frontlines

Both the Constitution and the Gun Control Act allow Americans to manufacture their own firearms for their own personal use. “Personal use” is the key.  Such guns are often referred to as “ghost guns” since they have no serial number and do not need to be registered. 

• The fact is only 5 out of the 50 states require registration of firearms which might fall into this category. New York is one of these states. Counties have long been established as the centers of handgun registrations and the system works well. Let's leave well enough alone. 

  There is no registration system [nor should there be] for long guns in New York. Unfortunately, NY State became involved in the registration of rifles following passage of the so-called “SAFE” Act in 2013. These are commonly owned semi-automatic rifles misconstrued as “assault weapons” by many. Statistics show that the most common “assault weapons” utilized in crimes are actually body parts…hands, feet and even sneakers according to a judge in one Upstate county.  

  The state lost a court case and was forced to divulge that a mere 5% of the estimated number of so-called “assault weapons” in NY were registered. Undoubtedly this was an embarrassment to state officials. 

  Law-abiding NY State citizens are not fond of registrations, regardless of the item being registered. Firearms are considered private property and these citizens resent any government regulation of such. 

  “Ghost gun” parts can be used to fabricate a handgun or even an AR-15. The parts are widely available across the country in stores and online. Law-abiding citizens can legally buy an unfinished lower receiver without a background check. Ghost guns have been mainly popular with gun enthusiasts but have also become a weapon of choice for criminals. But such behavior is not the fault of law-abiding citizens. 

  Criminals by nature do not obey laws. Why make law-abiding citizens pay the price for criminal behavior? Why must layer upon layer of gun control laws be passed when many are never enforced or are valueless?

  Legislators commonly ask: “what type of gun control laws can I support.”  Sorry, but this is the wrong question to ask. Consider the following as an aid to decision making:

  1) Start with principle:  No one’s freedom should depend on the behavior of the lawless or the ineptitude of government.

  Liberals, the Left, Progressives offer one solution — ban “assault weapons” which, in video clip after video clip, they cannot define.  The Florida shootings show the failure of government agencies at every level:  federal, state, and local.  And the proposed fix is to give more power to the institutions that drove the truck into the ditch?  

  2) So what can we do?  Address root causes of violence — but this requires hard work!  Remember “assault weapons” were banned under President Clinton, with no impact.  Begin with facts:

• §  “More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence,” states David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.  Check the source:  “The Assault Weapon Myth,” The New York Times, Sept. 14, 2014  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
• §  Harden the Schools — we protect airports and government buildings, don’t we?  Here are specifics:  7 Simple Steps to Eliminate School Shootings Overnight,  Townhall, Feb. 18, 2018  https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2018/02/18/how-to-eliminate-school-shootings-overnight-n2450380                                                                
• §  Raise your voice about the connection between media and violence — here’s a secret: the news industry knows there is a connection when it comes to teen suicide, because all evidence indicates such coverage triggers more suicides.  They don’t talk about it; so ask them.  For years, the news industry has followed a self-imposed restriction to NOT give extensive coverage to teen suicides.  If you acknowledge that, the rest of the train comes with it (i.e., hyped news coverage of other violent acts triggers more violence).  Reference:   http://reportingonsuicide.org/
• §  Be proactive:  Recommend where society should put its resources — that is a teachable moment.  For example, if we assess social risk factors, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) does not even list homicide among its top 10 causes of deaths.  According to the CDC, the top 3 causes of all annual deaths (about 2 million) are:      
• o   Heart disease (633,842)  
• o   Cancer (595,930) and  
• o   Chronic lower respiratory diseases (155,041) -- bronchitis, emphysema, COPD.  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
• §  What about firearms?  According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2016, there were an estimated 17,250 total homicides (by all means).  How many homicides were committed with a firearm: 15,000 (in round numbers).  Reference link:  FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2016 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/murder
• §  What about other risk benchmarks — such as prescription drugs and lethal medical mistakes.  If society wants to target significant public health risks, the combined estimate of deaths due to lethal medical mistakes and overdosing on prescription drugs is as high as one-half million per year — 33 times greater than total homicides (by all means).  A staggering public health risk.
• §  Prescription Drug Painkillers — DEA link: http://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2015/hq110415.shtml
• §  Lethal medical mistakes — Reference link: Journal of Patient Safety -- http://patientsafetyamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/A_New_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.pdf

• 
  

  3) What about the news media?  Worried about negative coverage if you don’t get in line?  In fact, the news industry has more to worry about — collapsing trust & collapsing business model.

