Home Guns and Training News Ohio - Buckeye Firearms Association

Latest News

News Feeds

Buckeye Firearms Association
Defending Your Firearm Rights

  • Beginner Target Shooting: Shotgun Shell Loads Explained [Video]

    World Champion target shooter Kay Miculek explains for beginner shooters common shotgun shell loads and demonstrates shot patterns on paper targets.



  • Headline: 2012 case highlights Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's 'pro-gun' record
    by Chad D. Baus

    As the vetting of President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch continues, a recent article from USA Today highlighted a 2012 case which details the judge's legal mindset when it comes to the Second Amendment.

    From the article:

    Advocates for and against gun control agree on this much: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is a "pro-gun" judge and the proof is a 2012 court case in which he sided with a felon busted with a gun.

    As a Circuit Court judge, Gorsuch found an unusual argument in that case compelling: The felon said he didn’t know he was a felon, and was thus unaware that he was barred from having a gun.

    Gorsuch argued the law requires the government to go beyond prior precedent and prove the defendant knows he’s a felon — not just that he knew he had a gun.

    The article quotes gun-rights advocates saying his role in U.S. v. Miguel Games-Perez proves his deep commitment to the Second Amendment.

    “He will protect our right to keep and bear arms and is an outstanding choice to fill Justice Scalia’s seat,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

    Again, from the article:

    [Gorsuch] was part of a three-judge panel that took up Games-Perez’s appeal in January 2012 after he had violated the terms of a 2009 attempted robbery guilty plea. His agreement with the court banned him from possessing firearms.

    Denver police caught Games-Perez less than a year later holding a pistol with an obliterated serial number, according to court documents. Games-Perez argued he didn’t know he was a convicted felon because of an ambiguous discussion with a judge about his conviction.

    Gorsuch reluctantly sided against Games-Perez’s appeal as part of the three judge panel, writing it was his duty to follow circuit court precedent, even if it is incorrect. Though he voted to affirm the lower court’s conviction, he still delighted gun rights advocates with his reason for why the government should have to prove a defendant knew of his prior felony conviction.

    “After all, there is ‘a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country,’ and the Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly,” he wrote, quoting Supreme Court rulings.

    Judge Gorsuch was appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush in 2006, and sailed through the Senate on a voice vote. His confirmation hearings are slated to begin on March 20.

    Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.



  • ATF White Paper: Suppose I Were A Federal Agency...
    by Jim Shepherd

    Suppose I were a federal agency that had not only reflected, but amplified whenever possible, the opinions of my current boss. And suppose one morning, say November 9, 2017, I woke up to the realization that there was going to be a new boss in a few months, and I knew that new boss wasn't going to be, to paraphrase the Who, "the new boss, same as the old boss."

    What would I do? If I were a federal agency that had frequently been used as the focal point of everything from inefficient bureaucratic management to failed investigations, I'd starting thinking - fast and furious, if you would- about what I could do that could: 1) save my job, 2) limit the changes I'd have to endure until I had another new boss.

    No one's commenting on the record, but it seems the officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) have had a few discussions regarding just what a Trump presidency could mean to their status quo.

    Since the Hearing Protection Act is already in Congress, I might suggest that my senior managers assemble a few discussion points that might allow me to either derail the new administration's change train- or look cooperative enough that I would be on the aforementioned vehicle, not under it.

    [Recently], the Washington Post released a story that says Ronald B. Turk, Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the ATF, has done just that. Turk's "white paper" - which I've read- calls for a variety of changes in the current way things operate at ATF, from removing restrictions on suppressors (which looks like one of two things with a very good chance of happening via legislative action) to the lifting of a ban on Curio & Relic- vintage American firearms currently banned from importation.

    In his 11-page paper - which clearly states is "for internal discussion purposes only" and is neither intended as an ATF-position or for external distribution- Turk calls for a number of changes that would, in fact, address some of the major complaints about the ATF of today. 

    As you can imagine, these include expanding staffing and (although unstated) budgets to allow for modernization of everything from past ATF rulings to cutting back on the ridiculous time it takes to process purchases governed by the National Firearms Act (NFA). Suppressors, which Turk accurately observes are rapidly gaining in popularity, are currently covered in those restrictive regulations. 

