These are not simple distortions or cases of “my statistics are better than your statistics”; these are intentional, calculated, bald-faced deceptions, foisted on the American public by ideologically motivated zealots trying to force an agenda of citizen disarmament and government control. That’s not to say that everyone who supports gun control is driven by the same ideology, or that there are no honest, passionate, idealistic, true believers among the ranks of gun-control advocates. There are some very good, honest, sincere people who promote gun control, but unfortunately these misguided souls are steeped in emotion and inculcated with the never-ending lies of the professional gun haters.

Let’s dissect some of the lies:

Claim: Over 90 percent (almost 90 percent, close to 90 percent) of Americans support “universal background checks,” as do various large percentages of gun owners and NRA members.

That statistic came from a couple of highly suspect polls conducted, primarily in Northeastern states, shortly after the Sandy Hook atrocity. Anyone with a brain should realize that these statistics were fraudulent based solely on the fact that 90 percent of Americans barely agree that water is wet, much less that we need more government intrusion into our private transactions.

But this lie (that might have started out as just a distortion) has gotten much, much bigger as time has gone by. In late April, USA Today, that bastion of conservatism, conducted a poll which found that less than 50 percent of respondents supported any expansion of gun-control laws of any kind. Other subsequent polls have found similar results, and they are trending even farther away from the earlier poll numbers – yet gun-control advocates continue to declare that 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks. It is a lie.

Claim: Almost 40 percent of firearms sales occur without a background check.

That lie was first widely promoted by gun-control advocacy groups and the president in late December in the media frenzy following Sandy Hook. It was declared a distortion by yet another conservative media juggernaut, the Washington Post, in January. It was subsequently labeled a “half-truth” and outdated by other fact-check media. Even so, Obama and company have continued to preach it as gospel, right up to this very day, earning further derision from the Post’s fact-check column and a coveted score of “3 Pinocchios” for the president (on a scale of 1 to 4). It’s a lie.

Claim: Gun control is needed to “make our children and our communities safer.”

This presumes that guns serve only evil purposes and that passing laws prevents criminal violence. There has never been a supportable study proving, or even strongly suggesting, that gun control does anything to reduce criminal violence or even suicide. Reviews of existing literature going back to the 1970s have consistently found no connection between gun control and crime. On the other hand, there are several peer-reviewed studies which show that guns in private hands are used to stop crimes more often than they are used to commit crimes, and that the prevalence of guns appears to result in reduced violent crime.

Claim: About 30,000 lives are lost to “gun violence” each year in the U.S., and “13 children a day are killed in gun violence.”

The 30,000 number is based predominantly on suicides. Most people don’t think of suicide as “gun violence,” and despite distorted claims from “researchers,” the suicide rate in the U.S. is only slightly higher than that of Canada, even though Canada has a much lower rate of suicide involving guns. Meanwhile the suicide rate in the gun-free utopia of Japan is 80 percent higher than the U.S. rate. The “children” in the 13-a-day statistic include “children” in their 20s. Most are between 16 and 24, a peak age for criminal activity, and, again, a heavy percentage of these deaths are suicides. Virtually all of the guns used are obtained illegally. The claims are intentional distortions, deceptions, lies.

Claim: There is an epidemic of violent crime and mass murder sweeping the nation.

No there isn’t. Crime is at its lowest rate in decades. Serious violent crime is predominantly isolated to a few large cities, most of which have draconian gun laws. About 75 percent of murder victims are known criminals, as are some 90 percent of captured murderers. Atrocities like Sandy Hook and the Batman movie massacre tend to happen in cycles, based, in a large degree, upon the level of media attention devoted to them. While there has been more press about them in recent years, the actual number of occurrences has not gone up dramatically. Suggestions that crime in general or that mass murders are significantly increasing are not true. They’re lies.

Gun-control groups are based in lies. They call themselves “violence prevention” and “gun safety” groups even though the only violence prevention and gun safety policies they espouse are restrictions on legal access to firearms. They lie about who they are, what they stand for and what they want. They are liars through and through.

The truth is, Gun Control Doesn’t.

A personal highlight for me during the meeting was the adoption of a resolution I authored calling for unwavering opposition to any and all efforts to expand gun control restrictions or infringements on the Second Amendment. The resolution was adopted with a unanimous vote of the members present, prompting Matt Gertz, research director for the “progressive” (read loony left) web organization Media Matters for America, to comment on how “out of step” the activists in attendance are with the American people and the broader NRA membership.

