Thread: 50 of Bloomberg’s Mayors Quit After Gun Confiscation Plan Leaked

If you're like me, you're sick and tired of the constant drum beat against your Second Amendment rights in the mainstream media.

They leap at every opportunity to attack our right to keep and bear arms.

They're even fond of trashing gun owners like you and me.

Despite the constant anti-gun hysteria promoted by gun-grabbers, there ARE many documented stories across the country where a gun owner uses a firearm to protect life, liberty and property.

Most are only reported on in local newspapers or TV stations.

But far too often, very few individuals actually see these stories.

I've assigned my staff here at NAGR to collect these stories for distribution to NAGR members and supporters on a regular basis.

You can access these stories of true Second Amendment heroes by clicking on the image below.



You and I are still neck-deep in the biggest fight over our Second Amendment rights in at least a couple of generations.

Gun owners must win the political battles to protect our rights, but it's also our responsibility to win the hearts and minds of millions of Americans.

Please click here to share these stories of true Second Amendment heroes with your family and friends.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President



http://nagr.org/2014/gunssavelives.aspx?pid=2b

3 Armed Robberies in 10 Days after Restaurant's Gun Ban

Posted 9 hours ago by Dave Jolly


When is the last time you heard of an armed robbery or shooting in a gun friendly zone? All of the school shootings, including the latest in Santa Barbara, took place in gun free zones. The shootings at Fort Hood also took place on gun free zones, believe it or not. Yes, most of our military bases are gun free zones except for military police and weapons training.

Any intelligent person should see the pattern of shootings and armed robberies do occur in gun free zones. The last thing you would expect them to do is ban guns from their business and then post signs telling all would be shooters or robbers what they did.

Jack in the Box fast food restaurants is among those that fail to see what’s happened elsewhere and decided to repeat the same mistake that others have made.

It all started several weeks ago with an open carry protest in Texas. A number of the protesters, still openly carrying their sidearms then went to a Jack in the Box restaurant to eat. Supposedly it frightened guests and employees who called the police, making a big deal out of nothing illegal.

Once the incident hit the news, anti-gun groups like Moms Demand Action, crawled out of their anti-Second Amendment corners and launched a blitz of anti-gun rhetoric at the open carry protesters and Jack in the Box. As a result, Brian Luscomb, Vice President of Corporate Communications for Jack in the Box issued the following statement:

“Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.”

Within 10 days of their announcement, 3 Jack in the Box restaurants were held up at gunpoint. In Houston, 4 men wearing masks and gloves held employees and customers at gunpoint as they robbed them all.

It seems that Jack in the Box has set themselves up to be the victims of armed robberies by asking guests to keep their guns outside. Before caving into the anti-gun whiners, they should have looked back at what happened in a Houston Denny’s restaurant last August.

A couple was having an early morning breakfast (4am). The wife had gone to the restroom, but when she emerged, she saw her husband lying on the floor of the restaurant with six armed robbers around him. She did what all good law abiding citizens should do in this situation when she pulled out her gun and started shooting at the men. The gunmen returned fire before leaving the restaurant.

Police said that no one was hurt in the shootout, but several cars in the parking lot were hit. The men fled the scene in a car with only some jewelry they managed to steal before facing the pistol packin’ wife. She did get a description of the car and the license plate which she gave to the police.

If more responsible law abiding people carried guns and used them like this lady did, we might actually see a reduction in gun related crimes. However, with more and more businesses announcing that they are going gun free, I’m certain we’ll see more gun related crimes committed in these ‘safe’ places. I wonder how many more armed robberies it will take for Jack in the Box executives to reconsider their policy?

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15707/3...syuiQrc2LGD.99

“Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.”

Gee think they still get that warm and fuzzy feeling eating there now???
Stupid is as stupid does...