    His suggestion? Since suppressors are a major source of delays, reclassify them and achieve a twofer: reduce the incoming NFA paperwork and positively address the fact that, despite their classification on the restricted list, their use in crime is negligible- but their benefit in hearing protection and noise abatement is inarguable. In fact, Turk says, "41 states currently allow suppressors to be used in hunting."

    The document, while being clear in its intent- discussion- also points out another need: "to provide the new administration and the Bureau multiple options to consider and discuss considering firearms regulations."

    The thoughts are only those of one official, albeit a very senior one. But Turk has one comment in this document that I find encouraging. His general thoughts are there to "provide ways to reduce or modify regulations, or suggest changes that promote commerce and defend the Second Amendment without significant negative impact on ATF's mission to fight violent firearms crime and regulate the firearms industry."

    If they can simultaneously reduce their outdated restrictions on suppressors, relax the politically-motivated bans on importation of C&R firearms built in the U.S. and distributed to our allies so some of these guns can home to collectors who would cherish them- not use them for some nefarious criminal undertaking, streamline their processing backlog and police criminals, not gun dealers, the ATF might find it had more allies and fewer enemies inside the firearms community.

    Like Turk's document, that's just my personal opinion. 

    Republished from The Outdoor Wire.

    Related Article:

    ATF Associate Deputy Director Pens “White Paper” on Reducing Needless Firearms Regulations



  • Headline: Outnumbered 29 to 2, student senator defends gun rights against steep peer pressure
    by Chad D. Baus

    TheCollegeFix.com recently highlighted the work of a student at The Ohio State University to stand up for the Second Amendment in the face of steep opposition from his classmates.

    According to the article, Ohio State’s Undergraduate Student Government chose to voice their opinion on newly-passed legislation that provides colleges and universities the option to allow concealed carry on campus (open carry is already legal). The group passed a resolution to oppose concealed carry on campus in a vote of 29 for, two against, and two abstentions. RJ Martin was one of the two votes against the measure.

    From the article:

    In an interview with The College Fix, the student senator said he sees himself as having a common sense approach to gun issues, and that peers misunderstand concealed carry.

    Calling himself a “believer in the Second Amendment,” he said he did not think his fellow senators “understood the definition of concealed and how that means you cannot walk around with a weapon in plain sight.”

    ...

    Martin, who voted to defend campus carry, said he does not believe that having concealed carry on campus increases the likelihood of a violent attack, as some of his peers suggest. He told The Fix that the likelihood of an attack occurring on campus is “equal in an environment where concealed carry is not allowed.”

    Martin said he also disagrees with the notion pushed by some students that they’re fearful at the thought of a weapon nearby and that it inhibits learning.

    “If mentally stable students are able to conceal a personal weapon (which they are constitutionally granted the right to) there is absolutely no reason to think that they would use that weapon to harm someone over a contentious topic in class,” he said in an email to The Fix.

    The article highlights two high-profile incidents that have cost students of The Ohio State University their very lives.

    [T]he recent loss of two students’ lives has shaken the Ohio State community and continues to keep the gun rights topic alive on campus.

    Tarak Underiner, a 20-year-old student and member of Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus, was murdered at a residence near campus in early January. Last week, student Reagan Tokes, 21, was kidnapped, raped and murdered.

    “In a just and sane world, Reagan Tokes would have been taught not to fear firearms, but to accept them as tools for her defense,” Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus posted on Facebook in response to her death. “In a just and sane world, Reagan Tokes would have grown up in a culture that supported her right to self-defense and a culture that promoted such.”

    Underiner had testified at the Ohio Statehouse in December for the right to allow concealed carry at public universities. During his testimony, he stated that “college campuses and the areas surrounding them present environments rich with potential victims. They’re willing to gamble we’re unarmed and it pays off.”

    RJ Martin may be a minority on Ohio State’s Undergraduate Student Government, but he's part of a growing majority of Americans who know the truth: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And the only thing the school is accomplishing by prohibiting students their right to chose to bear arms for self-defense is ensuring that there are tens of thousands of defenseless targets on campus, and delaying the time until help arrives when an attack occurs.

    Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.



  • ATF Associate Deputy Director Pens “White Paper” on Reducing Needless Firearms Regulations

    On Monday, [February 6] the Washington Post reported on a “white paper” written by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Associate Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Ronald Turk that outlines several changes that ATF could make to decrease the burdens placed on gun owners and the firearms industry while maintaining public safety. Titled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations” and dated January 20, 2017, the document covers a raft of issues that NRA has previously worked to address, and vindicates NRA’s long-held contentions about the dubious efficacy of many firearms regulations. While the white paper does fail to address some of the legitimate concerns of gun owners in certain areas, the majority of document should serve to inform ATF regulatory reform efforts moving forward.