Mr. Gertz apparently bases this observation on carefully worded and selectively fielded polls conducted shortly after the atrocity at Sandy Hook School in Connecticut, which claimed that 90 percent of the American people, and some 75 percent of self-identified NRA members, supported the idea of expanding background-check requirements to include private transactions. It’s interesting to note that sales of guns and ammunition skyrocketed, as did NRA membership, during the same time frame – clear evidence that the polls were probably more than a little skewed. It is also telling that recent polling shows that senators who voted against the latest gun control scheme are enjoying a spike in popularity since the vote – contrary to early claims by the media that they were down in the polls.

I suppose Mr. Gertz assumes that we had armed guards at the doors of the members meeting to make sure that none of those 75 percent gun control supporters got in. Or perhaps he figures that the “moderates” were there, but afraid to express their dissent because, well, you know, us radical gun nuts carry guns and are notoriously unstable, so the dissenters might have feared that an opposing vote could set us off. After all, gun clubs, NRA meetings and firearm training facilities are frequently the scenes of rampaging gunmen and mass murder – right?

It’s particularly gratifying that Gertz and his ilk would use the discredited claims that NRA members support gun control schemes while reporting on my resolution, which was specifically aimed at refuting such bogus claims. The resounding support from the crowd and eventual unanimous vote to approve the resolution prove that NRA members who understand the issues do not support any expansion of background checks, or any other expansion of gun control laws.

The full text of my resolution can be found on The Firearms Coalition’s website.

In short, the resolution says that, even though anti-rights groups, politicians and the media exploited the Newtown tragedy, played on people’s emotions and had passage of some sort of gun control measure by the Senate virtually guaranteed, all of those efforts were defeated by the steadfast efforts of NRA-ILA working cooperatively with other national, state and local groups. It goes on to point out that none of the proposals would have prevented or impeded any of the recent high-profile atrocities, and that even the most “moderate” gun laws have historically been used more to harass regular gun owners than to prosecute real criminals. Finally, the resolution expresses the assembled members’ appreciation to NRA leadership and staff, exhorts them to continue to stand unwavering on the principles of freedom and to reject any and all expansion of firearms laws that would or could put honest Americans at increased risk of prosecution or would in any way infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

The resolution ended with a call for the entire resolution, along with a brief report on how enthusiastically it was received by the membership, to be published in the Official Journal of the association so all members could see where their fellow members in Houston stood. Unfortunately, that last portion was amended out prior to passage, so NRA members will not get to read the resolution in their American Rifleman or other official publication. That was done on a claim of avoiding the expense of the printing, but I think it was more because the leadership didn’t want to see the Knox name in print in their magazines.

It’s no secret that members of the Knox family have often been critical of NRA leadership and some of the strategies and tactics the organization has employed. We were deeply offended when, just months after my father’s death, the organization celebrated the “Heroes of the Second Amendment” and completely omitted Neal Knox’s name, even while talking about matters in which he played a pivotal role.

Those sour grapes aside, I was very pleased with the resolute stand NRA took on the most recent action in the Senate, and I wanted to express my appreciation, give credit where credit was due and, as previously stated, give the membership the opportunity to refute the widespread assertions that they support expanded gun control. I believe I accomplished those goals.

This fight is not over by a long shot though. Anti-rights groups are putting immense pressure on senators who they think might switch their votes. Misguided Republicans continue to search for a compromise – muddying the waters and compromising principles. Harry Reid will soon be back for a second swing at the piñata, and House members have begun to debate the issue as well.

Supporters of liberty need to be in constant contact with their elected servants, reminding them that no expansion of gun control is acceptable. We’re in for a long fight. Dig in.

So there were no new lessons to be learned from the actual bombing of the Boston Marathon. In a free society, extremists will always have the ability and opportunity to inflict harm on the innocent. We know this. We’ve seen it. We’ve mourned with the victims and families. At most, this bombing serves as a reminder to be aware, be prepared and to take precautions.

The bombing of the Boston Marathon was not meant to generate support for Chechen independence, or appreciation for the “religion of peace,” or even to strike a blow for fallen comrades in the ongoing conflict between Islam and the rest of the world. This attack, like the senseless atrocity at Sandy Hook, was an example of weak-minded losers trying to give some significance to their lives at the expense of innocents.

What both outrages accomplished, though, goes much deeper than individual narcissistic validation. The fear and anger arising from such acts tend to push the public away from individual liberty and into the arms of an ever more protective, ever more powerful, ever more intrusive, ever more restrictive government. That is the lasting damage done by terrorists and violent lunatics.

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, the citizens of Boston and its suburbs were ordered to stay in their homes while state, local and federal police, along with units of the National Guard, swept through the streets in full military battle gear, armed with real assault rifles and shielded by heavy armored vehicles. On multiple occasions, officers and agents kicked in doors without warrants or probable cause, pointed guns at residents – men, women and children – and herded them into the street with shouted orders and violent threats. Authorities totally ignored constitutional protections, disregarded individual rights and trampled on the rule of law – all in the name of public safety.