• §  Sixty-eight percent of Americans now say they have little or no trust in the press, according to Gallup which has tracked response to this question annually since 1997 (long before President Trump’s tweets, by the way).  Tracking polls are a big deal.  Gallup calls that “a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public.”   Polls often make "front page" news — except this one.  Why?  Reference link:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

Finally, looking for a role model for how to respond to questions when you defend freedom?  Watch Governor Bevins of Kentucky handle a question about “school violence.”  No dancing, no bluster, but a firm, polite response — bone-deep belief.  Wow.  We need more like him in office.

http://www.kentuckynewera.com/multimedia/video/news/youtube_c2674705-960f-52ed-b8d8-9d2c34d514e4.html

By: José Niño

In 2020, gun owners have many enemies.

It’s no secret that government entities pose threats to those of us who exercise our Second Amendment rights. Just taking a look at the bills filed in your state legislature can give you an idea of the lengths anti-gunners will go to strip us of our civil liberties.

In the Trump era, there have seen some interesting changes in the way the gun control crowd has changed their strategy. Having been largely shut out of power in D.C., gun control organizations have logically shifted their energy to lower levels of government, such as state legislatures and city councils.

Seasoned political operatives understand the importance of building political power bases at all levels of governments. This kind of work is what leads to major victories further down the line. But the forces of gun control have not just limited their efforts to traditional political activism. They are now operating outside of the conventional realm of politics by using corporate America to advance anti-gun causes.

Big Tech has been at the vanguard of this privatized form of persecution levied at Second Amendment supporters. Just look at Karl Kasarda, who ran the YouTube channel InRange TV. Fox News reported his channel “was wiped without warning in early 2018.” Kasarda pulled no punches when he talked about Big Tech’s suffocating control over political discourse:

"The issue of oligarchical control over the Internet and all the impact over the ability to use it for free speech is going to only get worse.”

Kasarda referred to the "big five" — Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube — as the main actors behind the recent wave of digital censorship directed towards the Second Amendment community and similar right-wing groups.

"It is unclear what the rules are," Kasarda said. "Specifically, with YouTube, they pretty much enforce whatever they feel based on their bias of the day. Regardless of your personal belief, firearms and their accessories are legal in the United States. So why are we seeing continuing restrictions and challenges towards content about something demonstrably legal yet not against that which is clearly illegal?"

Starting in 2018, after the Parkland mass shooting, YouTube began to ban videos that "promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories.” In addition, it prohibited instructional on how to build firearms.

"Content intended to sell firearms, instruct viewers on how to make firearms, ammunition, and certain accessories, or instruct viewers on how to install those accessories is not allowed on YouTube," the company’s policy stated. "YouTube shouldn't be used as a platform to sell firearms or accessories noted below. YouTube also doesn't allow live streams that show someone holding, handling, or transporting a firearm."

Google classifies firearms content as "non-family safe," and Twitter has boasted about its prohibition of "the promotion of weapons and weapon accessories globally."

Facebook, which is the parent company of Instagram, also bans the "sale or trade of firearms, ammunition, and explosives between private individuals."

Due to the arbitrary nature of Facebook policies, there has been a noticeable chilling effect that has affected firearms companies big and small.

Tom Taylor, chief marketing officer and executive vice president of commercial sales for SIG Sauer, believes the social media censorship of firearms companies is getting way out of hand.

"Instagram and Facebook, Google and YouTube, Twitter, Yahoo – or virtually any mainstream search engine – is not allowing firearm manufacturers to advertise or promote via paid activities,” Taylor said. “No sponsored or paid posts are allowed. These platforms are built to be optimized by paid advertising so, the firearm industry is almost completely dependent on organic reach and grassroots efforts.”

Taylor revealed that the situation is only getting worse as these companies find more avenues to manipulate social media algorithms to censor gun-related content.

"Many companies attempt to use hashtags that are unrelated to restricted categories/topics or work with non-firearm specific partners," Taylor explained. "Even then, if it is used at a high enough rate, a company may be warned, flagged, and/or blocked, that is shadowbanned."

The threats gun owners face in 2020 are unconventional. With Big Tech jumping on the anti-gun craze, gun grabbers have plenty of ways to attack our freedoms.

Although private enterprise has America great, it can be used to advance political causes that are detrimental to our liberties. But not all hope is lost. Gun owners can flex their economic muscles by boycotting businesses that participate in the anti-gun-frenzy. Similarly, firearms organizations and business will have to adapt and turn to snail mail, email marketing, and other forms of promotion that are not as reliant on traditional social media platforms.

It’s tough, but that’s the way things are in 2020 gun politics.

José Niño is a Venezuelan American freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. Sign up for his mailing list here. Contact him via Facebook, Twitter, or email him at joseinpolitics@gmail.com. Get his e-book, The 10 Myths of Gun Control, here.

Missouri couple who defended home have rifle seized during police search: report:   Authorities in St. Louis executed a search warrant Friday evening at the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who made headlines last month when they took up arms to defend their home from protesters.

