• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

NRA/ILA Alerts

S

SHOOTER13

Guest
Sunday Hunting Legislation Will be Heard in Senate Committee

The Senate Game and Fisheries Committee has scheduled a hearing for May 18 to discuss Senate Bill 1070, legislation that would repeal the ban on Sunday hunting.

The prohibition on Sunday hunting is an old blue law left on the books in just a handful of states. Although Pennsylvania does allow limited opportunities to varmint hunt on Sundays, a large sector of the hunting population continues to be ignored.

This concept of expanding hunting on Sundays is not a novel idea. Current law gives a select group of private landowners, whose property is enrolled as a noncommercial regulated hunting ground, the privilege to hunt all game in season on Sundays. This law amounts to tens of thousands of acres being hunted on Sundays by landowners who can afford to own and enroll their 100+ acre plots as a noncommercial regulated hunting ground.

This exemption, which became law more than a decade ago, only allows those who own large tracts of land the pleasure of hunting on Sundays, while continuing to deny the majority of Pennsylvania hunters the same freedom.

Because of the current general prohibition, many hunters are prevented from introducing their children or friends to hunting because they are competing with organized sports and other activities on Saturday, which is currently their only opportunity to hunt outside of the work week. Countless hunters stop hunting because of the lack of opportunity, time restrictions and accessible land. The addition of an extra day in the field, especially on the weekend, increases the opportunity for those individuals to experience hunting.

SB 1070 would allow the Pennsylvania Game Commission to regulate hunting opportunities on designated Sundays as they do for every other day of the week. This legislation would undoubtedly invigorate essential hunter recruitment and retention efforts—key factors in preserving Pennsylvania’s hunting heritage for future generations to come.
 
Pennsylvania: Sunday Hunting Legislation Gathering Momentum After Senate Committee Hearing
Thursday, May 19, 2016

Yesterday, May 18, the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee held a hearing to discuss legislation that would repeal the ban on Sunday hunting. The groups that were invited to testify consisted of two panels - in support and in opposition to the proposal. Testifying in support of the measure were the National Rifle Association, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
View Related Articles

While the overall feedback from members of the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee was promising, a decision was not made during the hearing. We ask that you continue to contact members of the Game and Fisheries Committees and urge them to support repealing the ban on Sunday hunting. Please click the “Take Action” button below to contact members of the Senate and House Game and Fisheries Committees and urge them to support Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 1374.



The prohibition on Sunday hunting is an old blue law left on the books in just a handful of states. Although Pennsylvania does allow limited opportunities to varmint hunt on Sundays, a large sector of the hunting population continues to be ignored.

This concept of expanding hunting on Sundays is not a novel idea. Current law gives a select group of private landowners, whose property is enrolled as a noncommercial regulated hunting ground, the privilege to hunt all game in season on Sundays. This law amounts to tens of thousands of acres being hunted on Sundays by landowners who can afford to own and enroll their 100+ acre plots as a noncommercial regulated hunting ground. This exemption, which became law more than a decade ago, only allows those who own large tracts of land the pleasure of hunting on Sundays, while continuing to deny the majority of Pennsylvania hunters the same freedom.

Because of the current general prohibition, many hunters are prevented from introducing their children or friends to hunting because they are competing with organized sports and other activities on Saturday, which is currently their only opportunity to hunt outside of the work week. Countless hunters stop hunting because of the lack of opportunity, time restrictions and accessible land. The addition of an extra day in the field, especially on the weekend, increases the opportunity for those individuals to experience hunting. SB 1070 and HB 1374 would allow the Pennsylvania Game Commission to regulate hunting opportunities on designated Sundays as they do for every other day of the week. This legislation would undoubtedly invigorate essential hunter recruitment and retention efforts—key factors in preserving Pennsylvania’s hunting heritage for future generations to come.

Once again, please click on the “Take Action” button above to contact members of the Senate and House Game and Fisheries Committees and politely urge them to support SB 1070 and HB 1374.
 
Pennsylvania: House Judiciary Committee to Consider NICS Background Check System Legislation

Next week, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has scheduled a possible vote on House Bill 921, sponsored by Speaker of the House, Mike Turzai (HD28-R). This important legislation would eliminate the current Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) as well as the current handgun record of sale and replace it with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Please contact the House Judiciary Committee members in support of HB 921

Under the NICS system, licensed dealers contact the FBI, via a toll-free telephone number to run a check of computerized criminal history and mental health records at the point of sale for firearm purchases. Upon confirmation that the purchaser has no prohibiting criminal or mental health record, the purchaser may take possession of the firearm.

Since its inception in 1998, PICS has cost Pennsylvania tax payers nearly 120 million dollars to conduct background checks on gun purchasers in the Keystone State.