The pictures and videos coming out of Watertown were chillingly reminiscent of film clips of Jews in 1940s Germany and Poland being herded from their homes by heavily armed Nazis. I don’t mean to suggest that the motives or intentions of the police and agents in Watertown mirrored those of the Nazis, but only to point out the similarity in the tactics employed. I understand the tension and concerns of the authorities in light of the earlier firefight with the suspects – but can we condone the total disregard for the Constitution and civil rights they displayed with their actions? It’s one thing to pursue a fleeing suspect into a dwelling, but it’s something else completely to kick down doors on the basis of suspicion or anonymous tips. Had this action been carried out in the Phoenix or Dallas suburbs rather than the virtually gun-free utopia of Massachusetts, the odds would be high that a homeowner might have been shot. I know that if there were mad bombers running loose in my neighborhood, I would not be hunkering in the house empty-handed. How would that have played out when the authorities illegally kicked down my door without warning?

The crux of the issue is that a couple of disturbed and radicalized young men sought to immortalize their names and to damage our way of life. They viciously attacked us by abusing the freedoms and protections our people enjoy. In response, our government agents shredded the Constitution and trampled on those freedoms and protections. And those people thanked them for it! What’s worse is that some of those same people are seriously considering, even demanding, further restrictions on rights, further degradation of liberty, further dismantling of the Constitution, all in the futile hope that surrendering our liberty will enhance their security.

Just this result is a victory for the terrorists.

The Marathon bombing was a difficult and unusual situation, but it did not justify the police actions. Police and federal agents involved must be called to account. All law enforcement should undergo remedial training in constitutional limitations and protections. If there is not accountability and no lessons learned, and especially if politicians are allowed to trade freedom for a false sense of security, then the terrorists and enemies of liberty will have secured an even greater and lasting victory.

The Constitution and civil rights are not mere suggestions, they are the supreme law of the land. Ignoring, disregarding and trampling them must not be permitted, much less praised and rewarded. Too many people have fought, sacrificed and died to preserve our freedoms to simply throw them away because of some terrorists’ lawless actions.

Last December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and gave the state 180 days to come up with an acceptable framework for citizen carry. Now, if the legislature and governor do not implement a plan by June 8 of this year, the laws banning carry will simply become null and void effectively giving the state “Constitutional Carry,” i.e. unregulated carrying such as currently exists in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona. Chances of that happening are slim; however, the journey from the current prohibition to the final system promises to be an interesting one.

Illinois citizens have been fighting for years for the right to carry legally. Several attempts in the past few years have come close, but each time it has been shot down by the Chicago-Cook County political gangsters. So the citizens in “downstate” Illinois – everywhere outside of the Chicago area, which is mostly stereotypical small-town middle America – have been held hostage by the powers that be in the state’s urban center.

In order to get at least some form of lawful defensive carry available to regular citizens, rights advocates in Illinois have worked diligently building coalitions, making concessions and agreeing to all manner of strict limitations, exorbitant fees and overbearing government control over a concealed-carry licensing system. Their hope was that once any form of concealed carry was authorized, citizens, police and politicians would see that legally armed citizens were a benefit, not a risk – just as has been proven in the other 49 states – and possibly the law could then be improved. That approach made sense when Chicago held all the cards, but times have changed. With the 7th Circuit’s decision, Illinois rights advocates are now in total control – or at least they should be.

Rather than taking advantage of the dramatic shift in leverage provided by the 7th Circuit’s ruling, leaders of the rights movement in the state seem to be stuck in the rut they’ve carved over the past 50 years. They have continued trying to curry favor with police groups and skeptical politicians, even though there is no advantage in doing so. In fact, the demands of the leading rights organizations in the state have barely shifted since the 7th Circuit’s decision was handed down. To their credit, rights supporters have drawn a line in the sand on “shall issue” (which requires authorities to issue a license to anyone who meets the statutory requirements) versus “may issue” (which gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license for almost any reason – or no reason at all), but they continue to agree to excessive fees, extensive – and expensive – training requirements, intrusive and redundant background checks, and dangerous requirements such as a duty to alert police to one’s lawfully concealed firearm.

This last item is particularly troublesome for gun owners living in the Chicago area where the chief of police has declared that his officers will treat any armed person as a serious threat until the person can prove otherwise. That means the police are likely to draw their guns, put the person face-down on the ground, frisk, handcuff and detain him until they can find and verify the person’s carry permit – even when the only clue the police have that the person has a gun is that person’s obligatory statement to them that they are legally carrying.