During the search, police seized the rifle that Mark McCloskey was shown holding during the June 28 incident, KSDK-TV of St. Louis reported, citing information from a source.

The couple claimed the pistol that Patricia McCloskey held during the June confrontation was already in the possession of their attorney, the station reported.

INVESTIGATION INTO ST. LOUIS COUPLE WHO DEFENDED THEIR HOME AGAINST PROTESTERS IS 'ABUSE OF POWER,' SAYS SEN. HAWLEY

There was no immediate indication the McCloskeys were arrested or charged with a crime. The warrant applied only to a search for the guns, KSDK reported.

On Monday, the McCloskeys appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” and disclosed that protesters had returned to their neighborhood July 3 – but the couple was alerted in advance and hired a private security company to protect their residence.

The previous night, “we started hiding valuables and securing the house,” Mark McCloskey told host Sean Hannity.

Last week’s protest was loud but non-violent, the homeowner said.

In the June incident, Patricia McCloskey said, the couple was startled just before dinnertime when “300 to 500 people” entered the gated community where they live.

"[They said] that they were going to kill us," Patricia McCloskey told Hannity on Monday night. "They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead, and they were pointing to different rooms and said, 'That’s going to be my bedroom and that’s going to be the living room and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room’.”"

The couple said protesters also threatened to harm their dog, which was outside the home at the time.

The protesters claimed they were passing the McCloskeys' home while heading toward the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson, to demonstrate there.

Soon after the June incident, Kimberly Gardner, circuit attorney in St. Louis, announced that her office and the St. Louis Police Department would be conducting an investigation into the McCloskeys’ display of firearms.

WHO IS KIMBERLY GARDNER, ST. LOUIS PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING GUN-TOTING COUPLE?

The couple’s attorney at the time, Albert Watkins, said in a statement that the couple did not arm themselves until after they began feeling threatened.

"My clients didn't sit on their front stoop with guns. ... No firearms were on them at the time that they, were, as property owners standing in front of their home," Watkins said at the time. "It was not until they basically were in a position of seeing and observing violence, recklessness, lawbreaking, and knowing that the police were not going to be doing anything."

Late Friday, KSDK reported that Watkins was no longer representing the couple and had been replaced by attorney Joel Schwartz, who confirmed a search warrant was issued at 8 p.m. Friday.

Schwartz would not confirm if authorities took anything from the home and said he was unaware of the location of the couple's handgun, KSDK reported.

The couple's new lawyer also said he hopes to meet with Gardner's office next week but said no appointment had yet been scheduled, according to KSDK.

“Should I buy a handgun or a shotgun for home defense?” is a question I often get from friends. These people often overlook AR-type rifles. Regardless, I often recommend an AR. Here’s why.

1. AR-type rifles simply shoot more accurately than handguns. If you have any doubts, simply run a quick experiment at your local outdoor range. Talk to gun owners of varying skill levels—from complete novices to experts—and ask them to volunteer for a fun course of fire. Set three IDPA silhouette targets, or something similar, at 10 yards from the shooter and about 2 yards apart. Tell them to shoot each target with two rounds, center mass, as accurately and fast as they are able. Use a shot timer and have them run the course with an AR-15, a handgun and a shotgun. No matter your sample size, almost all people will shoot the course more effectively (combination of time and accuracy) with the AR-type rifle.
2. AR-type rifles can have a greater magazine capacity. Joe Biden and his gun-ban-supporting friends think they know exactly how many rounds of ammunition you will “need” if you are ever in a fight for your life. The truth is that no one knows this anymore confidently than they know how many gallons of water will be needed to douse the next house fire in the neighborhood. No survivor of a life-or-death fight has ever said, “I wish I had had less firepower!”
3. These rifles give superior terminal performance. Rifles of appropriate caliber are much better fight-stoppers than handguns, and rival the effectiveness of shotguns in this department. Lawful lethal force is deployed by citizens when a violent threat must be immediately stopped before the bad guy takes a life. Long guns are simply better than handguns at quickly incapacitating violent threats.
4. These rifles readily accept accoutrements. Almost all modern ARs come from the manufacturer equipped with handguards that allow the convenient attachment of accessories, like lights and lasers, that can be helpful—often essential—in self-defense scenarios. Lights, whether attached to a gun or not, are a must to positively identify a threat in low-light scenarios. Lasers can help with quick and easy target acquisition, and they can also be the reason an attacker turns and runs. Suppressors are also easy to attach to ARs, and they can make the difference for your hearing if you are ever forced to discharge a rifle inside a home.
5. Finally, for decades there was an assumption that firing rifles in homes would present unacceptable risks to innocent parties on the other side of internal walls due to “over-penetration” issues. This is the reason many law-enforcement organizations used pistol-caliber submachine guns like the HK MP5 when going into homes in high-risk situations. But this over-penetration argument was based on a flawed assumption. The FBI decided to put this assumption to the test, and study this matter. It found that 5.56 NATO self-defense ammunition posed no greater risk of over-penetration than rounds fired from pistols and shotguns. While the myth remains, good people should not be deterred by it. Be safe and always assume all bullets will pass through all walls.