Congressman Proposes Cutting off Funding DOJ Program that’s Crushing Gun & Ammo Dealers

Suzanne Hamner 3 hours ago

By now we have all heard about Operation Choke Point. It is the latest program initiated by the lawless, criminal Department of "In"Justice where pressure is exerted on banking institutions to cease providing services to business considered "high risk." It has been reported these "high risk" businesses include gun and ammo dealers, coin dealers and payday lenders – all legal, legitimate businesses operating within the law. Earlier in the year, it was reported that banks were denying services to adult film stars because of their industry.

Missouri Republican Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer proposes to give the DOJ a dose of its own medicine by "choking" off the funding for this program. Luetkemeyer attached an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill that recently passed the House to stop the DOJ from using intimidation tactics to force banks to cease services to legitimate businesses.

Speaking about Operation Choke Point, Luetkemeyer stated, "What it does is go after an entire industry, whether it's obeying the law or not. And that's just wrong."
The amendment followed a report released by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform that claimed "Operation Choke Point has forced banks to terminate relationships with a wide variety of entirely lawful and legitimate merchants."
According to The Daily Caller:

This happens because the anti-fraud initiative, which is operated by the Department of Justice which works in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, forces banks to more closely monitor their business relationships with companies in industries deemed "high risk."

Banks can suffer "reputational risk" by failing to spot fraudulent practices.

Luetkemeyer says this has a chilling effect in forcing banks to be over cautious.
"'They are operating legally, and yet Operation Choke Point is not there to go after the bad actors, which I support them doing,' he said, adding, 'the problem I have with Operation Choke Point is it goes one step further.'"

Businesses that have been wrongly ensnared by the DOJ's aggressive program include gun sellers, ammunition sellers, coin dealers, tobacco sellers, career repair service providers and many other legitimate businesses.

Last week, The Washington Times reported that the owner of Powderhorn Outfitters, a Hyannis, Massachusetts gun seller, claimed a line of credit would not be extended to him by his longtime banker, TD Bank, because he sold guns.

According to Luetkemeyer, the DOJ is using what amounts to intimidation tactics on banking institutions to force them into ceasing business relationships to long term customers in many cases, which Leutkemeyer states is wrong.

The amendment is simple, reading "none of the funds made available in the CJS appropriations bill may be used to carry out Operation Choke Point."

Leutkemeyer contends this is just a first attempt in curbing the problem he terms "the nonsense of government overreach." In speaking with the Daily Caller, Leutkemeyer said he has spoken with the DOJ about "providing a safe harbor for banks to continue doing business with legal and legitimate companies, but the agency has not listened." As a result of the department's deaf ear, Luetkemeyer stands firm in stating this program has to be stopped.

"'This is picking and choosing winners and losers," Luetkemeyer told the Daily Caller.'"

Everyone in America should know by now this program has nothing to do with targeting illegal, illegitimate "high risk" businesses. This entire program is the back door unilateral agenda of Obama in order to enact gun control. If gun and ammunition sellers do not have a financial institution with which to do business, these legal, legitimate businesses will go out of business, meaning that no citizen who is endowed with the God-given right to bear arms will be able to purchase arms and ammunition. Without ammunition, a firearm is useless.

This is the latest and greatest abuse of power exhibited by the DOJ headed by Eric Holder. While there has been no law passed, officially, by Congress curtailing Second Amendment rights, this is an end run around Congress to disarm the citizenry and part of the playbook used by Obama and his ilk toward a totalitarian, tyrannical dictatorship. Fortunately, some in Congress are paying attention; but, it may be too little, too late. The question is will this "amendment" even cause a skip in the step of the DOJ in their efforts. Based on the past behavior of how this administration views laws and amendments, one can assume Holder and the DOJ will spend their appropriations how they see fit with the robust approval of Obama himself.

Commenting on this abuse of power by the DOJ, committee Chairman Darrell Issa said, "If the administration believes some businesses should be out of business, they should prosecute them before a judge and jury. By forcibly conscripting banks to do their bidding, the Justice Department has avoided any review and any check on their power."
Issa's comments are noble. However, Americans know how Obama, his Department heads and their agencies feel about the law – it's a nuisance and hindrance to their agenda, unworthy of following except when it suits them in their favor. It is blatant inequity of the law which has somehow almost become accepted as standard operating procedure. At least, anyone seriously looking would believe so.