A promise like that, from the police chief of a city known for police corruption, brutality and excessive force, is a seriously unsettling prospect for citizens contemplating lawful carry. Add in the current environment of increased fear and tension over the Boston Marathon bombing, the excessive force and disregard for constitutional protections demonstrated by authorities in the Boston area in the wake of that bombing (not to mention the citizens’ acceptance of those actions), and the demonization of gun owners as “right-wing radicals” and “anti-government extremists,” and it’s not hard to understand why Chicago citizens would prefer to keep their concealed weapons concealed – even from the police during routine traffic stops and casual contacts.

Looking into Illinois from the outside, it is unfathomable why rights leaders would make any concessions at all to their opponents in the legislature and the Governor’s Mansion. Those who oppose the right to carry in Illinois have three choices right now: 1) agree to a moderate public carry law, 2) see all carry prohibitions evaporate on June 8, or 3) appeal the decision of the 7th Circuit and hope the Supreme Court will hear the case and eventually overturn the Circuit’s decision.

Taking the question back to court is risky for the prohibitionists. Not only is there no guarantee that the Supreme Court will hear the case or rule in the hoplophobes’ favor, there is also the very real possibility that their carry ban would be nullified during the interim. That’s why the Illinois attorney general has shown no inclination to take that route.

After over 50 years of fighting for crumbs of liberty and getting nothing at all, rights advocates are now in a position to decide whether to give carry opponents a few crumbs or leave them with nothing at all.

Opponents of concealed carry are over a barrel, and the barrel is poised at the top of a cliff teetering on the brink of liberty. Rather than propping the barrel up and singing “Let’s Make a Deal,” rights advocates should be kicking out obstacles and singing “Roll Out the Barrel.” There is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Let’s roll!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can call for a vote on S.649 at his discretion, and he has a narrow window for demanding reconsideration of the background check amendment introduced by Sens. Manchin, D-W.V., and Toomey, R-Pa., which failed Wednesday. Senate rules say that anyone who voted on the prevailing side of a question can make a motion to reconsider the question within two days of the original vote. Reid made it a point to vote against the Manchin-Toomey amendment even though he had previously expressed his support for it. The only reason Reid would vote against the bill is to preserve his option to call for reconsideration. The fact that the amendment failed by six votes (including Reid’s) means that he would have to shift five other senators’ positions to change the outcome. While that seems very unlikely, gun owners have been burned by such tactics in the past, and most political observers remember the tricky maneuvering employed in passage of Obama’s health-care bill, so we are taking nothing for granted. The Firearms Coalition is urging our members and readers to continue putting pressure on senators – thanking those who voted against gun control and urging them to continue to stand fast, and urging those who voted wrong on Wednesday to do their best to make amends by voting against any future attempts to revive the gun control efforts. A full breakdown of the day’s important votes is posted at www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

In the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, there has been little sign of support for gun control. Speaker John Boehner said today that they are looking for ways to reduce criminal violence and to reduce the chances of something like the Sandy Hook massacre from happening again, but he was careful to avoid using hot-button terms like “gun violence” or offering any suggestion that restricting firearms is part of his party’s agenda for reducing violence and preventing atrocities.

Meanwhile, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (whose very name is a lie) is using the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon as fodder for fundraising and pushing their anti-gun agenda. In an email fundraising appeal/call to action on Tuesday, Brady President Dan Gross made the illogical leap that it is the availability of dangerous tools that causes violence. In the appeal Gross offered condolences to the victims and families of the Boston bombing and then said:

“Regardless of whether casualties are caused by knives, guns or bombs, Americans have had enough. We can no longer be a nation that makes it easy for terrorists, criminals and other dangerous people to get their hands on the deadly tools that enable mass murder.”

He followed this backwards “logic” by calling for people to contact senators and “Tell them you reject violence in all forms, and urge their support for expanded background checks as an important next step to make our nation safer.”

Rejecting violence is all well and good, and I strongly support Mr. Gross and his followers’ right to do so, but not at the expense of my right to defend my family and community.

A demented video-game addict murders his mother, steals her guns and goes to “run up a score” at a local elementary school. A wacked-out college student seriously injures a dozen classmates with by slashing them with an X-ACTO knife. Terrorists use gunpowder, or fertilizer, or bat poop in pressure cookers full of screws, nails and ball bearings to kill and injure runners and spectators at the Boston Marathon. … and Dan Gross and the Brady Bunch say that the answer to such demented violence is to restrict, investigate and track tens of millions of non-criminal, non-violent Americans who choose to exercise their constitutional right and civic responsibility to keep and bear arms.

