”


Grisham contends the company has not listened to their customer base and instead buckled under pressure from gun control groups.


“They haven’t taken a stand for their customers; they’ve instead caved to the anti-gun crowd that wants nothing more than to achieve their aims by bullying corporate America,” Grisham said.


Taking credit for the move by Whataburger is Moms Demand Action, part of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown gun control organization.


In a statement emailed to Guns.com, representatives for the group advised the burger chain established their ban on open carry last June after the Texas chapter of Moms Demand Action repeatedly urged the company to change its policy through social media and by making numerous calls to the corporate headquarters.


“Last year Whataburger answered the call of moms across Texas and throughout the country who urged the company to stand up for the safety of its loyal customers and dedicated employees by prohibiting the open carry of firearms in its restaurants—and today the company is standing strong in its commitment to public safety,” said Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts.


“Parents should be able to go to family-oriented restaurants like Whataburger with their children and not have to wonder whether the person openly carrying at the table next to us is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. Whataburger’s policy ensures that no employee or customer is forced to make that judgment call,” contends Watts.


Moms Demand Action previously launched campaigns asking Kroger, Target, Chipotle, Sonic, Chili’s, Jack in the Box and Starbucks, to reform the companies’ gun policies on open carry, with mixed results.


“Businesses have a responsibility to protect their employees and patrons – especially in states with weak gun laws. Whataburger is a Texas institution and its home state allows the open carry of firearms,” Watts said.





Drive-by shooting in Germany, one of the world's strictest on gun control

A driver has been arrested for killing two people and shooting at others before fleeing in his convertible, rocking the small Bavarian town of Tiefenthal. In Germany, how easy is it to get a gun?


By Michelle Toh, Staff writer  July 10, 2015


A suspect has been taken into custody for killing two people in a drive-by shooting in the southern German region of Bavaria, sparking a manhunt in a nation with some of the world’s most stringent gun regulations.


The man, whose identity has not been released, shot an 82-year-old woman late Friday morning from his locally-registered Mercedes in the town of Tiefenthal, near Ansbach, said police, according to The Associated Press. He later killed a cyclist near Rammersdorf.


He also fired at two others, a farmer and another motorist, before fleeing in his convertible, reported Reuters. They managed to escape unharmed.


While police are investigating why the gunman attacked, they suspect he may have been motivated by personal reasons. BBC reports that the woman, who died at the scene, may have been related to the gunman.


The local Nuernberger Zeitung newspaper reported that the man was tackled by workers at a gas station in Bad Windsheim, about 20 miles from the scene of the shootings, after threatening them with a gun, according to the AP.


According to the paper, they tied him up and called the police.


The shooting casts international attention on Germany, a country more recognized for its dealings in the recent Greek bailout crisis than its rigorous gun control laws. “In Germany, it's not about if guns should be regulated, but how guns should be regulated,” wrote NPR Berlin's Amanda Peacher in 2013.


Unlike the constitutional right to gun possession in America, Germans have to undergo a yearlong process to be licensed for gun ownership, which includes a written test, hours of shooting practice, and the cost of up to several thousand euros. More importantly, they have to demonstrate a credible need to own a gun, like sports shooting or hunting.


Each year, about 200 people are killed by guns in Germany, a low number compared to the US, reported NPR.


But Germany, a more conservative society with relatively little violent crime – where guns are decidedly unpopular – also has a history of high-profile school shootings.


The nation’s Weapons Act, which tightened gun restrictions and banned automatic firearms, became effective in 2003 after a school shooting in Erfurt killed 16 people. In 2009, a shooter at a Winnenden high school killed 15, marking Germany’s third school shooting in eight years, according to NPR.


The record was enough to convince even gun lobbyists that regulation is needed.


“On the one hand, we think, ‘Oh, it's very restrictive, and we don't like that,'” Friedrich Gepperth, a local sport shooter and gun lobbyist, told NPR. “On the other hand, each case of misuse by a legal gun owner is very bad for us, so we are not going against the restrictions very much.”


This report contains material from The Associated Press.







Ex-CNN Anchor Whose Vet Husband Killed an Armed Attacker Has Just 4-Words for Gun Control Activists


Former CNN anchor Lynne Russell recently made national headlines when her special forces veteran husband Chuck de Caro used a gun to defend the couple from an armed felon.


Tomario Watson assailed Russell in the parking lot of a Motel 6 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and forced her to go back to the room with her husband, who was in the shower. When Watson became more demanding, he shot de Caro in the chest three times.


But the Green Beret vet had a gun in the room, and proceeded to use it to defend them against the criminal. As Lynne Russell put it, The Second Amendment “saved my life.”


“I’m so grateful to him. He literally is my hero. He saved my life,” Russell told Fox 41. “I’m grateful that he is a responsible gun owner. He’s former Special Forces. He knows how to handle himself.”


Russell, who is the author of the book Hell on Heels, further clarified her views.


“The discussion over the debate to own a gun is just ridiculous. As Americans we have the right to bear arms and as humans the right to protect ourselves,” she said. “I’m sure that the man who shot my husband did not have a gun permit. Criminals will always have guns. The rest of us legally obtain our gun permits.”


“If you committed a violent crime you can’t get a gun permit. Simple law,” she adds.


Then she had a direct and unmistakable message for those who would rather she be disarmed in the face of a would-be murderer.


“If you don’t want to carry, please don’t. Then, shut the f–k up about it. Make your own decisions.”


This is one pistol-packing lady who also knows how to pack a punch – when it comes to defending her rights.


From Frontsight.com:


Monday, June 22, 2015

Dear Paul Curtis,

Whenever you are trying to correct a bad statistic, you must analyze ALL of the factors that may be causing the unacceptable problem you are trying to correct. There may be several factors, but ONE, is the RIGHT TARGET to attack which will cause an immediate correction of the problem.

Find the RIGHT Target, attack it, and the bad statistic immediately and positively responds.

Attack the wrong target and the bad situation will not improve, and in many cases gets worse.

In analyzing statistics of mass shootings, there are several factors (targets) that have been talked about as the cause of the shootings, including access to guns, lack of proper mental health care, violence in movies, television, and video games.

The danger in lumping all of these factors into the "cause" of mass shootings is that it appeases the public and tricks them into thinking "something has been done" but it hides the RIGHT target and mass shootings not only do not stop, they become more frequent and deadlier.

Isn't that EXACTLY what we have seen over the last 40 years? We have picked the wrong target, because had we selected the right target and attacked it 40 years ago, mass shootings would have stopped. But they have not stopped, they have become more frequent and more deadly.

So what have we targeted as a society to try to stop these mass murders that have clearly been the wrong target?

Guns are the wrong target.


Because prior to these shootings, there were just as many guns per capita and there was unrestricted access to semiautomatic weapons, even for young adults and kids. But even more evidence that guns are the wrong target is the undeniable fact that in towns, cities, schools, and shopping malls, where guns have been severely restricted and in some cases outright banned, the statistic of murder, HAS NOT DROPPED, IT HAS INCREASED!

Even greater evidence that proves guns are the wrong target is found in towns, cities, schools and shopping malls where law abiding, responsible citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. In those areas where guns are the least restricted we see the statistic of murder and violent crime HAS DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY.

So if the RIGHT TARGET IS NOT GUNS, what is the right target?

Well, let's first look at the other targets being offered up... Violence in TV, Movies and Video Games.

If you are old enough to remember when America did not have kids walking into schools and killing their classmates with guns, then you remember when you could walk to school with your .22 rifle because you were on the school's rifle team, and prop your rifle up against the cabinet in the back of your classroom. You also likely remember the TV shows and movies you watched as a kid, as well as the games you played with all the other kids...

You watched westerns and war movies that had lots of killing in them. You played Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians.

Remember those games? If you had the money, you had toy cap guns to use and if you didn't have the money you made toy weapons out of sticks or whatever you could fashion to look like a Tommy Gun or lever action rifle or bow and arrow. And yes, you killed the bad guy every chance you could get. And yes, every now and then someone you shot said you didn't shoot him and it might lead to an argument, a wrestling match or a few punches thrown to settle it. BUT YOU NEVER, EVER THOUGHT OF GRABBING THE REAL GUN that was unlocked and readily accessible in your closet at home, and taking it to school to shoot your classmates.