By replacing the system with NICS, taxpayers in Pennsylvania would be relieved of a burdensome, duplicative process and would be able to take advantage of the more efficient federal system. Currently, thirty-five states solely utilize the NICS system for all firearm background checks.
 
I'm not counting on this going anywhere...Wolf will never sign it. I don't know why they didn't pass this when the republicans controlled the governors office too? I'll call my rep as always but I'm not holding my breath. The anti's over at CeasefirePA hate this so it must be good.
 
Wolf is a bean counter...and he may like the savings to PA... if the FBI NICS takes over...it IS the same background check after all.
 
It was held over in committee today which I believe means "put a fork into it...it's done". CeasefirePA is crowing pretty good about their amazing victory.

The only plus I know of with PICS is that the state police are immediately notified when a prohibited person attempts a purchase and they frequently can get to the LGS and make an on the spot arrest. This is versus the feds who have a 1% prosecution rate for this crime. Still, I'd rather do away with PICS and see the feds actually enforce the laws they say we need more of.
 
Pennsylvania: Legislature Leaves Firearms Preemption Legislation in Limbo

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Yesterday, both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly chose to delay votes on the two critical preemption bills that are pending in the legislature. Legislators are now on recess until Monday, October 17.

With only six days left in the 2016 legislative session, it is imperative that you contact your state legislators and urge them to support both Senate Bill 1330 and House Bill 2258. It is important that one of these bills makes it to the Governor's desk.

Please click the “Take Action” button below to contact your state legislators!



Gun owners across the Keystone state have waited long enough for this much-needed reform as they continue to be unduly burdened by local ordinances which violate the current state firearm preemption law.

Citizens with no criminal intent should not be placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don`t even know exist simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another.

Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down ACT 192 – Firearm Preemption Legislation - for violation of the “single subject” rule for legislative process.

Both SB 1330 and HB 2258, if again enacted into law, would strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption law to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout the state.

Time is crucial... Please click the “Take Action” button above to contact your state legislators in support of Senate Bill 1330 and House Bill 2258 !!
 
This is needed but unfortunately there is no way that Tom "Obama-lite" will sign the law even if they pass it.
 
. . . Citizens with no criminal intent should not be placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don`t even know exist, simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another . . .

This has been a problem since the first traveler hopped on his donkey and took off for Parts Unknown. He accidentally parked in a "no donkey zone" in the next town because the sign was in a different language, and the rest is history.

The law is so imperfect, but it seems they want Perfection from us, regardless of whether it's practical or not. This is one of the factors that's driving Society crazy.

You cannot legally handle a loaded gun inside of a car in California, regardless of your CCW status. Think about what that means if you must come out of the office in the dark at night.

Are you going to stand there in the dark and unload your gun and put it in the trunk?

The idiots that write the laws have made human life increasingly impractical in every respect. I don't think we would recognize the society that my great-grandchildren are going to live in, because it will be inhabited by people driven insane by the requirements of Modern Life.
 
Pennsylvania: Contact your State Legislators in Support of Important Preemption Legislation:

With only six days left in the 2016 legislative session, it is imperative that you contact your state legislators and urge them to support both Senate Bill 1330 and House Bill 2258.

Gun owners across the Keystone state have waited long enough for this much-needed reform as they continue to be unduly burdened by local ordinances which violate the current state firearm preemption law. Citizens with no criminal intent should not be placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don`t even know exist simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another.

Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down ACT 192 – Firearm Preemption Legislation - for violation of the “single subject” rule for legislative process. Both SB 1330 and HB 2258, if again enacted into law, would strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption law to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout the state.

https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1338
 
Political Victory Fund Ratings and Endorsements:

With Election Day less than a month away and early voting already underway in several states, it is critical that NRA members and Second Amendment supporters get out and vote for their Second Amendment rights on or before November 8th !!

To find out which candidates will defend your individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Please visit: www.nrapvf.org.

Hillary Clinton and anti-gun politicians have made one thing clear this election cycle: The Second Amendment is on the ballot. That is a fact.

What’s more, we know for certain that Hillary Clinton, if elected president, would nominate anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now is the time to send Hillary Clinton and all anti-gun politicians a resounding message: The Second Amendment is here to stay !!

So get out and vote on November 8th !!

And be sure to check for candidate information in your area !!

 
Pennsylvania: (Example)

Presidential - President/Vice President
checkbox-on.png

badge-nra-approved.png

Donald Trump/Mike Pence
Candidate (R)

====================

US Senate
C
checkbox-off.png

*Pat Toomey
Incumbent (R)

F
checkbox-off.png

Katie McGinty
Candidate (D)

====================

Statewide - Attorney General
A-
checkbox-on.png

badge-nra-approved.png

John C. Rafferty, Jr.
Candidate (R)

D
checkbox-off.png

Joshua D. Shapiro
Candidate (D)


Visit the site and check YOUR Politicians ratings...
 
