National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban

[PegLeg45]

Another group is forming from national level to state level, to fight gun bans.

I like their "NO COMPROMISE" stand.... It is time to stop giving an inch to those who will end up taking a mile and a half.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/florida-carry-national-coalition-stop-the-gun-ban/#

Florida Carry, in conjunction with other State and National groups, has formed a national coalition to defeat the Obama/Biden/Feinstein gun and magazine ban proposal.

Over 25 state and federal organizations have so far joined the “National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban,” including all of the groups listed below.

The objective of the coalition is to kill the proposals. Period.
Not to “compromise” by saddling gun owners with restrictions and whining “It was the best we could get.”

Nothing less than the complete defeat of the Obama/Biden/Feinstein proposals will suffice.

All coalition members have agreed that “compromise” is not an option; AND Coalition members launched with a coordinated “Open Letter to Members of Congress”, coordinated press releases and membership alerts.


National Organizations:

The Firearms Coalition
Gun Owners of America
Rights Watch International
Second Amendment Sisters
USRKBA.org


State Organizations:

Arizona Citizens Defense League
Arkansas Carry
Florida Carry, Inc.
Grass Roots North Carolina
Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance of Minnesota
Gun Owners of California
Gun Owners of Maine
Gun Owners of Utah
Gun Owners of Vermont
Michigan Gun Owners
Montana Shooting Sports Association
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition
New Jersey 2nd Amendment Society
Nebraska Firearms Owners Association
Oregon Firearms Federation
Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights
Utah Shooting Sports Council
Virginia Citizens Defense League
West Virginia Citizens Defense League
Western Missouri Shooters Alliance
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.


“The National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban will work to defeat all proposed federal gun control and to punish any congressional representative who supports it. We find absolutely nothing about Senator Feinstein’s proposal to be acceptable: Not banning guns, not registering guns and gun owners via the National Firearms Act, not registering private gun sales via the National Instant Check System, and most certainly not expanding BATFE police powers which are already being abused.

“’Compromise,’ as our opposition defines it, is a process in which freedom-loving Americans lose slightly less than under the original proposal. Consequently, in the most egregious attack on Second Amendment freedom in our history, we will not ‘compromise.’”


Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/florida-carry-national-coalition-stop-the-gun-ban/#ixzz2H7wEERen

Here is the link to the open letter to Congress:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/national-coalition-to-stop-the-gun-ban-open-letter-to-members-of-congress/#axzz2H7wvPuvj


In coming weeks, you will face pressure from the Obama administration and others to implement a ban on semi-automatic firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices, and to pass laws requiring private gun transfers to be processed via the National Instant Check System.

Yet the “assault weapon” misnomer is a myth perpetuated by gun control advocates who seek to confuse the public about the difference between millions of semi-automatic firearms, which are functionally identical to hunting rifles, and military “assault rifles” which are machine guns virtually unavailable to the public since implementation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The Truth About Modern Rifles

The modern rifles Senator Dianne Feinstein has, by her own admission, waited decades to ban differ from others primarily by cosmetic features such as barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, flash suppressors, pistol grips and adjustable stocks ¡V things which do not affect function. The notion being promulgated by gun control advocates that such features increase lethality by allowing guns to be “fired from the hip” is absurd: Any firearms expert will attest that rifles can only be effectively utilized from the shoulder.

Although you are being told that ammunition used by modern rifles is excessively destructive, in truth it is ballistically inferior to common .30-06 hunting ammunition and was selected by the military not for its lethality, but instead for light weight and low recoil.

And when you hear how “high capacity” magazines increase mortality in mass shootings, understand that Seung-Hui Cho carried no fewer than nineteen magazines for the Virginia Tech rampage, and that nearly all mass murderers who use guns carry multiple firearms, rendering magazine capacity moot. Like the misnomer “assault weapon”, the “high capacity” designation of more than ten rounds for magazines represents nothing more than an arbitrary limit set on devices which have been in common possession since the early Twentieth Century.