The TV, movie industry, and video game industry has placed warning labels and age restrictions on violent shows and games, but it has not made a difference in mass shootings. WHY? Because such restrictions, were the WRONG TARGET!

Had that step of restricting violent media been the right target, we would have seen a positive change, a decrease in mass shootings, and we have not.

WHY have we NOT seen a change in mass shootings after restricting violent media from our youth? Because kids and young adults KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between a violent TV show, movie or video game and real life, just as you and I did 40 or more years ago when we played, Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians, and GI Joe.

So that leaves improving mental health care as the only remaining target that has been talked about as a solution to stop mass shootings. Believe it or not, lawmakers are suggesting the cause of these mass shootings is the inability of the State to involuntarily commit people who show signs of mental illness!

Do you see the inherent insanity in such a target? With a government already gone wild in stripping freedoms and privacy after 9/11, now there are actually lawmakers talking about increasing the power of the government to involuntarily commit (that means against your will) citizens to a mental institution! Remember the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

These are the same lawmakers who champion gun control laws and banning violent media content as the solution to stop mass shootings. They say that due to lack of funding, we have released so many "crazy" people from mental institution into the streets, which has caused the increase in mass shootings.

Really? How many mass shooters have been homeless, mental derelicts who lacked a psychiatrist treating them and prescribing them medication? NOT ONE.

So if the RIGHT TARGET to stop mass shootings is NOT GUNS, and it is NOT VIOLENT MEDIA, and it is NOT MORE MENTAL HEATLH CARE, then WHAT IS IT?

To find the RIGHT TARGET look to see what CHANGES took place in society when mass shootings first began and what has increased in society directly and proportionally to the increase in mass shootings, even during the same time when strong actions and restrictions against guns and violent media were being implemented to stop the mass shootings.

The answer, the common denominator, the RIGHT TARGET in the ever increasing number of mass shootings was and continued to be the creation of strong, mind altering, psychiatric drugs by the pharmaceutical companies and their systematic pushing of these drugs to our children and youth through our public school system. These drugs create the monsters who are killing their parents, teachers and schoolmates.

I recognized psych drugs being pushed on our youth as the right target after the Columbine shootings. I stated it then and I have stated it after every mass shooting since and guess what, EVERY SHOOTER has been under psychiatric care, taking these powerful, mind altering drugs that are scientifically proven to create homicidal and suicidal urges in those being prescribed these drugs!

It is the RIGHT TARGET. Ban the prescription and distribution of these strong, mind altering drugs and as a society we will not have drug induced assassins killing innocent people.

Of course to do so, would take multi-billions of dollars in ridiculous profits from the pharmaceutical companies who through their relentless "lobbying" in Washington, DC have managed to not only stay in business when all evidence points at their product as the root cause of these mass shootings, they also convinced Congress years ago to pass legislation allowing the blatant advertising of antidepressant drugs on TV, radio, Internet, newspapers and magazines.

Now you understand one of the reasons why members of Congress, who receive huge political contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, avoid attacking the RIGHT TARGET, psych drugs, and continue to point fingers at the wrong target... your guns.

The latest shooting is no different. It is not about hate or easy access to guns. It is about the anti-social, psychopathic effects of psychiatric drugs that are irresponsibly forced on society from the cradle to the grave through pharmaceutical marketing budgets that are larger than the gross national product of many third world countries and the drug pushing psychiatrists and medical doctors who prescribe them.

My efforts to spread the truth that is it NOT guns, but rather psych drugs that are doing the killing is being heard and more main stream media sources are finally spreading the truth with me.

See this article http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/big-list-of-drug-induced-killers/ and help me spread the truth by forwarding this e-mail to all on your lists and asking them to do the same.

If we truly want to stop mass shootings, we have to ban the prescription and distribution of these strong, mind altering drugs and as a society we will not have drug induced assassins killing innocent people. At the same time, we must strengthen those aspects of society that have statistically provided a positive reduction in violent crime. Namely, allow the law abiding responsible citizenry to carry concealed weapons to protect against mass shootings.

New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles... the big cities, with the strictest gun control have the highest murder and violent crime rates. Allow law abiding, responsible citizen to be trained to carry a concealed weapon and those same cities with the highest murder and crime rates will see an immediate and permanent reduction in violent crime and murder as all the other towns and cities across America have seen when they allowed their citizens to carry concealed weapons.


I have been preaching this for years. Direct our lawmakers to the RIGHT TARGET. IT'S NOT GUNS!


Others are now seeing it too. Help spread the word.

Watch this video from Citizens Committee on Human Rights. They have done the hard research and now say the same thing I said over 15 years ago...


Then see what Michael Moore, the Darling of the Liberal Left, Anti-Gun Media now has to say about the cause of Columbine. Medical Doctors and Psychiatrists Now Admit Connections Between Psych Drugs and Homicidal and Suicidal Actions of Children and Teens:


Fox National News reporter Douglas Kennedy exposes the link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings:

Fox National News reporter Douglas Kennedy exposes the link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings:


Experts Say Psychiatric Drugs Linked to Long List of School Shooting Sprees

The Link Between School Shootings and Vet Suicides is Big Pharma not Guns

Here is more information to help spread the truth...









And never forget what gun control is REALLY about. It is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling people.

Lawmakers who want to disarm you really want to control you. History is full of governments who first registered guns, then confiscated guns, then rounded up and systematically killed those who the government deemed were trouble makers...

170 million of them!

Don't think it could not happen here. Look at the freedom and liberties we have lost since 9/11. Sandy Hook Elementary is just another scapegoat to take another step at controlling the American people.

After every mass shooting, we hear the unenlightened politicians and knee-jerk liberals wailing, "If we can save just ONE life by getting guns off the street, then it is worth passing stricter gun control..."

Well, the next time you hear that from anybody, I want you to respond with: "Over 170 million people would disagree with you... if they could. You can't talk with them, because they are dead! They were killed by their own governments after strict gun control disarmed them."

Then I want you to hand them a copy of Innocents Betrayed, an award-winning documentary DVD that I co-produced with Aaron Zelman and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).

You have probably seen the e-mails that float around the Internet that look like this:


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated...


In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.


China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Well, I co-produced Innocents Betrayed because it dramatically and irrefutably documents the direct connections between government gun control schemes and the subsequent genocides that have taken the lives of over 170 million people!

This is a must-see DVD because it contains documented, proven facts of history that even the most ardent gun control advocate cannot deny.

Watch a short trailer of this riveting and educational film. Then order your own copies to share with your family, friends and co-workers. All proceeds go directly to JPFO and assist in their efforts to educate Americans and expose the fallacy of gun control.


I personally put my money where my mouth is to co-produce the DVD because the message is so important to the future of our country and our offspring. The dangers of gun control are real. Innocents Betrayed exposes them in such an undeniable manner in this DVD that you simply must have it in any well-stocked information arsenal for sharing with anyone who thinks otherwise.

And until our government wakes up and bans pharmaceutical advertising in all forms of media, and the medical community takes appropriate responsibility and action against those doctors who are creating these mass killing monsters through the prescription of known, violence inducing drugs, please consider getting armed and trained. With 1 in 5 American taking psych drugs, the next killings could be at your school, church or workplace!

Here is an opportunity for you to secure our 5 Day Defensive Handgun Course, 30 State Concealed Weapon Permit and our entire set of 7 training manuals (over $2700 in total value) for only $200.

That's right! Only $200. We are doing our part to arm and train responsible Americans, but you will need to act fast before this link is taken down. Go here http://www.frontsight.com/patriot/ to grab a 5 Day Front Sight Course, plus 30 State Concealed Weapons Permit, and our entire set of 7 Front Sight Training Manuals for only $200. Just do it before the offer sells out!

Keep up the great work! Together, we are positively changing the image of gun ownership hundreds of times faster than any other group in America!

Thanks again for your participation in Front Sight's phenomenal success.