    The document correctly concludes that “There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.” And to this end, the paper individually addresses a handful of areas where regulation could be curtailed.

    [Click here to read “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations” by ATF Associate Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Ronald Turk.]

    Sporting Purposes Test

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d), “The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition… is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”

    Infamously known as the “sporting purposes test,” this portion of federal law has been used as justification to prohibit the importation of certain types of firearms to the U.S. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush used the sporting purposes test to bar the importation of 43 types of semi-automatic rifles. Unsatisfied with the breadth of the Bush ban, President Bill Clinton used this provision to ban the importation of 58 additional types of semi-automatic rifles. The abuse of the law was so evident that Clinton White House staffer Jose Cerda remarked, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

    In challenging the legitimacy of the current configuration of the sporting purposes test, the paper notes the increasing use of semi-automatic firearms in the modern shooting sports. Turk explains,

    Since the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004, the use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as “modern sporting rifles” has increased exponentially in sport shooting. These firearm types are now standard for hunting activities. ATF could re-examine its almost 20-year-old study to bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today, which is vastly different than what it was years ago. Action shooting sports and organizations such as 3 Gun and the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) have also drastically expanded in recent years. 

    This would be a departure from ATF policy, which has historically dismissed the modern shooting sports when making sporting purposes determinations. As recently as July 2012, when ATF released an update to their “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns,” the agency rejected arguments by public commenters that practical shooting competitions should come within the definition of sporting purposes. Straining to deny the legitimate sporting uses of many semi-automatic shotguns, ATF compared the number of members of the United States Practical Shooting Association to the obviously much larger total number of licensed hunters in the U.S. The difference, ATF contended, showed that the modern shooting sports should have no bearing on determining whether a firearm is “suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” Turk’s recognition of this folly is a welcome development.

    The paper goes on to explain that the import bans do not advance a public policy goal. Turk notes, “Restriction on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States.”

    Suppressors

    In recent years, NRA has worked to roll back state laws that restrict the possession or use of suppressors. This, and advances in the industry, have led to something of a renaissance in the production and use of firearm suppressors. The increasing popularity of these devices, and their health benefits for shooters, has led NRA, pro-gun lawmakers, and even Donald Trump Jr., to lead an effort to remove suppressors from the registration and tax burdens imposed by the National Firearms Act.

    It appears at least some in ATF acknowledge the benefits of suppressors and support their removal from the NFA. The white paper notes, “In the past several years, opinions about silencers have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.”

    The paper goes on to explain the outmoded nature of the current regulation of suppressors and that  removing the devices from the NFA poses little public safety risk, as they are rarely used in crime. Turk notes, 

    While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the [Gun Control Act]. 

    FFL Reform

    In 1993, President Bill Clinton directed the Treasury Department to further scrutinize Federal Firearms Licensees and applicants in order to reduce the overall number of firearms dealers. These efforts had the effect of significantly reducing the number of FFLs in the country, eliminating many small dealers who operated out of their homes.

    The white paper contemplates efforts to loosen some of the business-related requirements for obtaining an FFL. The paper notes,

    The marketplace has changed significantly in recent years, and ATF’s guidance to FFLs on these issues has not kept pace with developments in commerce. Classic “brick and mortar” storefronts with an on-hand inventory and set “front-door” business hours often no longer apply in today’s modern marketplace.

    This, Turk explains, “would have no negative impact to public safety” and - in his view - might have salutary effects, as it “would encourage more sales and business through a licensee.”

    Further, Turk discusses permitting FFLs to conduct sales at gun shows outside of the state in which they are licensed. Permitting such sales, Turk argues, “would have no detrimental effect on public safety.”

    Pistol Stabilizing Braces

    In recent years firearm owners have increasingly made use of products like Sig Sauer’s SBX or SB15 pistol stabilizing brace. A boon to disabled shooters, the ATF has approved such items for use on pistols. However, in January 2015, ATF issued an open letter explaining that,

    [a]ny person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

    According to ATF’s convoluted logic,

    “[b]ecause the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.”

    In challenging this interpretation of the law, the white paper points out, “ATF has not made another NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a ‘redesign’ of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification.” Turk also suggests that,

    To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.