While Congressmen are raising objections now, where were those objections when the first blatant violations of the Constitution and the law under this administration started? Where was Congress when previous administration's violated the Constitution and the law? As the old saying goes, "give someone an inch and they'll take a mile." Precedents have been set and continue to be set.

Congress has ceased being a check on the presidential power to the point it is useless; rendered to nothing more than a bunch of talking heads spouting the sideshow advertisements during hearings that are dog and pony shows. Government officials refuse to cooperate with any oversight committee or provide requested documents resulting in these officials being held in contempt of Congress with impunity. Some, like Lois Lerner, are allowed to retire with benefits, I'm sure.

Welcome to the UDA – the United Dictatorship of America? How do you like your tyranny?

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/co...VBguvThIykq.99


UPDATE

House votes to defund Justice Dept. program that targeted legitimate gun dealers

by Kelly Riddell, The Washington Times | published on May 31, 2014


The House of Representatives passed an amendment Thursday to stop all federal funding to be used for the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point, an anti-fraud operation that was found to be cutting off legitimate businesses from their banking lines.

“This is a major victory for consumers, law-abiding businesses, and anyone who believes in due process and restraint of government encroachment,” said the Community Financial Services Association of America, a trade group opposed to the operation, in a statement Friday. “Additionally, our banking system benefits as it will not be put in the position to police customers or make judgments about the political popularity of businesses and industries.”

The amendment was brought to the floor by Rep. Blane Luetkemeyer, a Republican from Missouri, who is a member of the House Financial Services Committee and is vice chairman of the House Small Business Committee. The amendment was sponsored by three democrats and two more republicans.

The voice vote came as part of the debate on the annual spending bill for the Justice Department and needs Senate approval to become law.

Read the full article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/30/house-votes-to-defund-doj-program-that-snagged-leg/

Read more at 1776 Coalition: http://www.1776coalition.com/feature...#ixzz33PZEUylD

Emma Watson Brings Armed Guard To “Gun-Free” Brown University Graduation

May 31, 2014

Maybe they were expecting a Lord Voldemort attack or perhaps it’s just an example of being part of the privileged class. Whatever the case, actress Emma Watson had an armed guard with her during her graduation ceremony at Brown University yesterday.

Watson, most famous for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies, was seen in the company of a much older woman as she received her degree in English literature. Clearly this older woman wasn’t a student but oddly she was dressed in a cap and gown as if she was part of the graduating class.

Fox News reports that later on, this same older woman was seen escorting Watson minus the cap and gown but plus a holstered handgun, badge and other equipment. The Providence PD, where Brown is located, has stated that the woman is not an officer with their department. So what we have here is an armed bodyguard for a “special” person on a college campus that is supposed to be a gun free zone.

When asked if this mystery undercover bodyguard was part of the Brown University campus security, representative Mark Nickel said he could not answer any questions and was unable to help.

One of two things is going on here. Either Brown approved this armed presence and they don’t want to seem like hypocrites or they found out about it later and don’t want to take action against such a famous graduate. Either way, this is elitism at its finest. There’s one rule for regular schlubs and another for rich and important people.

Emma Watson Brings Armed Guard To “Gun-Free” Brown University Graduation [continued]

Emma Watson Brings Armed Guard To “Gun-Free” Brown University Graduation

By Brian Anderson on May 28, 2014 | Subscribe to Brian Anderson's feed |



Maybe they were expecting a Lord Voldemort attack or perhaps it’s just an example of being part of the privileged class. Whatever the case, actress Emma Watson had an armed guard with her during her graduation ceremony at Brown University yesterday.

Watson, most famous for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies, was seen in the company of a much older woman as she received her degree in English literature. Clearly this older woman wasn’t a student but oddly she was dressed in a cap and gown as if she was part of the graduating class.