US Appeals Court: No Guns on Post Office Property

 Friday, 26 Jun 2015 18:35 PM


A federal appeals court said a U.S. Postal Service regulation banning firearms on postal property is constitutional, and reversed a lower court ruling that would have let people keep weapons inside their vehicles in post office parking lots.


By a 2-1 vote on Friday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against Tab Bonidy, a licensed gun owner who said the restrictions violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.


Circuit Judge David Ebel said the right to carry firearms does not apply to federal buildings such as post offices, and that while it was a "closer question" he would not second-guess the Postal Service's extending the ban to its parking lots.


"The security of the postal building itself is integrally related to the security of the parking lot adjacent to it," Ebel wrote.


Bonidy, joined as a plaintiff by the National Association for Gun Rights, sued after learning he would be prosecuted if he carried a firearm into a post office in Avon, Colorado, near the Vail ski resort, or stored it in the post office parking lot while he went inside to pick up his mail.


"My clients are obviously disappointed, and we're weighing our options," said Steven Lechner, chief legal officer of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represented the plaintiffs.


The U.S. Department of Justice, which defended the regulation, was not immediately available for comment.


Friday's decision partially reversed a 2013 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch in Denver.


Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented, saying he would have voided the regulation as applied to the parking lot.




UN Wants “Urgent Measures” to Control Guns After Charleston Killings”


June 23, 2015 5:01 pm  Second Amendment


Americans will be unable to defend themselves against the most violent armed force ever created: government


(Infowars) – Not to be outdone by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in calling for civilian disarmament, the United Nations is taking advantage of the Charleston shootings to join the chorus of confiscators.


In a statement issued on June 19 by the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (yes, that actually exists), committee chairwoman Mireille Fanon Mendes-France demanded that “urgent measures must be taken to prevent gun violence.” Making a point of distinguishing this crime for its effect on “the security of Afro-Americans,” the UN group sent their “heartfelt condolences to the people of the United States of America.”


If the United Nations has its way, there will much more to mourn about in the United States of America. As part of the global effort to grant monopoly control of weapons of all sizes to UN-approved “state actors,” the Arms Trade Treaty mandates the forcible disarmament of all others.


Special Headline: Guess Who’s About To Go Bankrupt in America [Learn More]


The scheme was endorsed in the “name of the people of the United States” by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 25, 2013.


“I am very pleased to have signed this treaty here today. I signed it because President Obama knows that from decades of efforts that at any time that we work with — cooperatively to address the illicit trade in conventional weapons, we make the world a safer place. And this treaty is a significant step in that effort,” Kerry said at the signing ceremony.


Promptly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon thanked Kerry and Obama for their complicity in consolidating UN control over weapons and ammunition: “Today, a number of countries signed the Arms Trade Treaty, pushing the total number of signatures to more than half of all Member States.”


The secretary-general, as the depository of the treaty, welcomes every signature to this important pact. At the same time, it is of particular significance that the largest arms exporting country in the world, the United States, is now also among those countries who have committed themselves to a global regulation of the arms trade. He believes this will contribute to efforts to reduce insecurity and suffering for people on all continents. He calls upon other countries to follow suit.


Since the date of the treaty’s signing by Kerry, a number of senators have warned President Obama not to try to enforce the terms of the agreement by use of his infamous “pen and phone.”


In 2013, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent the president a letter reminding him that:


As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.


President Obama knows this and he also knows that in March of that year, 53 senators voted “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”


Americans know something, too. They know that this administration has never failed to use every murderous act of armed violence as a pretext for tyranny. From Newtown to the Navy Yard to the latest atrocity committed at a church in Charleston, President Obama has issued scores of executive orders directly violating the Constitution’s explicit prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.


In a statement made to The Blaze, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina pointed to this predilection on the part of the president and bolstered her position, saying that “South Carolina has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.”


SPECIAL: OBAMA HAS YOUR GUNS AND AMMO IN HIS CROSSHAIRS! I need you to sign our Congressional Gun Warning now. IT’S TIME TO LOCK AND LOAD!


As reported by The Blaze, “South Carolina is one of five states that have an outright ban on open carry firearms.” Adding, “South Carolina’s concealed carry law requires permit applicants to undergo a background check, submitting two sets of fingerprints, and take a state-approved class on gun safety before passing a written test and a live firing range test.”


Regardless of the rigorous background checks to which one must submit in South Carolina before being permitted by the government to purchase a gun, the question remains: Why should any government possess the power to disarm its citizens? Do I have the power to disarm my neighbor if I believe him to be “dangerous?” Certainly not. If I tried to go over and take his weapon I’d likely be arrested for trespass and assault. Where, then, does government — that is nothing more than the collective expression of the people’s natural right of self-defense — get the power to make legal for them what would be illegal for an individual?


While the UN’s Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent may be correct in calling the barbarous act committed at the Emanuel African Methodist Church a “racist crime motivated by prejudice,” nothing in the words or executive orders of President Obama would have prevented it from happening.


The same goes for the Arms Trade Treaty. The secretary-general, the secretary of state, and every presidential candidate can claim that they want to talk about additional gun regulations out of consideration for the safety of innocent people, but what they really intend to do is take liberty from innocent people and leave those people defenseless to do anything about it.


Arguably, the Arms Trade Treaty would become the law of the United States if the Senate were to ratify the treaty.


While that is the process that the Constitution establishes for the implementation of treaties, fundamental principles of construction and constitutional law dictate that no treaty that violates the Constitution can become the supreme law of the land.


In the case of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, there is no doubt that regardless of presidential signatures or congressional consent, this treaty cannot pass constitutional muster and therefore will never be the valid law of the land.


Unless, of course, Americans once again acquiesce to President Obama’s assumption of illegal authority and relinquish their rights and weapons regardless of the reasons they should not do so.


This nightmare scenario took a giant leap toward reality on Thursday, June 18 when 218 members of Congress voted to grant the president “trade promotion authority (TPA),” the so-called “fast track.”


With this new power, the president is free to unilaterally issue international executive orders that are binding on the United States, so long as those orders concern trade.


Is there any question whether President Obama will use this new power over “trade” to implement the provisions of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty? Somewhere, perhaps, a teleprompter is being loaded with a speech mourning the death of so many innocent men and women and promising to “heal” the country by making it more difficult for people to “own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer” (the language from the ATT) firearms.


There is not a person of sound mind who doesn’t deplore and denounce crimes such as that committed in Charleston. Senseless brutality leaves us all scarred and diminishes our collective virtue.


Wise men, however, would also recognize that statements such as that issued by the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent demanding that “urgent measures” be taken to reduce gun violence will — as with all similar statements made since the establishment of the modern state — have no effect on violence.


It will, however, leave Americans unable to defend themselves against the most violent armed force ever created: government.






Legally Buy Machine Guns, Silencers, Short Barrels–Understand the NFA


by Wayne Lincourt   on July 2, 2015


(Note: I am not an attorney and this does not constitute legal advice. You’ll find resources in the article to which you can refer for legal guidance.)


The misunderstandings about the National Firearms Act (NFA) go back a long way. All the way to Prohibition, in fact, to gang warfare and shootings like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre:


It was February 14th, 1929. The Irish gangster Bugsy Moran, one of Al Capone’s fiercest enemies, ran his bootlegging operation out of a garage on the north side of Chicago. Men dressed as policemen entered the garage and told the seven men they found there that they were under arrest. The men were then lined up in front of a brick wall and unceremoniously gunned down. Al Capone was conveniently at his home in Florida at the time.


The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was followed four years later, February 15th, 1933, by an assassination attempt on President Roosevelt by Giuseppe Zangara in Miami. Roosevelt escaped unharmed but the mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak, died from his wounds. The people had had enough.




In 1934 Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA). The purpose of the law was to curtail transactions in firearms favored by organized crime (NFA Firearms). These included machine guns, silencers, and sawed-off shotguns. Because the law was passed supposedly as an exercise of Congress’ authority to tax, that was the mechanism used to accomplish their real goals. The transfer tax on an NFA Firearm was set at $200. Adjusted for inflation, that was equivalent to $3,557.76 in 2015 dollars. Congress felt that was enough to curtail sales of these firearms. Of course, it was pocket change for the big gangs of the day. However, it did make it nearly impossible for everyday citizens to buy them. The takeaway here is that, although it priced these items out of the reach of ordinary citizens, it did not make them illegal as long as they were properly registered and the tax was paid.