    Re-importation of Defense Surplus Firearms

    Longtime NRA supporters will be familiar with the long-running effort to repatriate tens of thousands of M1 Garand rifles and hundreds of thousands of M1 carbines from South Korea. NRA has repeatedly worked with our friends in Congress to promote a legislative remedy that would allow for these firearms to be brought home for the benefit of American collectors.

    In 2010, Hillary Clinton’s State Department blocked the importation of these rifles, citing public safety concerns. At the time, a State Department spokesperson commented that “The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes.”

    Rejecting this rationale, the paper notes,

    There is no clear public safety reason why taxpayer-funded US-origin C&R defense articles should be denied re-importation to the American public, while many non-U.S.- origin C&R items are approved. Additionally, these items do not represent any discernable public safety concern, as demand lies with collectors of vintage military firearms.

    Turk also points out,

    Many M1 Garand rifles have been approved for importation in the past, setting precedence for this to occur. The more recent denials were in part due to perceived potential that they may be used in crimes, for which there is little, if any, evidence for such a concern.

    Firearms Registration

    As with most government products, the ATF white paper is not perfect. The document is a bit too dismissive of the concerns of gun owners and dealers regarding some firearm transfer recordkeeping requirements.

    In 2011, President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice announced a firearm transfer reporting scheme, the purported purpose of which was to combat Mexican drug cartels. The measure requires gun dealers in the Southwest border states to report to ATF information pertaining to the multiple sale of rifles that are larger than .22-caliber and able to accept a detachable magazine that are made to a single individual within a five-day period. Turk appears to approve of this effort, claiming that it has some beneficial use.

    First, regardless of any perceived value the reporting requirement may have, the scheme is a blatant perversion of federal law. Permitting ATF to operate this demand letter scheme allows the agency to circumvent important safeguards in 18 U.S.C. § 923(g) that are meant to protect FFLs from agency harassment. Further, 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) requires FFLs to report multiple sales of handguns to a single buyer within five consecutive days. That Congress did not impose this same requirement for multiple rifle sales makes clear that they did not intend to burden rifle transactions in this manner.

    Second, for those who have made lawful purchases of this type, the reporting requirement amounts to gun registration. This scheme not only creates significant privacy concerns for gun owners in the Southwest border states, but also circumvents 18 U.S.C. § 926(a), which prohibits the federal government from creating a firearms registry.

    Overall, Turk’s ATF white paper is an important contribution to the development of a more intelligent firearms regulation regime, informed by actual experience in administering ATF regulations. Unsurprisingly, gun control groups, who have little knowledge of how firearms regulations work in practice and are unconcerned with the efficacy of a given rule aside from its ability to burden gun owners and the firearms industry, have been vocal in their condemnation of the paper. ATF should ignore such reflexive comments to this well-considered document and move forward with efforts to free gun owners, the firearms industry, and the agency from regulations that serve no public interest.

    © 2017 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.



  • Confessions of an 'Active Shooter'
    by Jeff Knox

    Hi, I’m Jeff, and I’m an active shooter. [“Hi, Jeff.”]

    I’ve been a shooter for most of my life, beginning when I was about 4, shooting BB guns in the back yard with my mom and older brother. When I turned 8, my brother and father presented me with my first .22 rifle, a single-shot bolt-action hand-me-down, and I actively shot that as often as I could. A year later, my father gave me a brand new Browning lever-action, repeating rifle for my birthday, and I have actively been shooting that rifle every chance I get for almost 50 years.

    Growing up, I spent many afternoons after school wandering the hills behind our house, hunting rabbits or shooting targets. In my teen years, my family was often at the range shooting benchrest matches or spending Sunday afternoons shooting skeet. After a tour in the Army, I got serious about my shooting, working in one gun store while living in a room in the back of another. That’s when I got heavily into action shooting, spending all of my extra money on ammunition and going out shooting four or five days a week, with competitions on weekends.

    Not only have I been an active shooter for over 50 years, I have routinely carried a personal protection sidearm for more than 30 years. In all of that time, I have never shot a hole in a floor, ceiling, or wall. I have certainly never shot another human being, or come close to shooting another human being, either intentionally or unintentionally, and I have never even put a hand on my sidearm in a threatening situation.