Evil, violent, demented people are going to do evil, violent, demented things regardless of how constrained and helpless we make the rest of society. There is no evidence that any gun control law has ever even reduced criminal violence, much less prevented maniacal attacks. As a matter of fact, there is strong indication that disarming citizens creates inviting, safe-working environments for these monsters. And the thing that is almost never discussed is the billions of dollars that go into enforcing these ineffective gun control measures – billions of dollars that could be being spent on better mental health programs, proven violence prevention programs and keeping serious threats contained in prisons and hospitals.

The irrational threats of the hoplophobes have been blocked for the moment, but they are not giving up on their misguided dreams. They will continue to press for new restrictions, and you can be sure they are making their preparations, getting their media campaigns and legislative proposals in line to be ready to launch another full-scale attack on our rights the next time tragedy strikes. Therefore we must remain vigilant, and start planning for the 2014 elections. This week’s votes were much too close for comfort, so we need to begin focusing our energy on establishing a truly Brady-proof Congress.

Case in point: Vice President Joe Biden’s recent advice to women to “buy a shotgun” for home defense rather than an AR-type rifle. He went on to suggest that shotguns are easier to aim and shoot than an AR, and that a good strategy when you “hear something” is to take the shotgun out on the back deck and fire both barrels into the air to scare away any lurking bad guys.

The gun community had a field day with the ignorance of the vice president’s remarks, but non-gun owners might not have realized just how stupid his suggestions were. Without going into too much detail about firearm characteristics, loads and home defense tactics, let me explain why this was bad advice all the way around. First, while shotguns and rifles come in many different configurations, shotguns are typically longer and heavier than AR-style rifles. They are not easier to aim. They aren’t “harder to miss with,” and, when loaded with good defensive rounds, they recoil much, much harder. And correct shotgun ammo for home defense is also much more likely to penetrate multiple walls than correct home defense ammo for an AR is (even many “gun guys” don’t know that). Finally, the best tactic for dealing with a home intruder, or suspicion of a home intruder, is to retreat to a locked room, call 911 and take up a defensive position until police arrive. The only reason to ever move about the house with a loaded gun is to retrieve other family members and take them with you to your “safe room.” The only things worth killing or dying for in your home are the people, not the stuff.

Unlocking a door and going outside when you think someone has or is breaking into your home is just plain stupid. Firing in the air – especially firing both barrels – is also stupid because now, the bad guys know where you are and your gun is empty. Until you reload, your shotgun is nothing more than an unwieldy club. Even reloading a double-barreled shotgun is more difficult than reloading an AR. Finally, it should be mentioned that firing in the air is illegal in most places.

As ignorant as Vice President Biden demonstrated himself to be, he is a firearms expert in comparison to Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., who has been representing the Denver area in Congress since 1996. In her years in the House, Ms. DeGrette has been an outspoken and passionate advocate for “reducing gun violence,” which always seems to entail placing harsh restrictions on lawful gun owners and never involves restricting people who commit violent crimes. As part of her quest for restrictive gun control laws, Rep. DeGette has, for several years, been sponsoring a bill to ban “high capacity assault magazines” (a term she and her friends just made up recently).

Even with years to study up on the topic, it became apparent recently that Ms. DeGette doesn’t have the foggiest idea how guns work or what exactly it is she wants to ban:

“These are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available,” DeGette told a Denver audience.

The next day, an aid to the congresswoman delivered a statement explaining that DeGette had simply misspoken; “The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism.”

Just in case anyone else has never seen a spy, cop, or war movie, a magazine (sometimes called a clip) is a box with a spring in the bottom (like a PEZ dispenser). You fill it with cartridges and stick it in the gun. Each time the gun is fired, another round is taken from the magazine until it is empty. Magazines are normally made of steel and can be reloaded and fired an unlimited number of times.

A clip, on the other hand, along with being another name for a magazine (though not technically accurate) is an even simpler metal cartridge holder that is usually used to load a magazine. Clips have generally been considered “disposable” by the military, but they are readily reusable and almost never break or wear out. I have both magazines and clips that were manufactured in the 1940s or ’50s, and I still use them with no problems. I have also expanded the capacity of a magazine from five rounds to 20 rounds using nothing more than cardboard, rubber bands, paper clips and tape.

It has been definitively proven that gun control doesn’t reduce crime or prevent atrocities like Sandy Hook, yet ignorant politicians like Diana DeGette, Joe Biden and Rep. Caroline McCarthy, D-N.Y., continue to push restrictive legislation that they don’t understand and which only affects responsible gun owners. Ignorance might be bliss, but it’s no way to run a country.