The NFA was updated through Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, and the misnamed Firearm Owner’s Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986. FOPA made it illegal for anyone other than the military and law enforcement to possess a machinegun except for those already registered prior to May 19, 1986. It also made components of NFA Firearms, like silencer parts and fully automatic trigger packs, into NFA Firearms under the law. It was justified as an “intent to build” an NFA Firearm.




NFA Firearms Categories: (National Firearms Handbook https://www.atf.gov/firearms/national-firearms-act-handbook)

◾Machine guns – any gun that can fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger

◾Short-barreled rifles (SBRs) – any gun with a buttstock and with a rifled barrel less than 16” or overall length of under 26”

◾Short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) – similar to an SBR but with a smooth bore barrel less than 18” or overall length less than 26”

◾Suppressors – any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm

◾Destructive Devices (DDs) – grenades, bombs, bazookas, poison gas weapons, etc. Any firearm with a bore diameter of more than 0.50” except for shotguns.

◾Any other weapon (AOW) – weapons or devices which can be concealed on the body and which fire a projectile through an explosive force. Includes pen guns, cane guns, lighter guns, etc. In 1960 the tax for AOWs was reduced to $5.

◾Parts associated with NFA Firearms – suppressor baffles, drop-in fully automatic trigger sears, etc.


[Note: Muzzle-loading firearms are exempt from the Act (as they are defined as ‘antique firearms’ and are not considered ‘Firearms’ under either the GCA or the NFA). Thus, though common muzzle-loading hunting rifles are available in calibers over 0.50″, they are not regulated as destructive devices.]




The most common NFA Firearms are machine guns, SBRs, and silencers. It is completely legal under federal law to buy, own, and shoot these items. However, some state and local laws ban ownership so check with local law enforcement before making a purchase. In addition, prior to completing a purchase you have to first register the item in the NFA Registry with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE or simply ATF), and pay the $200 registration tax. Fortunately the tax has not changed since 1934. (At last, something that has benefitted from inflation!)


The process is fairly simple if time consuming. As an individual, you must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4. (https://www.atf.gov/file/61546/download)


An alternate method of registering an NFA Firearm is as a corporation, trust, or other legal entity. When the paperwork to request transfer of an NFA item is initiated by an officer of a corporation, a signature from local law enforcement is not required, and fingerprint cards and photographs do not need to be submitted with the transfer request. Therefore, an individual who lives in a location where the chief law enforcement officer will not sign a transfer form, for example, can still own an NFA item if he or she owns a corporation or trust. This method has downsides, since it’s the corporation (and not the principal) that owns the firearm. Thus, if the corporation ever dissolves, it must transfer its NFA to the owners. This event would be considered a new transfer and would be subject to a new transfer tax.


When buying your first silencer or sound suppressor (the terms are used interchangeably), I recommend the Silencer Shop . I have no affiliation with them but they simplified the process for me when I bought my first silencer. They will take you by the hand and lead you through the steps. They also have forms and can help you set up a trust if you decide to go that route. Very responsive and professional group of people.


You can also get forms and instructions through the ATF website: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/forms-library, and online through sites like https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/form4.


You do not need a “Class III FFL” or any other license. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA, but not for an individual owner. After submitting your paperwork, the process generally takes from three to six months. Once you receive your signed form 4 with tax stamp back from the ATF, you’re eligible to take possession of your firearm. If it is being shipped, it must be shipped to a class III FFL, except that silencers, for residents of the state of Texas, may be shipped directly to them.


You may even manufacture your own NFA Firearms, with the exception of machine guns which are illegal for an individual to manufacture. However, before starting, you must pay a manufacturing tax of $200. Of course, you’ll also have to pay a $200 registration tax, so it might be more cost effective to simply buy your NFA Firearm from a licensed manufacturer/dealer.








While the registration process for NFA Firearms is a hassle and many of us think it’s unconstitutional, this isn’t something you want to treat lightly. It is currently the law of the land. Breaking the law will put you in serious doo doo. And there’s no reason to risk it. Sure $200 seems like a lot of money and who wants to be on a registration list? But it’s not $3,500 like it was in 1934 (thanks to inflation) so consider it a bargain.


According to The NFA Handbook, “Violations of the Act are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, and the individual’s right to own or possess firearms in the future. The Act provides for a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations. A willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Act is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $100,000 fine ($500,000 in the case of a corporation or trust), under the general tax evasion statute. For an individual, the felony fine of $100,000 for tax evasion could be increased to $250,000.” Ouch!




No one knows what the future will bring. However there are some positive signs. Who needs to pay $15,000 for a pre-ban machine gun when you can get a non-NFA trigger like a Tac-Con 3 MR or Tac-Con AK47 Raptor that allows full automatic-like fire. (You still have to pull the trigger separately for each shot but the trigger helps you do that more effectively.) And there are less expensive devices like the GAT, Hellfire, Tac Trigger, and Slide Fire bump fire stock. Maybe as these proliferate, politicians can be persuaded that that they’re just hurting our gun manufacturers with a ban that no longer makes sense.


Sound suppressors are becoming more popular. They should be legal for health reasons as they were before NFA. You could generally buy them in the local hardware store. No one wants to sacrifice their hearing to pursue shooting sports, and we shouldn’t have to.


As for SBRs, a host of manufacturers are now offering non NFA large pistols that, with a single point sling and red dot optic, can substitute for an SBR in home defense applications.


Maintaining our Second Amendment rights will still be a struggle but the pendulum seems to be swinging in our favor. In the meantime, if you want an NFA Firearm, go out and get one. It’s your right.




Kalashnikov USA’S New American Weapons Now Available


by S.H. Blannelberry   on July 2, 2015


Kalashnikov USA manufacturer of Kalashnikov style firearms, proudly announce that the new American Kalashnikov models are now available through Acusport, Big Rock Sports, Bill Hicks, Ellett Brothers, RSR, Sports South and others.


“We have made good on the promise delivered at SHOT Show, to provide our customers with a quality product at a competitive price by the second quarter of this year,” Thomas McCrossin, CEO of Kalashnikov USA said.


Under the new banner “Russian Heritage — American Innovation,” the new US models are built on the classic AK 47 rifle and shotgun platforms with a focus on designing firearms for the American shooter using the latest manufacturing technologies. New features on the Kalashnikov USA models include a nitrocarburized case hardening on barrels and chambers to extend life and provide a high corrosion resistance. Also, the barrels have been threaded to accept muzzle breaks and suppressor systems. The bolt and bolt carrier have been enhanced for a smoother action, and an integrated hold open feature has been added to the safety lever.


“Our customers will be pleased with the quality of our American weapons and our new designs,” Bill Silver, VP of sales for Kalashnikov USA added. “American innovation has provided a better weapon at a better price.”


For more information on Kalashnikov USA, visit www.kalashnikov-usa.com. Stay up-to-date on the latest news from Kalashnikov USA on Facebook.


About Kalashnikov USA: Kalashnikov USA is committed to designing and manufacturing new and innovative firearms for the American audience based on the iconic Russian design.




Build an AR: Direct Impingement or Piston Operation?


by Tom McHale   on July 5, 2015


We’re on to part three in our series on how to build an AR-15, and this one is important. We’re going to get technical. If you’re new to this series, I’d like to suggest you read the introduction. If you’re serious about building an AR, it will let you know what you’re getting into.


Part 1: Build an AR-15: The Series Introduction (Why Build Your Own AR)


And before you start buying parts, you should understand what you want the rifle to do. Is this going to be a 5.56 rifle? A .300 blackout? Are you wanting to build the most versatile multi-caliber lower possible?


Part 2: Build an AR-15: AR Calibers  (Or is 5.56 really the right choice?)


All AR-type rifles have plenty of gas; they just deal with it differently.