Moreover, attempts to process private gun sales through the National Instant Check System represent nothing less than a stepping stone to national gun registration; under the Clinton administration, the FBI retained NICS transaction records in violation of the Brady Act, creating a defacto national registration system.

Most outrageous, however, is Sen. Feinstein's proposal to regulate “grandfathered” modern rifles under the National Firearms Act. Doing so would not only entail registering millions of existing firearms, but would represent unprecedented expansion of police powers through the BATFE by requiring millions of gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed like common criminals.
Because a large percentage will refuse to comply, the scheme, if implemented, will make felons of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Semi-Auto Ban: No Impact On Violence
Neither have such laws been effective. From 1994 to 2004, the previous ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines had no impact on school shootings, which actually increased during that period. Indeed, some of the worst school shootings, including Columbine High School, took place during the ban. Despite predictions from gun control advocates that violent crime would increase after the ban expired, it has actually dropped: According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, between expiration of the ban in 2004 and the most recent for which data is available (2011), violent crime dropped by 17% and homicide, by 15%.
Meanwhile, weapons use in homicide has remained unchanged and, significantly, use of rifles (including those targeted for bans) declined slightly from 2.7% of homicides in 2004 to 2.5% of homicides in 2011. Clearly, rifles of any type, including those with features targeted by semi-auto bans, are rarely used in crimes.

The “Gun Free School Zones Act” increased killings What does appear to have impacted school shootings was implementation of the latest version of the “Gun Free School Zones Act” (GFSZA), which is associated with a dramatic increase in school murders. Between the first significant school shooting, in 1966, and enactment of the 1996 GFSZA, media summaries reveal 8 shootings with 134 victims killed or wounded – a rate of 4.3 victims per year. Between 1996 and 2012, the review finds 62 shootings and 367 victims – a fivefold increase to 23 victims per year. Yet, during the same period, FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicate homicide nationwide dropped by 14%.
While media summaries may not be comprehensive, the GFSZA has clearly been an abject failure. Worse, evidence suggests it may actually create “kill zones” which attract violent predators.

Researchers John Lott and William Landes, then at Yale and the University of Chicago, respectively, studied multiple victim public shootings. Said Lott, “Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not quite worked as intended” but their response has been to call for more regulation of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them.

Examining data from 1976 to 1995, they discovered that mass homicides in states adopting concealed handgun laws declined by 84%, deaths plummeted by 90% and injuries by 82.5%. Crediting the reductions to deterrence (even suicidal maniacs avoid armed victims), Lott and Landes called their findings “dramatic,” concluding: “[T]he only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.”


Coalition Position
Members of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban demand that Congress refuse to use lawful gun owners as political scapegoats and instead reduce school violence by:

Defeating any attempt to pass gun control including, but not limited to, banning semi-automatic firearms or magazines, or requiring private gun transfers to be registered through the National Instant Check System; and Repealing the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996.

No compromises Some will urge you to “compromise,” perhaps even the National Rifle Association. The many thousands of gun rights supporters represented by the Coalition, however, regard “compromise,” as our opposition defines it, to be a process in which we lose slightly fewer of our rights than under the original proposal.
Consequently, any legislation which registers or bans firearms; limits magazine capacity; registers private transactions through NICS; or restricts time, place or manner of self-defense is unacceptable.

Members of Congress who support gun owners by opposing all gun control will, in turn, benefit from support by Coalition organizations.

Members of Congress who support gun control by any means, procedural or substantive, will be targeted for defeat by Coalition members. They will be subject to picketing, leaflet drops at events in their districts, phone and mail campaigns, and political action committee opposition. NRA ratings and endorsements will have no impact on Coalition actions.

In coming weeks, we look forward to working with you to reduce school violence by allowing lawful citizens in schools and elsewhere to defend themselves against violent predators.