    I’m an active shooter. Not as active as I once was, and not nearly as active as I would like to be, but an active shooter nonetheless. And I hate the fact that law enforcement and the media have stolen the term “active shooter” to apply to deranged murderers attacking innocents. Not only has a perfectly good description for me and millions of other recreational and sport shooters been purloined and redefined, the term now seems to apply to criminals who don’t use guns.

    [In late November, 2016], a deranged young Somali refugee, who had expressed frustration about people being afraid of him simply because he was a Muslim, decided to prove those people’s fears about the “religion of peace” correct by driving his Honda Civic into a crowd of fellow Ohio State University students, then jumping out of the car to hack and stab people with a large butcher knife.

    In the moments after the attack, the school sent out an “Active Shooter Alert” instructing students and faculty to “Run, hide, fight” until the situation could be resolved. The media followed the school’s lead, reporting that an “active shooter” had injured at least seven before being shot by campus police. This led to former Democratic Party vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine sending out a tweet saying that he was “Deeply saddened by the senseless act of gun violence” at OSU and offering condolence to the victims and their families. Two hours later, Kaine corrected his error, long after the media had realized their mistake, but the use of the term “Active Shooter” to describe any deranged criminal on a destructive rampage remains the norm.

    Most people don’t give the use of this term a second thought, especially when applied to someone who is actively shooting people in a criminal attack. In that circumstance it seems like a fairly accurate description, but to me it is not only inaccurate, it is insulting. It is inaccurate because it does not include any direct suggestion of criminality, using “shooter” to infer that status, and it is insulting because by doing this, it implies that shooting is a criminal activity. Don’t call a rampaging murderer a shooter. Call him a rampaging murderer, or a rampaging attacker, or even a criminal shooter or violent gunman. My brother Chris and our friend Alan Korwin both object to the use of the term “gunman,” making the point that it is part of the sensationalist and glamorizing vocabulary the media too often uses. But the term has held negative, criminal connotations since at least the 1860s, so I’m willing to let that one slide. The term “active shooter,” on the other hand, has only come into vogue as a description of a mass murderer in the past 20 years or so. It began gaining traction in the wake of the Columbine atrocity, and has now become so ingrained in the vernacular that it’s even being applied to attackers who are “shooting” with cars and knives.

    Maybe I’m being overly sensitive and should just retreat to my safe space where I can pretend this is all a bad dream that will go away if I wish it hard enough or whine loudly enough. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work for me since, unlike many of today’s college students and other Hillary Clinton supporters, I’m an adult, and a realist. Calling rampaging attackers “active shooters” is easy and accepted, so it’s not likely to go away any time soon.

    Nonetheless, I refuse to participate in this misappropriation of terms, and I refuse to abdicate the proper application of “active shooter.” As George Orwell noted, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” I am an active shooter. I hope to be a more active shooter going forward, and to remain an active shooter for many years to come.

    To all of my fellow active shooters out there I say, stand firm. Don’t let them shame you from who you are. Shoot on, brothers and sisters. Be proud. Be loud. Stay active. And shoot!

    Shooter ready? Stand by …

    ©2016 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement. www.FirearmsCoalition.org.



  • Senate votes to repeal Obama’s ban on gun sales for certain Social Security recipients
    by Chad D. Baus

    The Washington Times is reporting that Congress has approved the first gun rights bill of the new Republican-controlled Washington, voting to erase an Obama administration regulation that would strip law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights by forcing the Social Security Administration to report some of its beneficiaries to the firearms no-buy list.

    The Senate took up the bill on Wednesday, February 15.

    From the article:

    The Senate approved the bill on a 57-43 vote. The House cleared the legislation earlier this month.

    If President Trump signs the bill into law as expected, it will expunge a last-minute change by the Obama administration designed to add more mental health records to the national background check system that is meant to keep criminals and unstable people from obtaining weapons.

    According to the article, en. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican and chief sponsor of the effort to repeal the Obama rule, said “It results in reporting people to the gun ban list that should not be on that list at all. It deprives those people [of] their constitutional rights and, in a very important way, violates their constitutional rights without even due process.”

    President Trump is expected to sign the measure.

    Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.

    Additional Information:

    NRA Applauds Senate's Bipartisan Vote to Respect Due Process for Gun Owners



Hosts & Domains NOW!
ER Hosting Freedom - Click Below Now!
Join the NRA

Join NRA - $10 Discount Offer

$10-Off Discount Offer and Many Benefits
Web Hosting Reseller
Find Us on Facebook
Facebook Image