Eugene Stoner had plenty of gas. So much so that he designed his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to work entirely on gas flow. The method of operation was called direct impingement. Well, people refer to it as direct impingement, but it’s really a little bit different. We’ll get into that nitty gritty minutia in a bit. For now, just envision those nifty lug wrenches at tire stores that are powered completely by compressed air. It’s a similar concept.


But, as a fellow gun person, you know how we like to tinker. It doesn’t matter if something works or not; we’ve just got to tweak modify and try to improve things. Our collective experimentation has created another type of system for AR-type rifles. That would be piston operation. We’ll explain that in detail in a bit also.


Direct Impingement Operation


I’m going to use the term “direct impingement” here, but only because everyone else does, and it’s commonly known. Technically, Eugene Stoner’s original design is really more like an internal piston that operates inside the bolt carrier. Think of this comparison, and we’ll keep our analogies a little loose for simplicity.


In a pure direct impingement scenario, imagine blasting a jet of compressed air at a lever, like maybe a light switch. With enough air pressure, you’re going to bash the switch hard enough to move it to the opposite position. That hammering like motion with gas it sort of like true direct impingement.


With an internal pistol system, you’re filling the inside of a cylinder with expanding gas. As pressure builds, it’s gonna want to move the piston in the direction of least resistance. Again, with a slightly inexact analogy think of this scenario like a gas engine piston moving as the gas vapor ignites and increases the pressure inside of the cylinder.


Let’s look at exactly how this “direct impingement” or “internal piston” works in an AR-type rifle.


When you fire a cartridge, a veritable boatload of hot and expanding gas pushes the bullet down the barrel. It’s under really big pressure, starting at somewhere around 60,000 pounds per square inch. Of course, that pressure level rapidly declines as the volume between the cartridge base and bullet rapidly increases as the bullet moves down the barrel. The section of the barrel between the chamber and bullet at any given microsecond represents the available volume. And from high school physics, some famous smart guy stated that as volume increases, pressure has to decrease, all else being equal. I think it was Ben Cartwright before he opened that ranch on Bonanza.


Part way down the barrel (the exact position varies depending on the “gas system length” of the rifle in question) there’s a tiny hole that lets gas escape into what’s commonly referred to as the gas block. In original AR-type rifles with the triangular fixed sight, the gas block is contained within the sight assembly, so you really don’t see it as a separate piece. Part of the function of the gas block is to redirect some of the gas back towards the action of the gun. The gas is moving towards the muzzle, then straight up through the hole in the barrel. The gas block redirects it through a gas tube that leads back to the receiver. If you look through holes of the hand guard on an AR-type rifle, you’ll see a (usually) silver tube running between the front sight or gas block and receiver.


This tube ends at what’s called the gas key on the bolt carrier. The key fits over the gas tube and redirects the gas into the interior of the bolt carrier where it can move the bolt itself. Here, the bolt and carrier act pretty much like a piston (the bolt tail) and a cylinder (the bolt carrier.) The gas enters the bolt carrier and fills a chamber created by the space between the gas rings on the bolt and the internal wall of the bolt carrier where the firing pin body is located.


As gas enters this “cylinder” area, it pushes the bolt in the direction of least resistance, which is actually forward, sort of. In the locked position, the bolt is pressed all the way into the bolt carrier. The expanding gas moves it forward and the carrier backward, so the bolt rotates as the cam pin follows the angled path of the cam pin slot. Once the bolt partially turns and unlocks from the barrel extension, it has nowhere else to go, so the gas pressure inside of our “cylinder” pushes the bolt carrier backward further towards the recoil spring. The bolt carrier movement drags the bolt with it, causing ejection of the round.


At some point, the resistance of the buffer spring overpowers the declining gas pressure and starts to move the whole assembly forward again, picking up a new round in the process. The bolt carrier and bolt slam into the barrel extension and pressure pushes the bolt back inside of the bolt carrier, rotating due to the cam pin slot. The bolt locks into position, and you’re ready to fire another shot.


That’s quite a lot happening in a small fraction of a second. In the context of direct impingement versus piston operation, it all boils down to this. The bolt itself is a piston. The bolt carrier is a cylinder. Rather than a “gas jet bashing motion” the operation is a more gentle expansion in a cylinder that results in movement. Of course, “gentle” is a relative term. Hot and dirty gas flows directly into the bolt assembly causing movement, extraction, hammer re-cocking and chambering of a new round. Don’t let the “hot and dirty gas in the bolt” concern you too much, as it’s a largely self-cleaning system. I don’t mean you don’t have to clean your rifle. I simply mean that gunk doesn’t build up infinitely on the interior of the piston and cylinder surfaces.


Piston Operation


With piston operation, the interface between hot expanding gas and moving parts happens far away from the bolt itself.


When you fire a shot, hot, high-pressure gas moves down the barrel, driving the bullet forward. Piston guns still have a small gas port in the barrel that allows some of the expanding gas to move into a gas block.


Here’s where the differences between the two systems begin. Rather than directing the gas all the way back to the receiver, the block directs the gas into a cylinder above the barrel. Inside of this cylinder is a piston that moves forward from the gas pressure.


With most designs, the cylinder impacts some type of operating or connecting rod, which carriers the movement back to the bolt carrier group.


On an AR-type rifle, the connecting rod impacts a modified gas carrier key. On the direct impingement gun, the gas key just directs the flow of gas to the bolt. On a piston gun, the “gas key” equivalent part takes the hit from the connecting rod and pushes the bolt carrier group backward, initiating the same function as with a regular AR-type rifle.


The net-net of the piston system is that the bolt is moved via impact of a metal rod rather than flow of gas into the bolt carrier. The bolt and carrier do not operate as a piston and cylinder – those equivalent parts are located far forward above the barrel.


Pros and Cons


Cleanliness is next to… piston operation?


The direct impingement haters can’t stand the fact that hot, dirty gas blows right into the action of your rifle with each and every shot. That just sounds bad, right?


Of course, there is truth to this. Hot and dirty gas DOES, in fact, go straight into the bolt area. The real question is, how much does that matter? In my view, not much. The system is designed that way and offers plenty of offsetting advantages which we will touch on elsewhere in this section. As mentioned earlier, the carbon build up on the boat tail is largely a self-cleaning scenario. In terms of other cleaning and maintenance, there are fewer moving parts in a direct impingement system, so there are fewer parts to get dirty to the point of malfunction.


With piston designs, the gas moves a piston located far from the action. After the gas does it’s work, excess is vented to the great outdoors. The net result is that the bolt and carrier area stays pretty darn clean, making your cleaning chores fewer and farther between. On the flip side, you now have parts up front, under the hand guard, that are subject to other types environmental dirt and subsequent jamming.


From a reliability related to cleanliness standpoint, I would consider the two designs a wash. You have different types of “dirt risk” for any type of rifle. The bottom line is that you still need to maintain your gun properly.




In a traditional direct impingement AR-type rifle, the gas that enters the bolt and carrier area are HOT. Predictably, those parts, and the surrounding upper receiver, get hot pretty quickly. Unless you’re planning to pull the bolt and carrier out with your bare hands immediately after unloading a few magazines, this isn’t a huge deal. Of course, hotter temperatures can break down lubricants faster, so you will need to pay more attention that and use high quality, temperature-resistant gun oils.


On a piston gun, the action stays surprisingly cool. Of course, the chamber will get hot and bleed heat into surrounding areas, it just takes a lot more shots to get the bolt and carrier area to the same temperature level.


Suppressor use


There are a lot of theoretical arguments about which platform is better for suppressor use, but my view is far more practical. If you use a suppressor, your gun will get filthy, regardless of whether it’s a direct impingement or piston operated model.


Many piston systems offer adjustable gas features which let you decrease the amount of gas fed into the system for suppressor use, or increase the amount of gas for adverse conditions. The extra gas flow makes things work even when dirty, to a degree.




Here’s where potential fighting words start. While I won’t (and can’t) make a definitive claim that traditional direct impingement rifles are more accurate, it’s been my experience that they are. Disclaimer: I have NOT tested enough rifles of both types under strictly controlled conditions to make that claim, it’s just what I have observed over time. I suspect this is for a variety of reasons.