As he has in the past, Reid will give Democrats from more conservative states a pass to vote no on the more aggressive provisions, but he will do everything in his power to force all members of his party to vote in favor of the final package. Reid is likely to vote against the Feinstein amendments himself, but he will pull out all the stops if he sees any way of handing President Obama a Senate victory on guns – including bribes and blackmail, as we saw during the votes on Obamacare.

While there is ostensibly a pro-rights majority in the Senate, many of the Democrats who ran on a pro-rights platform with good grades from the NRA have signaled a willingness to support Reid’s base package. Throw in anti-rights Republican Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and “moderates” and “mavericks” like Susan Collins, R-Maine, and John McCain, R-Ariz., and there’s potential for just about anything to happen.

Gun Owners of America is predicting a Reid-controlled propaganda fest depicting the base bill as a moderate proposal of “common sense” provisions to protect women and save children, which only the most heartless of bought-and-paid-for Republican NRA shills could possibly oppose – and the media circus will undoubtedly run full tilt with that message. If that is allowed to happen, there is a high probability of full support from Democrats and their “Independent” allies, and a good chance of several defections among the Republicans. That’s why the whole charade must be stopped before it ever gets started – with a filibuster.

Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, have pledged to mount a filibuster in opposition to the “motion to proceed” to debate on the gun package. To overcome the filibuster, Reid would need 60 votes. That means he would need five Republicans to cross the line. I can think of three that are probable and at least three more possibles – using the excuse that the bill deserves a fair debate, or in the spirit of Senate collegiality, etc. An additional challenge in keeping the Republicans unified is the fact that the NRA, as a rule, doesn’t score “procedural” votes. That means that these Republicans could cross the line and open the door to passage of the gun control package without fearing any negative impact from the NRA.

Republicans need to be reminded that there is NO political gain from supporting an override of a filibuster and allowing this anti-rights package to come to the floor. They need to be reminded that there is NO political gain in voting for any part of the anti-rights package, and there is NO negative impact from voting against the package. There are no hordes of anti-gun voters waiting to punish anyone who crosses them. There are however millions of pro-gun voters who vote guns first, and they will be watching the events next week very closely. Anyone who casts any vote of support for Obama’s anti-rights package – or a vote to help bring it to the floor – will be targeted by GunVoters as an enemy of the Second Amendment, and we will do our utmost to make sure those senators are never elected to any public office again.

The stage is set, and Republicans have the opportunity to contain this fight to a single, uncomplicated and unequivocal vote that clearly divides the camps between supporters of gun rights and opponents of gun rights. Whether Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the Republican leadership have the brains and balls to play this smart and weather the media storm that will undoubtedly ensue could very well determine whether there will be a Republican majority in the Senate any time soon. GunVoters are notorious for punishing betrayal even more zealously than they go after acknowledged enemies.

Better to guide senators to the right decision than to punish them after a wrong one. Make the call and make sure your senators are sticking to the straight and narrow. The Senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

After decades of bickering over an international Arms Trade Treaty in the U.N., negotiations hit another snag right at what was supposed to be the conclusion of the drafting process. Nonetheless, the treaty is far from dead. Actually, it is a greater threat right now than it has ever been. While three countries, Iran, Syria and North Korea rejected the final language, which should mean another return to the negotiation table under the committee’s rules of full consensus, several highly placed U.N. sources have suggested that the ATT might be pushed on to a vote of the full General Assembly even without achieving consensus in the committee.

That could spell serious trouble for opponents of the treaty, both here in the U.S. and abroad. The U.S. representative on the committee and the office of U.N. secretary general have both indicated a desire to see the current treaty language moved to the General Assembly for a vote. In the General Assembly, the treaty would only need a plurality to be adopted by the U.N. and without a veto from one of the “big five,” China, Russia, France, the U.K. or the U.S., should easily sail through to adoption. The big change in the equation is the U.S. position, which has consistently been that they would not support any treaty that did not achieve full consensus from all of the committee members. Now the U.S. representative, Thomas Countryman, has casually dismissed full consensus as being unrealistic and says the U.S. would vote in favor of the treaty in the General Assembly. That sentiment was echoed by the office of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Though there were several concessions made to overcome U.S. objections to certain aspects of the treaty language, the final version still poses a significant threat to American gun owners, manufacturers and importers. In response to U.S. objections at the close of negotiations last year, language loosening proposed restrictions on some firearm parts and ammunition was adopted, but those concessions are not significant enough to alleviate concerns in the U.S. In many ways this treaty simply adopts what has long been standard operating procedure for the U.S., but it goes further, restricting and tracking private arms. Overall, the U.S. firearms industry would benefit from the adoption of the treaty as it would “level the international playing field,” placing arms manufacturers in other countries under strict regulations similar to what American manufacturers and exporters have been working under for decades. Even so, to their credit, U.S. manufacturers, through their trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, are objecting to the overreaching provisions in the treaty language that could cause escalation of prices for certain imported firearms and ammunition in the U.S. market and could potentially mandate firearms registration and tighter restrictions on possession and transport on firearms, ammunition, parts and components. It could also make international travel with firearms for hunting an absolute nightmare – if not impossible.