Do vote early when you can. I don't think I will be changing my mind at all for any of the candidates or issues so I will probably vote early.

And what happens if you die? Don't you want your vote to count? Right before my dad passed away about 12 years ago, we got him an absentee ballot because he was bedridden. Helped him fill it out and got it in the mail before he died.
 
Pennsylvania: Contact your State Representative in support of SB 1330 !!

Yesterday, the Senate passed Senate Bill 1330 with a 30-19 vote.

SB 1330 will now go to the House of Representatives for consideration.

It is crucial that you reach out to your state Representative and urge them to support SB 1330 !!

Also, if your state Senator voted in opposition to SB 1330 yesterday, it is important that you contact them and express your disappointment in their opposition to this important legislation.

Gun owners across the Keystone state have waited long enough for this much-needed reform as they continue to be unduly burdened by local ordinances which violate the current state firearm preemption law.

Citizens with no criminal intent should not be placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don't even know exist simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another.
 
Hillary Clinton is lying … again.

The candidate who claimed politicians “need both a public and a private position” on policy issues demonstrated that tendency Wednesday night in the final presidential debate in a desperate bid for damage control on a statement she made in a private meeting with wealthy donors.

That earlier statement was simple, uncomplicated, and utterly damning to anyone who believes in the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton told the very people who she depends on to fund her political ambitions: “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

As a Yale-educated attorney, Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she made that remark. But it doesn’t take a lawyer to understand the contempt it demonstrates for the right to keep and bear arms.

At the time Clinton made that statement in September 2015, the Supreme Court had decided only two cases under Second Amendment during the 21st Century.

The first was District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. That case concerned two aspects of D.C. law. One effectively banned the possession of handguns within private homes. The other effectively required all types of firearms to be kept in an unusable condition within a person’s own residence.

The Supreme Court held that both of the restrictions offended the Second Amendment. Along the way, it debunked the District’s argument that the Second Amendment protects only a “collective” right for states to maintain their own militias, rather than a right individuals can raise on their own behalf.

The very modest proposition to arise from Heller is that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep handguns and other commonly-possessed firearms in their homes in a usable state for self-defense.

Two years later, the Supreme Court expanded upon the Heller decision in a case involving a handgun ban in Chicago. There, the court invalidated the Chicago ban and confirmed that the protection of the Second Amendment applies not only to federal restrictions, like the ones in D.C., but those passed by state and local governments as well.

Hillary Clinton was well aware of this when she declared the Supreme Court “wrong” on the Second Amendment. Her audience understood the significance of her remarks as well, cheering and applauding her promise to “take on the NRA.”

Later, Clinton doubled down on her rhetoric, describing Heller as a “terrible” decision. And as of June, she was still unable to bring herself to acknowledge the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Clinton has more recently been forced to walk an increasingly awkward line as her campaign has reached beyond her donors and primary supporters to the broader America public. Distancing herself from her privately expressed opinion, Clinton has since publicly asserted that she is “not looking to repeal the Second Amendment” and is “not looking to take people’s guns away.”

Nevertheless, her own campaign website continues to call for a ban on “military-style assault weapons,” which is simply her unflattering term for AR-15s and the like, America’s most popular rifles. In other words, even as she’s insisting she doesn’t want to take away Americans’ guns, she’s promoting a ban on the very types of rifles Americans choose over all others.

That’s what ordinary people – the kind Clinton refers to as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” – call a lie.

Yet Clinton’s performance at Wednesday’s debate was perhaps her most mind-bending and dishonest attempt yet to distort her position on the Second Amendment.

When directly confronted with her statement that the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment,” Clinton created an entirely new storyline to explain the inexcusable.
 
An entirely new storyline. A routine Clinton tactic.

Clinton began her answer by disingenuously claiming to “support the Second Amendment.” She was, of course, unable to offer any evidence from her four decades in public life and government employment to support this comment. And, indeed, she then went on to recite a non-exhaustive litany of the gun controls she would pursue as president.

She continued:

View Related Articles

You mentioned the Heller decision. And what I was saying that you referenced … was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn't accept that reasonable regulation, but they've accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people's lives and defending the Second Amendment.

Clinton’s answer was not only dishonest, it was inaccurate in almost all its particulars.

First, the District’s ban didn’t just require safe storage to prevent access by toddlers. It made possessing a loaded, usable firearm in the home – including for self-defense – a crime. The crime did not require proof of access by children or even proof that children were present in the home. Clinton’s answer also seemed suspiciously coincidental with a recent, dubious media blitz on firearm accidents among children.

D.C.’s requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and disabled, which Clinton now claims to endorse, was also far from “reasonable.” It made even lawfully-owned guns useless for what the Supreme Court identified as their “core” purpose under the Second Amendment: self-defense.