Fox News reports that later on, this same older woman was seen escorting Watson minus the cap and gown but plus a holstered handgun, badge and other equipment. The Providence PD, where Brown is located, has stated that the woman is not an officer with their department. So what we have here is an armed bodyguard for a “special” person on a college campus that is supposed to be a gun free zone.


When asked if this mystery undercover bodyguard was part of the Brown University campus security, representative Mark Nickel said he could not answer any questions and was unable to help.

One of two things is going on here. Either Brown approved this armed presence and they don’t want to seem like hypocrites or they found out about it later and don’t want to take action against such a famous graduate. Either way, this is elitism at its finest. There’s one rule for regular schlubs and another for rich and important people.

There probably aren’t too many Brown students from working class families, but for argument’s sake, let’s suppose one of them was there on a special scholarship. Now imagine that this average Joe or Jane showed up to graduation with a loaded pistol just for personal protection. There would be a lockdown, the SWAT team would be called in, and that student would be looking at years behind bars.

A famous person shows up with an armed guard, just for personal protection, and it’s like nothing ever happened. The gun-free zone only applies to those not fortunate enough to have been born into money or who have never starred in a string of blockbuster movies.

Maybe we should reframe the gun control debate as class warfare. It is the rich elites on the left that are trying to disarm the American people. All the while, they enjoy armed protection and privileges that most people can’t afford. The way regular people defend themselves is through gun ownership and the ability to carry their weapons.

In California where it is nearly impossible to get a concealed weapons permit (for now) millionaire Senator Dianne Feinstein had no problem getting one because she is considered to be important. And though she likes the idea of packing heat for herself, she spends considerable time and effort trying to deny the rest of Americans their right to do the same.

Is there a clause in the Constitution that gives rich and famous people extra rights that the rest of us don’t get? Civil rights are natural and inborn and should not be dependant upon the size of one’s bank account.

When I see the lefty anti-gun zealots decrying Georgia’s “guns everywhere” law it makes me furious because the elites like Emma Watson already enjoy armed personal protection wherever they go.


http://downtrend.com/71superb/emma-w...ty-graduation/

Read more at http://libertycrier.com/emma-watson-...HSlJ5RxAsA0.99


Guns for me but not for thee!!!

Tulsa Chipotle Kicks out Anti-Gunners "Moms Demand Action" for Rude Behavior

David Risselada 5 hours ago

Sometimes when shady plans backfire, they backfire really well. This was definitely the case on Saturday May 31st in Tulsa Oklahoma, as The Oklahoma Open Carry Association met Moms Demand Action for the first time.

The anti-gun group requested a booth at the local farmers market and was denied, so they set up shop right on the outskirts of the downtown Tulsa event in order to gather signatures. They were a bit surprised when members of The Oklahoma Open Carry Association approached them to ask some questions. As is usually the case when dealing with liberals, the questions we asked went unanswered as the host of their event, (who incidentally, didn't look like that much of a mom seeing as though he was a man) deflected the questions and attempted to change the subject, ridicule and even accuse us of wanting to start a war with the police. This came about because he made it perfectly clear that he didn't want to be in any public establishment with citizens carrying handguns in the open. He was alluding to his belief that we are just a bunch of untrained rednecks that simply shoot indiscriminately in all directions just to prove how big our egos are.

This is when yours truly cited some statistics concerning the fact that police actually kill more innocent people than concealed carry holders. As noted above, he responded by accusing us of wanting to start a war with the police. All we were trying to do is find out how their plans would ensure criminals surrendered their weapons while simultaneously protecting our rights.

It was funny that he accused us of such hog wash because later, a Tulsa Police Officer agreed to allow us to pose around his police car after telling us he supports citizens openly carrying firearms. The officer had stopped to talk to us, of course, because ignorant people called them; though it appears more people were concerned about the service dog being in the farmers market than our guns. This is Oklahoma after all.

What happened next is the true sound of sweet justice. Moms demand Action has been making headlines as they have launched a campaign to pressure restaurants and other local businesses to turn away customers exercising their rights to carry. Many have capitulated, Starbucks for one, and now Chili's is considering asking patrons to leave their guns at home as well.