Respectfully,

The National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban

[pioneer]

It is a two-edged sword.  No compromise is another way of saying all or nothing.  Sometimes, you wind up with nothing.  In today's knee-jerk congress, with spineless Republican politicians and robotic Democrat socialists, don't hold your breath they will suddenly see the light.

[tombogan03884]

It is a two-edged sword.  No compromise is another way of saying all or nothing.  Sometimes, you wind up with nothing.  In today's knee-jerk congress, with spineless Republican politicians and robotic Democrat socialists, don't hold your breath they will suddenly see the light.

That's only relevant if you rely solely on the political process .
With about 150 MILLION gun owners in the nation we do have other options.

[Solus]

In the past, we lost so much by compromising.  Letting them take a small step to ward off fighting them over a larger step.

It is not a compromise to take small steps towards our goals. 

And taking the small steps as we can get them in no way precludes working for larger steps too.

Only if we take the attitude of all or nothing, getting it all right now, and refuse to accept the small step as we can get them, do we increase risk coming up dry.

[PegLeg45]

Several different angles at play.

Yes, you can gamble and lose big in the end by taking a 'no compromise' attitude if you are trying to both keep what you have and take a lot more to boot.

Or, you can have a 'no compromise' stance when taking a stand against those who are trying to take what you have already fought for over the last 20 years, such as CCW rights and the sunset of the 1994 AWB.


But, but some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say, "No more infringements."

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

No one ever won a fight by defensive tactics alone.
Holding onto what they have not taken yet is the tactic of a loser .
"Shall not be infringed" means what it says and any one who is not willing to fight for what is theirs does not deserve any rights .
Is any one here fool enough to believe that Obama would be as bold as he is if the people had guts enough to tell FDR "F*ck you, we ain't registering our machine guns, and you better remember, we have more of them than the Army does ."
The cowards can sign a Munich pact if they want, it doesn't mean the rest of us have to obey it.

[PegLeg45]

My last post didn't quite come off as intended, as originally worded. Sorta looks like I was arguing against my own OP.  

It was meant to be a comparison of two points of view, followed by support of my OP about it being time for no compromise period.

Don't give an inch more and take back what we can.



Went back and edited it to hopefully clarify.


Everyone on here should know the one-legged fat man is tired of the gun folks having to be the side that gives up sh!t, every time, for no logical reason.
I just forget how to type sometimes.  

[cookie62]

I just forget how to type sometimes.  

The mind is faster than the fingers!

[tombogan03884]

What most people can't seem to grasp is that "gun control" is the key issue in repairing our nation .
We currently have a Govt that thinks the peons are their property .
During the election, one democrat said right out, "the people are the property of the govt" .
That mentality enables an ego maniac who thinks he gives orders to the congress , the Supreme court, and the people .
If we give in again on the gun issue we surrender the only effective check on tyranny .
If we stand firm and say "F*ck you, we're taking back what's ours, and we have the guns to back it up."
Then the politicians start to fear "We the people" , this is as it should be, the founders explicitly stated that when the people fear the Govt there is tyranny, when the govt fears the people there is liberty .
The politicians have already shown that with their fraud, party machines, and  corrupt media they do not fear the ballot box, with 70,000 individual incidents of fraud in the last election they don't care how the sheep will vote.
We have to put the question in their mind, "If I vote for this will the people back home kill me ?"
When they are thinking that way you can bet your azz they will not vote themselves a pay raise .
They will not tell you "You didn't build that" , if the reply might be, "Maybe not, but I sure did dig this hole we're dumping you in . "

Then, and only then, will we have a chance of "Good Govt".

The mind is faster than the fingers!

It's when the fingers go faster than the mind that we get into trouble 

[jnevis]

I noticed the NRA is not involved.  I guess a letter to Fairfax is in order,.  Hell, I'm passing by the building Friday, I might just stop in and tell them to get on the ball in person.