It’s simply incredible that Clinton can claim to “support” the Second Amendment, while at the same time insisting that the government should be able to make loading a gun a crime.

Finally, the Supreme Court has not “accepted many” forms of gun control. The Supreme Court has not upheld any form of gun control since Heller and McDonald were decided. It has yet, in fact, to hear another case on firearms regulation. And in the entirety of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decided only one case under the Second Amendment, holding the defendant had failed to prove his claim that a short-barreled shotgun should receive Second Amendment protection.

Yet even taken at face value, Clinton’s comments should be enough to put gun owners on notice of what sort of Second Amendment “support” they could expect from a Clinton presidency. A gun the government requires to be unloaded is as useless as a Second Amendment that does not protect individuals.

The bottom line – whether you consider her “private” or “public” position – is that Hillary Clinton’s own words clearly establish that she is no friend to gun owners and dismisses the Second Amendment as any obstacle to gun control.
 
THIS IS WHAT SHE THINKS OF YOU AND YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS:

More emails from Hillary Clinton campaign staffers were made public by WikiLeaks this week, granting insight into the campaign’s deceptive attacks on your rights and the extent to which Clinton is in league with the country’s most powerful anti-gun forces. Further, the emails provide more information about Clinton’s insistence on pursuing gun control by executive order.

View Related Articles

Medium.com purports to be “a community of readers and writers offering unique perspectives on ideas large and small.” However, there’s nothing unique about the perspective of a January 12 item purportedly authored by a gun control advocate who was the victim of domestic violence. In fact, according to leaked emails, the piece was authored by Clinton campaign consultants and planted on Medium.com by campaign staff.

On January 8, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta forwarded an email titled, “Draft medium post on guns.” The author of the original email is not clear from the WikiLeaks archive. The email states, in part:
Hey everyone –

Ron Klain wrote a riff for HRC and sent it to Teddy on guns. We thought it could make a strong Medium post from someone who could really speak to this issue (not HRC and not someone on our campaign).

Here's the draft, which I edited and can personalize depending on who we want to use as an author. A survivor of gun violence? An advocate or family member?

If we can find someone, and if folks want, we could get this posted today to Medium in someone's name (not us). Here it is, let me know your thoughts!

The email goes on to provide a draft of the commentary.

Ronald Klain is a prominent Democratic operative who served as the chief of staff to both Vice President Al Gore and Vice President Joe Biden. Most recently, Klain has consulted on the Clinton campaign.

From the email, it appears Klain developed an anti-gun commentary intended to be used by Clinton herself. However, the campaign seemed to have thought the item would carry more weight if it appeared under the name of someone outside the campaign who had a history with the issue.

The plan outlined in this email was carried out, as on January 12 a piece titled “I’m With Hillary” was posted to Medium.com with Clai Lasher listed as its author. Lasher was shot by her stepfather in 1970 and is a survivor engagement lead at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Just as the email suggested, portions of the piece were personalized for Lasher. The majority of Klain’s commentary was not altered.
This incident should prompt the public to question just how much of the pro-Clinton content appearing in the media has been directly orchestrated by the Clinton campaign itself.

Recently released emails also give more insight into the unsavory nature of the Clinton campaign’s attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The emails show that Clinton’s anti-Sanders messaging was tailored to the racial background of the target audience. In a February 7 email exchange between Democratic consultant Mandy Grunwald and Clinton campaign staff, potential attacks on Sanders were discussed.

Specifically, the emails contemplated using the gun issue to attack Sanders’ support among African Americans. In one email, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote, “We may need to use guns tactically in the AA community--just like we'll have tactical skirmishes on crime bill, etc.”

During the Democratic primaries, Sanders called on Clinton to produce the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton refused, but WikiLeaks obtained the transcripts and has made them available to the public. While much of the speeches address financial and foreign policy, during a June 4, 2013 question and answer session with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Clinton used the forum to take a swipe at NRA.

Despite NRA being a nonpartisan organization that routinely supports candidates across the political spectrum, Clinton blamed NRA, in part, for what she perceived is an increase in partisanship that stymied her preferred agenda. In doing so, Clinton gave a ham-handed retelling of an instance where NRA pursued the best interests of our members by supporting the opponent of a Tennessee lawmaker that had obstructed the passage of important Right-to-Carry legislation. Clinton characterized NRA’s vigorous defense of the rights of the state’s gun owners as unreasonable.

With respect to selecting a running mate, the emails have a tale to tell here as well. In Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Clinton chose a running-mate with a 20 year record of unwavering support for severe gun control. However, a March 17 email written by Podesta shows that several of the other candidates for the position were equally hostile to the Second Amendment.

Among those listed was former Attorney General Eric Holder, who called the Obama administration’s inability to convince Congress to enact new gun control measure, “my single failure.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who led an anti-gun filibuster on the Senate floor in June, was also considered.
 
Back
Top