Oklahoma Open Carry had received word that MDA was going to go to the local Chipotle's for lunch, so they decided to meet them there. Chipotle restaurants in Oklahoma have officially taken the position that they would rather see people leave their guns at home, but they won't ask you to leave if you don't; after all, in Oklahoma it is legal to openly carry, so they at least respect the law and your rights.

Moms Demand Action on the other hand, seemed to be demanding a little much on this Saturday afternoon as they approached management and asked them to throw OKOCA members out of the restaurant because they were "offended" by the presence of guns.

To be honest, we were expecting this, and we figured that we would be asked to leave; but what happened next was nothing less than awesome. The manager refused to kick out OKOCA and even gave them free drinks. MDA activists then proceeded to take pictures of the gun owners and attempted to portray them as intimidating and threatening. The management wasn't having any of it; he threw Moms Demand Action out of his store!

I conducted an interview with the manager, and while I asked him if I could quote him directly, he asked that I do not. He said that he wasn't going to have people treating paying customers rudely in his store. They simply do not allow customers to take pictures of other customers; it's a "zero tolerance" policy if you will. He also said that he has no position on open carry, and he understands that it is legal to carry in the state. Finally, he acknowledged that people behaving in the manner as MDA had in his store was actually more harmful to people than the act of lawfully carrying a firearm.

The funny thing about all of this was the fact that these people really have no idea what the true cause of a "mass shooting" is. They really believe that passing more laws is the answer to stopping criminals who already break "existing laws." It is the one issue that never gets addressed with a liberal, as they always attempt to redirect with their "Alinsky" tactics, in an attempt to make you appear irrational.

It's a shame when anyone is murdered; and it is equally shameful when they are murdered by a knife, a baseball bat, a car, an axe, a broken beer bottle, a hammer, or someone's bare hands for that matter, as it is when someone uses a gun. What's even more shameful, however, is when uninformed people with an agenda try to render an innocent individual powerless to prevent themselves from being murdered?

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/tu...mWcZ0jL5eYh.99

What's even more shameful, however, is when uninformed people with an agenda try to render an innocent individual powerless to prevent themselves from being murdered?

Comprande'

Not sure if it is shameful, or criminal, but I do know it is "Stupid is as Stupid Does"!!!

Another Fail For Bloomberg’s Gun Control Spending Strategy

August 14, 2014 by Ben Bullard

Another state-level candidate has failed to cross the finish line, this time in a sheriff’s race pitting a candidate backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg against the incumbent sheriff.

Bloomberg-backed Chris Moews, a lieutenant with the Milwaukee Police Department, lost to incumbent sheriff David Clarke in the Milwaukee County Democratic primary election. Bloomberg had donated $150,000 to Moews’ campaign. Clarke won the election with 52 percent of the vote; Moews took 48 percent. Since no Republican is running this fall, Clarke secured another term as sheriff with his Aug. 12 primary win.

The money came via Bloomberg’s Independence USA super PAC. His involvement in the local election had everything to do with guns. And his intervention, late in the campaign season, carried the Milwaukee County sheriff’s race into the national spotlight.

From an article Wednesday at The Washington Post’s conservative “Volokh Conspiracy” blog:

The race attracted national attention last week when Michael Bloomberg put $150,000 into the campaign against Sheriff Clarke — more than the total combined campaign spending by Sheriff Clarke and his primary opponent Chris Moews.

…Sheriff Clarke has urged Milwaukee citizens to arm themselves for lawful self-defense. One method of disseminating this message was public service radio advertising in early 2013, paid for from the Sheriff’s Office budget.

This April, Sheriff Clarke spoke at the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting in Indianapolis — denouncing Michael Bloomberg, and recounting incidents in which armed citizens had saved lives.

Clarke had bought radio ads encouraging people to arm themselves against a rise in violent crime, touting Wisconsin’s Personal Protection Act and encouraging residents to “[c]onsider taking a certified safety course in handling of firearms, so you can defend yourself until we [law enforcement] get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

http://personalliberty.com/another-f...ding-strategy/