More important from our view at The Firearms Coalition is the lack of any recognition or protection of personal firearm rights for individuals in the rest of the world. While the U.S. advocates for human rights on issues such as women’s rights, child labor, and freedom of the press and political discourse – participating in trade embargoes and sanctions to force nations to change anti-rights policies and positions – it is hypocritical for us as a nation to ignore the fundamental right of self-defense and self-determination. It is also rather disingenuous for a nation born out of revolution to participate in denying other struggling peoples of the right to the means of throwing off their own shackles of tyranny.

The U.S. Senate has made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of ratifying any Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment rights of Americans, but they ignore the principle that people of all nations should also enjoy those same fundamental rights. The Senate and U.S. gun groups also seem to be largely ignoring the potential impacts of this treaty on consumers in the United States if the treaty is widely adopted – even if it is never ratified here.

The current dearth of ammunition highlights one of the basic concerns. It has long been a U.N. objective to coerce nations into destroying surplus military ammunition supplies rather than releasing them into open commerce. Currently the only major, legal markets for this ammunition are poorer nations trying to economize for their military and police needs and the U.S. civilian market where enthusiasts buy and shoot billions of rounds of this generally inexpensive ammunition every year. Each time a country opts for destruction of ammunition rather than sale, it hits U.S. consumers right in the wallet. U.S. consumers are also the largest market for surplus military parts kits – barrels, stocks and small parts of military firearms that have been decommissioned. These kits are used both to keep existing guns functioning, and for hobbyists and entrepreneurs to build semi-auto replicas of historic military arms. While the current ATT language offers some protection for ammo and parts, it doesn’t go far enough in protecting these resources U.S. consumers have grown dependent upon.

With the countries currently objecting to the treaty all being part of what George W. Bush referred to as the “Axis of Evil,” it is unlikely that their protests will gain much traction unless Russia or China decides to shield their lucrative “gray markets” in arms by exercising their veto power in the General Assembly.

The current U.N. ATT language is another example of gun banners refusing to settle for something reasonable – like simply adopting the current U.S. standards on export and tracking of military weapons – and instead insisting on expansive restrictions on private arms and ammunition.

U.S. senators need to demand that the Obama administration stand by their previous commitment to respect the agreed upon consensus model for passing the ATT, and reject any proposal that overreaches current U.S. arms import-export rules. The senators need to hear that message from you.

As previously reported here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has decided not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s, D-Calif., ban on semi-auto firearms and standard magazines in the base package, but instead will allow Feinstein to offer her gun and magazine bans as separate amendments. Reid said Feinstein will get two votes, one on adding her full bill, and one on just including the magazine ban. What is already included in the official bill is Sen. Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., language criminalizing private firearm transfers that haven’t gone through a government permission process, and a proposal from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that piles penalties on already-illegal straw sales and firearm transfers to prohibited persons, thus raising the stakes for dealers who fail to psychically detect lies on paperwork.

Reid’s objective in his management of the legislation is to get the most restrictive gun-control bill politically possible, while at the same time providing political cover to himself and colleagues from gun-friendly states who might face repercussions for casting anti-gun votes. He is hoping that senators can play both sides of the fence by voting down the Feinstein ban and voting for the other legislation. Reid hopes that anti-gun forces will reward senators who vote for the package and that GunVoters will forgive a vote in favor of the more “moderate” infringements on their rights, especially by those who voted against the more draconian proposals.

Meanwhile, gun-rights activists are having none of it, demanding that senators reject all of the proposals. A trio of senators, Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, have announced plans to lead a filibuster to keep the Democrats’ entire gun-control package from coming to the Senate floor. A filibuster would force a vote for “cloture” to cut off debate. That cloture vote is exactly what Democrats and Harry Reid want to avoid. First, Reid does not want the clear, up-or-down vote that a cloture vote would represent. Moreover, it’s unlikely Reid could muster the 60 votes to shut down the filibuster without support from the Republican side of the aisle. So, barring a seriously stupid move by Senate Republicans (always a possibility), Reid will have a choice of either giving up on the whole idea or subjecting his minions to a clear pro-gun versus anti-gun vote on whether to proceed.