The direct impingement system is a very smooth operation. The flow of gas to the bolt and carrier creates no movement of parts until it enters the cylinder (bolt carrier.) The forward and backward motion of the bolt and carrier is very linear, with no torque or off-center force. To oversimplify, it’s a very smooth action. Piston guns have moving parts along the way, and the force that moves the bolt carrier is “off center.” The connecting rod applies backward motion to the modified gas key on the bolt carrier, potentially creating a non-linear pushing motion. Manufacturers have come up with various solutions to mitigate this, but it’s still at last a theoretical issue. While the bullet is gone by the time all this happens, many folks believe the linear action of the direct impingement system does improve bolt locking and unlocking, which can affect accuracy.


Overall mass might come into play also. The extra piston and operating rod components add weight. And movement of mass during firing cause overall movement. While the bullet is gone by the time things really start to move, this shift mass can force the rifle off target between shorts more than with a direct impingement model.




The classic direct impingement AR-type rifles (usually) have interchangeable parts as they follow the design on the original AR-15. Generally speaking, parts are easy to come by from a variety of manufacturers.


Piston designs are generally proprietary. Everyone has a slightly different design, so parts are usually not interchangeable. You’ll almost always have to get replacements and support from the manufacturer of your rifle components.


Which One Should You Build?


Unfortunately I can’t just tell you the answer. Like most things gun-related, much depends on the intended use and your personal preferences. In my opinion, neither is “better” than the other. It’s just like pizza. Double-cheese and Italian sausage isn’t “better” than triple-cheese and pepperoni. It’s just different. Yes, I like lots of cheese on my pizza, but that’s beside the point.


Decide what features you care about for your anticipated type of use. Consider how some of the pros and cons discussed here might impact that way you’re going to use your gun. The good news is that there is no right or wrong decision – it’s really a matter of pizza.




Former CNN correspondent, anchor survive motel gunfight

Albuquerque police investigate deadly motel shooting


UPDATED 10:22 PM MDT Jul 01, 2015


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —A former CNN correspondent was shot three times late Tuesday night during an attempted robbery at an Albuquerque motel.


Former CNN anchor and Manzano High School graduate Lynne Russell told Action 7 News she and her husband  Chuck de Caro were robbed at gunpoint around 11:30 p.m. at the Motel 6 near Coors and Iliff.


De Caro worked as a correspondent for CNN.


Russell said they were exhausted Tuesday night and decided to go to a motel to rest. She had gone to the car to get something when a man put a gun to her head, dragged her back into the motel room and demanded her valuables.


"The man pushed me inside, I was airborne, literally. And (I) landed on the bed, and that was about the time that Chuck came out of the shower," Russell said. "The man was just wild. He was pointing the gun, and the way that he was acting, it was as if he'd done it before."


Russell said she and her husband legally carry handguns, and they had them in the motel room.


For a moment, she said, it looked like the thief just wanted her husband's briefcase.


"He came over, grabbed the briefcase, and I thought for a moment he was just going to leave because he had something," Russell said. "Then he turned around and he opened fire. My husband returned fire. And he's a better shot."


According to police, both men fired multiple rounds.


Russell said her husband was hit three times. He underwent surgery at University of New Mexico Hospital and is expected to be there for a few days while he recovers.


Officers found the other man in the parking lot. He died at the scene.








The Army Wants a New Handgun. Here It Is. And By The Way… You Can Have It NOW


Posted by Bob Owens on July 3, 2014 at 4:58 pm


On the surface and to a casual glance it looks like a fancy 1911, but the devil is in the details. Both the grip and the top end can be swapped out for different sizes and lengths roughly analogous with with full-size, commander, and officer length 1911s, but the differences are what set the pistol apart, starting with the design of the grip.


The pistol uses double-stack STI 2011 magazines (in 10/12/14 round configurations), and packs them into a grip narrower than a 1911 frame with the wooden grips attached, at an entirely different grip angle. Without going into the science of the design of the grip, it is obviously undercut both front and rear, and creates a much lower bore axis and much lower felt recoil. Shots fired from an MTX in .45 ACP  feel more akin to shooting a soft 9mm, and the pistol comes back on target faster for follow up shots. The single-action design and relatively conventional 1911 style upper with a match-grade barrel and trigger lends the gun to very accurate shooting… and we’re not done with the modularity of the system.


The “S” in the STX part of the system stands for striker-fired, and holds several patents involving the grip and the striker system.


With a relatively simple parts swap, the MTX can be reconfigured from an advanced double-stack single-action .45 ACP pistol to an advanced double-stack striker-fired pistol that uses the same holsters and magazines.


There is, of course, a huge hurdle to adopting the MTX/STX by the Army, and that is the production capacity of Detonics Defense. The small company located in Milstadt, Illinois, is simply not capable of producing the 400,000 pistols that the Army wants, nor the additional pistols that will likely be requested by the Pentagon for the other services if the design proves to be a success. Detonics is going to have to partner with a larger domestic company experienced with producing large numbers of metal-framed handguns.


The number of companies with that capability can be counted on one hand.


Let the courting begin.


In the meantime, Detonics is selling the MTX to consumers… when they can keep them in stock.




Shooting Revolvers and Autos From the Pocket


by Jon Hodoway   on June 29, 2015


I have heard stories about shooting from the pocket without drawing the gun first–anecdotes from people with first-hand experience as well as the “I know a guy who has a friend who tried it” variety. I became interested in seeing what the real-world applications of this method might be along with what limitations this technique would impose.


Safety First


Not wanting to leave the range with either a hole that I didn’t bring with me, scorched flesh or some other embarrassing injury, we decided that a few safety protocols would be necessary for this operation to succeed. First of all, the participants in this exercise reviewed Col. Cooper’s 4 Rules of Gun Safety. Next we employed some pre-tests using safety gear to determine the feasibility of this technique before jumping in with both feet. Finally, we agreed on each person’s on-range roles and responsibilities in regard to the loading and handling of the weapons involved in this test.


Weapon Selection


There are a vast number of weapons that will fit in your pocket. I wanted to select two guns that (to me) represent modern self-defense handguns with a reputation for reliability. Some concepts were rejected out of hand as they seemed to present a high probability of failure. A couple of examples of these were exposed hammer revolvers and pistols with external safety controls.


What we selected for the test was the Smith & Wesson M&P Bodyguard .38 and the new Glock 43 in 9 mm. We believe these two types of guns clearly represented the highest probability of success with this method of shooting, even as we acknowledge that there are numerous brands and models that would represent an equally fine choice. These also happened to be readily available the day of testing.


I think equally important as what we selected in firearms, is our selection of ammunition for this test. This test needed to be performed with self-defense ammunition. To that end we selected Hornady Critical Duty 9mm for the Glock. For the Smith & Wesson we selected Remington Golden Saber, mostly–and several other JHPs we had on hand.


Proof of concept


Having never done this before, I needed a baseline to assure me that I was not going to injure myself. I also wanted verification that the guns were not going to fail to function no matter how I positioned them. The method that I employed to do this was to first, glove up. This would offer me some protection on my hands and allow me to see if there was any powder burn or pressure issues that would prohibit safe functioning during the test. The next portion was to simply fire the guns through the pocket of an old pair of blue jeans. This would allow me to control how the gun was positioned and keep the action from becoming caught in the fabric.


It was quickly evident to me that the guns would function and there was no heat or pressure issues that I experienced while firing the guns. The one issue that I quickly noticed is that it is very difficult to be aware of your muzzle when firing from a garment. I’m sure some of you are having a forehead palm moment, but hear me out! This is more than just not being able to see the muzzle. You are dealing with clothing that will not allow a visual confirmation. It is definitely a new sensory input when attempting to manipulate the gun safely.


Trust but Verify


I think it was President Reagan who said in reference to the Soviet Union, “We should trust but verify.” My plan was to do just the same thing with these two little pocket pistols. So, the initial distance chosen was 9 feet. My first garment was a leather dress jacket. I felt that it was important to have a garment that was not just nylon or cotton. Also, my wife hates this particular jacket and forbid me to ever wear it in public with her. From one pocket I fired two rounds from the revolver and from the other pocket two rounds from the pistol. Functioning was flawless for both guns. However accuracy, at best, was just acceptable.


Next, I moved to 15 feet and switched to a nylon jacket. I also reversed the guns in my pockets. First, I fired two rounds from the little Glock and then two rounds from the M&P. As before, the issue was not functioning but rather accuracy. I got three of the four rounds on target somewhere but most would not have been highly effective hits.


The next test was performed by my colleague David Higginbotham, Editor-in-Chief of Guns America. This was what we called the Real-World Test. Starting at almost contact distance, David first fired from inside the pocket while retreating, then retrieving the gun for aimed fire as more distance was created. The little Smith & Wesson performed flawlessly and accuracy was well worthy of embracing this technique as a close-quarters self-defense tool. The only thing left was to replicate the test with the popular Glock 43. We began the test and the first shot quickly struck the target center-mass but then the gun fell silent. The gun was retrieved to reveal a very interesting level 2 malfunction. This would have required removing the magazine, racking the gun, reinserting the magazine and cycling the slide to get back in the fight.


What worked and what did not


This is one of the few recaps I’ve done where there’s no ambiguity. Only the revolver with no exposed hammer is going to deliver 100% reliability in shooting from your jacket pocket. In the words of Walt Rauch, “This is a bad breath technique” (meaning that you would have to be close enough to smell the perp’s breath for it to be effective). I would be reluctant to rely on this technique at even a mere 9 feet. One detail worth noting is that I consistently had more accuracy from the revolver regardless of distance. I think this is because the grip is just more intuitive for this unique style of shooting.


Limits of shooting from the pocket


The limits became brighter and brighter as we fired round after round. Shooting from the pocket requires you to be indexed on a single target. I would not recommend this with multiple targets. Your clothing must have enough room to allow you to operate the gun. Most people will find distance to be uncomfortably close in order to be assured of well-placed hits.


And don’t forget that carrying your gun in your coat pocket, free from a holster (so it can be used in this manner), isn’t always easy or advisable. It is an element of staging your gun that requires planning and caution.


Final thoughts and advice


To use this technique for self-defense you must practice! This is not for beginners and your choice of weapon is critical. But this is a valid self-defense method of shooting within a narrow set of circumstances. The one facet of this shooting-through technique that we did not test is shooting from a complete off-body platform such as a briefcase or man purse of some kind. I would be interested in revisiting that at another time.






ATF answers critical questions on 80 percent receivers: are they legal, are they firearms?


by S.H. Blannelberry   on November 11, 2014


The following Q&A on 80 percent receivers comes directly from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:

1. Is ATF aware of the receiver blanks, commonly referred to as 80% receivers?

ATF routinely collaborates with the firearms industry and law enforcement to monitor new technologies and current manufacturing trends that could potentially impact the safety of the public.

2. What is an “80%” or “unfinished” receiver?

“80% receiver,” “80% finished,” “80% complete,” “unfinished receiver” are all terms referring to an item that some may believe has not yet reached a stage of manufacture that meets the definition of firearm frame or receiver found in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). These are not statutory terms or terms ATF employs or endorses.

3. Are “80%” or “unfinished” receivers illegal?

Receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a “firearm” are not subject to regulation under the GCA. The ATF has long held that items such as receiver blanks, “castings” or “machined bodies” in which the fire-control cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not reached the “stage of manufacture” which would result in the classification of a firearm per the GCA.

See comparison examples:

ATF comparison examples. (Photo: ATF)

4. Are there restrictions on who can purchase receiver blank?

The GCA does not impose restrictions on receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a “firearm.”

5. When does a receiver need to have markings and/or serial numbers?

Receivers that meet the definition of a “firearm” must have markings, including a serial number. See 27 CFR § 478.92 (Firearm manufacturers marking requirements).

6. Can functioning firearms made from receiver blanks be traced?

ATF successfully traces crime guns to the first retail purchaser in most instances. ATF starts with the manufacturer and goes through the entire chain of distribution to find who first bought the firearm from a licensed dealer. Because receiver blanks do not have markings or serial numbers, when firearms made from such receiver blanks are found at a crime scene, it is usually not possible to trace the firearm or determine its history, which hinders crime gun investigations jeopardizing public safety.

7. Have firearms made from unmarked receiver blanks been recovered after being used in a crime?

Yes, firearms that began as receiver blanks have been recovered after shooting incidents, from gang members and from prohibited people after they have been used to commit crimes.

8. Are some items being marketed as non-firearm “unfinished” or “80%” receivers actually considered firearms?

Yes, in some cases, items being marketed as unfinished or “80%” receivers do meet the definition of a “firearm” as defined in the GCA. Persons who are unsure about whether an item they are planning to buy or sell is considered a firearm under the GCA should contact ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (FTB).

9. What is ATF doing in regard to people making firearms?

There are no federal restrictions on an individual making a firearm for personal use, as long as it does not violate the GCA or National Firearms Act (NFA).

10. What is the National Firearms Act (NFA)?

The NFA imposes a tax on the making, transfer or import of certain firearms recognized to present a greater risk to public safety. The law also requires the registration of all NFA firearms as defined in title 26 USC 5845(a):
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device.
(Under the NFA the term “firearm” does not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the [Attorney General] finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

11. Can an individual make large quantities of firearms and sell them?

If an individual is “engaged in the business” (defined below) as a manufacturer or seller of firearms then that person must obtain a federal firearms license. In addition, manufacturers have a variety of specific responsibilities under the Gun Control Act, such as including a serial number and other markings on all firearms.

Under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(21)(A), the term “engaged in the business” means— as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured.

12. Can anyone make firearms and sell them?

With certain exceptions, and subject to any state law that might apply, as long as an individual is not prohibited from possessing a firearm, he or she can make a firearm for personal use. If an individual wants to manufacture and sell firearms, he or she is required to obtain a license, and mark each firearm manufactured in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92. [18 U.S.C. 923(i), 26 U.S.C. 5822]

13. Who can obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL)?

ATF will approve a properly executed application if the applicant:

  1. Submits fingerprint cards;
  2. Submits a frontal view photograph;
  3. Is 21 years of age or older;
  4. Is not prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;
  5. Has not willfully violated the GCA or its regulations;
  6. Has not willfully failed to disclose material information or willfully made false statements concerning material facts in connection with his application;
  7. Has premises for conducting the business
  8. The applicant certifies that:
  • the business to be conducted under the license is not prohibited by State or local law in the place where the licensed premises is located;
  • within 30 days after the application is approved the business will comply with the requirements of State and local law applicable to the conduct of the business;
  • the business will not be conducted under the license until the requirements of State and local law applicable to the business have been met;
  • the applicant has sent or delivered a form to the chief law enforcement officer where the premises is located notifying the officer that the applicant intends to apply for a license; and
  • secure gun storage or safety devices will be available at any place in which firearms are sold under the license to persons who are not licensees (“secure gun storage or safety device” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(34)).
  • [18 U.S.C. 923(d)(1), 27 CFR 478.47(b)]
  • Under federal law, an application shall be approved if an applicant for a federal firearms license or a manufacturing license meets all of the licensing requirements and criteria.

14. How does one apply for a Federal Firearms License?

Submit ATF Form 7 (5310.12), Application for License, with the appropriate fee in accordance with the instructions on the form to ATF.





Vortex SPARC II: The Dot That Would Not Die

Peter Palma June 23, 2015


For decades now there’s been a huge gap between high-priced, high-quality optics from companies like Schmidt & Bender, Nightforce, Trijicon, Aimpoint, or Leupold and the cheap, Chinese junk you commonly find at gun shows and on eBay. Certainly, there have been optics in the medium price range, but oftentimes their quality was only marginally better than the cheap junk, or their price point was such that it was worth saving your pennies to hold out for a higher-quality optic from one of the aforementioned companies or their peers.