Here’s hoping that in this instance the Republicans don’t live up to their moniker as the “stupid party” and provide Reid with an out. Here’s also hoping that rumors of the National Rifle Association engaging in “quiet talks” with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., on a “compromise” background check bill are just the products of some Washington wonk’s wishful thinking. Although the NRA has a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with unnecessary “compromises” (read concessions), for them to offer up a deal at this point would seriously jeopardize the organization’s vaunted fundraising power. The activist grassroots who pay the bills, and whose activism both on issues and on campaigns does the heavy lifting of the rights movement, would close their checkbooks and find other places to send their money. Without the blessings of the core activists, both the NRA and the senators foolish enough to follow their lead would face serious reprisals.

The Senate recessed from March 25 through April 5 for a “state work period,” their euphemism for their frequent vacations. During these periods, they are supposed to be in their home states making themselves available to you, their employers. Take advantage of this opportunity. Call your senators’ local offices and find out whether they’re really in-state like they’re supposed to be, and when and where you might get a chance to share with them what the Second Amendment means to you.

The current crop of anti-rights legislation is just more of the same old, ignorant, misguided pap that hoplophobic senators like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have been trying to foist on the citizenry for decades. Not only are these bills unconstitutional and unworkable, nothing in the current package would have had the least impact on the heinous criminal activities that spawned this recent flurry of anti-rights activity – the rash of mass-shooting tragedies in Connecticut, Colorado and elsewhere. Every one of the proposed measures would endanger gun owners, burden gun dealers and the federal background check infrastructure, while tying up scarce law enforcement resources. And of course none of these “do-something” measures would reduce criminal misuse of firearms or save lives.

Take advantage of your senators being at home and let them know that you oppose these bills and want them to do everything in their power to delay, derail and defeat them.  If you can’t get actual face-time with your senators, be sure to leave messages with their staff – unequivocal messages: No new gun control.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that Reid told her on Monday he was not going to bring her “assault weapons” ban bill to the floor, but that he would instead allow her to offer it as an amendment to another gun-control bill. Reid said that he would take two votes on Feinstein’s legislation. The first vote would be on the entire bill, which proposes banning future manufacture and sale of most semi-auto rifles along with many pistols and shotguns, and banning the sale of magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds of ammunition. The second vote would be on just the portion of the bill restricting magazines of greater than 10-round capacity.

Expect that both of these amendments will be backed by large quantities of emotional hyperbole about “death-spraying killing machines” and “weapons of war,” along with heart-wrenching references to the atrocities in Newton, Conn., Aurora, Colo., and the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Neither proposal has much chance of passage in the Senate, and Reid knows it. He also knows that voting for these proposals could seriously hurt some senators’ chances of re-election. That’s why he’s going to “greenlight” a “No” vote from senators representing pro-rights states.

From there Reid will push for passage of Sen. Chuck Schumer’s bill criminalizing private firearm transfers and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s bill increasing penalties for illegally buying and selling firearms. Both of these proposals have been reported in the major media with a pleasant, “common sense” aura about them, but both are seriously flawed, and represent significant threats for gun owners.

Gun owners’ objections to the banning of certain types of guns and ammunition feeding devices are obvious and well-documented. Concerns about “universal background checks” – that is criminalizing private transactions with Schumer’s “universal background check” proposal – are less obvious, but just as onerous. Along with being useless and unworkable as a crime-fighting tool, the Schumer private-sale ban threatens principles of liberty and private property, and it opens the door to greater federal control over a fundamental, enumerated civil right.

Finally, Leahy’s “anti-trafficking” bill cobbles together a new crime, “gun trafficking,” from a collection of activities that are already federal felonies. The bill is so poorly worded and so draconian in its penalties that it invites abuse and has the potential to destroy peoples’ lives over simple paperwork errors and honest mistakes.

All of these proposals are being offered up in response to horrible atrocities. But not one of these bills would have prevented or mitigated any of those tragedies. And all of these proposals create new complications, problems and legal risks to responsible gun owners and dealers who have no criminal intent and who pose no threat to anyone.

Legislation, like litigation, should not be sport. It should not be about winning points and delivering blows. It should be about solving real problems and promoting liberty. But just as our nation’s courts have become adversarial arenas where the objective to win rather than to serve justice, so too the halls of our legislative bodies have become playing fields where winning is everything and party politics and re-election plans are more important than the Constitution or serving the people.

Gun control doesn’t work. No gun-control scheme has ever reduced crime or suicide, but they have often snared unsuspecting innocents who were doing no harm, and they infringe on our fundamental rights.

Senators need to be hearing from constituents now urging them to vote down all of these proposals, and to focus their efforts on ideas that promote liberty, support the Constitution and that actually work to accomplish the stated goals without creating even bigger problems.

Senators’ offices can be reached by calling (202) 224-3121.