Vortex Optics has recently and effectively filled that gap in the market by providing a large range of great-quality optics at prices that let you keep both kidneys. Maybe. Every one of their products that we’ve shot with and finger banged — from simple 1x red-dots to precision-rifle optics for even the largest of calibers — have been well thought out, well made, and often boast a clarity better than some much more expensive glass. But since Vortex hasn’t been in this game as long as their competitors, there isn’t as much empirical data on the durability of these attractive sights. We’ve beaten up our S&Bs, Nightforces, Aimpoints, and EOtechs way more than is reasonable, and it’s easier to break rocks than an ACOG. Trust us, we’ve tried.


But what about Vortex? Can its optics take a hit or will it have a glass jaw? Well, we figured it would be a good test to take Vortex’s cheapest optic, the Sparc II, hand it to a Marine, and just let nature take its course.


Now, before we set off on our path of destruction, let’s talk about this optic and its short, agonizing future. It’s made in China. There, we said it. Although roughly the same size and shape as an Aimpoint T1, it’s also only one-third the cost. To be honest, the country of origin did concern us a little because we had fears the Sparc II wouldn’t hold it together long enough and force us to write a one-sentence article like this, “When attaching the Sparc II to the Picatinny rail, the mount broke, so we just ended up drinking beer and stalking people on Instagram.” Fortunately, our fears were way off base.




The Sparc II’s controls are on the left-hand side of the objective lens, where they can be easily accessed, even when used in conjunction with a magnifier or night-vision devices. Two buttons cycle through eight visible red-dot intensities and two IR levels, and turn the optic on and off. The commonly available CR2032 battery is rated at 300 hours on the brightest setting and a whopping 5,000 hours (208 days) on the lowest brightness setting. The Sparc II turns itself off after 12 hours, further extending battery life.


Its 2 MOA dot has a rather slow refresh rate, so it will appear to have a slight trail when transitioning between targets. This was more of an annoyance than a hindrance, as we’re not robots or Jerry Miculek and couldn’t shoot fast enough to catch up with it.


Apart from the dot trail, the Sparc II is well thought out. The windage and elevation covers are captive and can be used to adjust the turrets, as could the rim of a case. The adjustments are well marked, tactile, and audible. The sight ships with two mounting bases of different heights so it can be mounted on inline designs such as ARs or firearms with a lower comb, such as shotguns or AKs. An additional spacer is provided for shooters who prefer to use a lower one-third co-witness with iron sights. It can also be used in conjunction with the lower mount, depending on the height needed. The one-piece aluminum body is finished in an even matte black anodizing. All of the tools for mounting, an extra battery, and scope caps are included in the box.


To the Torture Chamber!


So…attractive packaging, convenient controls, lots of brightness levels, and excellent adjustability. None of that matters if this thing can’t take a beating.


So let the destruction commence! For reasons not totally clear — there may have been moonshine involved — we packed our Sparc II in ice, zeroed it, and produced a number of acceptable groups. Once we were satisfied, the optic was submerged, rifle deep, into 60-degree swamp water for an hour. This had no effect, which soon became something of a theme.


We dropped our rifle onto rocks — multiple times — optic down, from shoulder height. With the dot still shining we turned up the heat, literally. We built a fire and subjected the Sparc II to the flames, only removing it for fear the melting scope caps would stick to the coated glass. Then, taking a cue from Monty Python, the Sparc II was then immediately submerged, like a witch. Now all of this seems like aimless torture, but there’s some reasoning here. Most of the optics we have seen fail do so because of exposure to temperature extremes, moisture, shock, or some combination of these factors. If an optic survives unreasonable levels of abuse, then it should endure lesser strains.


On with the mission. A mighty oak that has stood longer than anyone alive today shrugged off the onslaught of the author swinging a Sparc II-laden rifle against it in a motion reminiscent of a 17th century logger. The Sparc II was not so unscathed. Heat from the fire weakened the rubber covering the controls, and the impacts from the axing exposed a maze of green circuit boards and wires. The dot was somehow still on, asking for more, so we set about turning it off — permanently. With circuit boards dangling about, we submerged the battered optic for the last time. Or so we thought. Much to our surprise, a red dot still glowed cheerfully. So we ran over the Sparc II with our off-road vehicle, and then shot groups on paper to see if it would still be able to do its job. To our dismay, we discovered that we now had larger group sizes and a wandering zero. We packed up our gear and headed home counting the Sparc II out. We should have known better.


Upon returning home to remove the Sparc II from our rifle, we noticed that the mounting base had worked loose and was allowing the optic to move freely on the rail. This discovery was bittersweet, however, because this was most likely the cause of our large, post-destruction test groups. It also meant that we had to return to the range to continue our test. And we are nothing if not lazy.


It Takes a Lickin’…


Unable to shake off our innate slothfulness, we decided to subject Sparc II (at this point, it seemed she’d earned the right to her own name) to some more intense torture in hopes that the dot would be forever extinguished and we could just stay home and watch Hoarders on Netflix. We put Sparc II in the freezer overnight, and when the dot was discovered still glowing, turned on the oven, took the sight off of our frozen solid upper, and left her in the oven for an hour. According to our laser thermometer, her body was at least 200 degrees. We immediately put Sparc II back into the freezer for 24 hours, then took her from the freezer, immediately submerged her into 120-degree water and let her sit in her own filth for a day.


Remember, at this point the scope caps had long ago melted and the circuit boards were protected only by a piece of duct tape that we applied to preserve her dignity. With the dot still defiantly shimmering, we got up off of our lazy ass and headed back to the range.


Once settled in all the way back at the range, Sparc II’s dot finally decided to quit. Apparently, the circuit board that controlled the on/off buttons separated from some of the exposed wires, so we just ripped it off. Be it either from making the trip all the way out to the range, or for our growing affection for this underdog scope, we weren’t ready to give up. We ended up gingerly touching a spent brass shell casing on the surviving exposed circuit board until, like a fondly remembered ex-girlfriend, we figured out the right places to touch her in order to bring the ol’ girl back to life. With the dot back on, we were able to produce groups similar to the control groups we shot before inflicting a little caveman rage.


With Sparc II thriving in conditions much worse than any combat optic would be expected to survive, we now set up a worst-case scenario. If you’re of a nervous disposition, you might want to skip the next bit. We shot Sparc II with a .22-caliber AR, ironically topped with another Sparc II. Cannibals! Three direct hits did only aesthetic damage, but the fourth shot struck directly on the windage adjustment, turning the bullet, the adjustment cap, and the adjustment knob into one twisted mess of various metals. The dot (yes, the f*cking thing was still on) was pushed to the far right of the optic with no way of readjusting. No rubbing dirt on this one and walking it off.


We continued to shoot the optic until a round took off the battery housing, thus removing the power source and finally extinguishing the dot. On returning home, we used the extra battery, the wires from the destroyed circuit board, and the inevitable duct tape to triumphantly resurrect the dot — not unlike Frankenstein. With a rainbow of emotions ranging from joy, confusion, curiosity, determination, and uncertainty about what to do next, we put Sparc II in the microwave, where what appeared to be a mini lightning storm took place. We aren’t really sure what this replicates; let’s pretend an EMP or something. What used to be a nitrogen-filled sight turned into a black smoke-filled sight, and Sparc II’s dot would never again shine.


Don’t be sad! Vortex Optics has a no-questions-asked warranty, so we just mailed her back for a new one. Following each torture test, if we’d been asked to bet $20 on whether the dot would remain on or not, we would have lost more than the cost of a Sparc II. It’s up to you to decide if you think the Sparc II is as good or better than its competition, but we believe we’ve found the most affordable optic that can be placed atop a fighting carbine.


Vortex SPARC II: The Dot That Would Not Die photo


Make: Vortex Optics

Model: Sparc II

Overall Length: 3.125 inches

Overall Width: 2.1 inches

Weight: 5.2 ounces

MSRP: $259

URL: www.vortexoptics.com



In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.


A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a Dictatorship."


"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the Beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."


Thomas Jefferson wrote that "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse." 


Thank you,

Paul Curtis

President - CARGO


"If you can read this, thank a teacher. For the fact that it is in English, thank a Soldier."


If for some reason, you no longer wish to receive these e-mails please accept our apologies and respond to this message with REMOVE in the subject line and we will remove your name from the mailing list.