If you have friends come to you asking about home defense options, make sure you do them the favor of having them consider an AR-style rifle. For many people, it’s a superior home-defense arm that should not be ignored.

For your listening pleasure~~

"Star Spangled Steel"

(who says gun folks aren't cultured?!~~ ;)

https://youtu.be/DHLlwiLebkc

Always remember, give people something to vote for.  Here’s an excellent example from a young mother in Colorado. 

https://www.westernjournal.com/conservative-mom-famously-confronted-beto-orourke-scores-massive-election-win/

Health care professionals misusing their patients’ trust to push a political agenda of gun control is called an ethical boundary violation. 

You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making (your doctor may very likely just be going along with the guidelines of his or her gun-hating medical organization such as the AAP or ACP), it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:

Download the DRGO Resource Document “What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Your Guns” here 

—Timothy Wheeler, MD is the founder and former director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and a retired head and neck surgeon.

All DRGO articles by Timothy Wheeler, MD.  

June 26, 2020 |  Cam Edwards  With gun sales soaring, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation reporting that as many as 2-million Americans have purchased their first gun in just the past six months, some folks are starting to think about the impact that these new Second Amendment enthusiasts could have on the November elections. Alan Gottlieb, the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, believes that the influx of new gun owners could signal a “sea change” in Second Amendment politics.

“This new wave of gun owners could become a formidable force during this year’s election,” Gottlieb noted. “From now on, we expect millions of new gun owners to pay closer attention to candidates, and reject those who would trample on their Second Amendment rights. With legions of new gun owners ready to protect these newly-discovered rights, it could be a pretty scrappy election year with lots of surprises.”

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we dig a little deeper into those new gun owners and how the might effect this year’s elections as well as the broader debate over gun ownership in this country.

As much as I’d love to think that every new gun owner is going to turn into a single issue voter, we know that isn’t going to be the case. There will be plenty of left-leaning new gun owners who cast their votes for anti-gun Democrats in November, even if they now object to a candidate’s position on the Second Amendment. My hope is that these gun owners will not only come to understand the importance of voting to protect their right to keep and bear arms sooner rather than later, but that they’ll push Democrats to undo the damage done by gun control laws.

As I wrote yesterday, it’s time to decriminalize the 2A as part of criminal justice reform efforts, and left-leaning gun owners may be able to make these arguments to Democrats who would ignore the same thing if it came out of the mouth of a conservative gun owner. One day before long the idea of gun licensing and discretionary carry laws may be just as unpopular on the Left as the national anthem or Abraham Lincoln seem to be at the moment.

Having said that, Gottlieb is right that some of these new gun owners will be voting to protect their newly exercised right to keep and bear arms. For instance, at the moment there are tens of thousands of Illinois residents who’ve been waiting for months for the state to issue their Firearms Owned ID card so they can legally purchase a firearm. Many of these would-be gun owners may still be so ticked off by the process that they vote in favor of candidates in November who want to scrap the FOID system entirely.

New gun owners in California who’ve now been exposed to the absurdities of the state’s gun control regime could also have an impact on some races, though Biden will still win the state handily. In swing districts, however, new gun owners could help tilt races for the state Assembly and state Senate. I don’t think California’s legislature is going to flip to being a pro-2A body, but if the gun vote does turn out in large numbers in November we might be able to at least remove the veto-proof anti-gun supermajority in the state.

In other words, I think the influx of new gun owners could very well play a key role in deciding some elections, but increased political activism by the nearly 100-million Americans who’ve owned firearms for years could have an even bigger impact. Regardless of when you became a gun owner, it’s critically important that you vote like your rights depend on it this fall, because they absolutely do. Increased gun ownership on the Left may help defuse or undo gun control legislation over the long-term, but in the near future, Democrat control of Congress and the White House would lead to a gutting of the right to keep and bear arms for all of us.

June 25th, 2020 | CCRKBA  BELLEVUE, WA – The recent gun-buying surge that began with the COVID-19 pandemic panic and continued through the civil unrest and riots following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody has created millions of new gun owners who will now eagerly protect their right to protect themselves and their loved ones, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms predicts.

“Look at all of the new people who suddenly decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms,” observed CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We’ve witnessed something that is nothing short of a sea change, and in some cases might approach the level of epiphany, about gun ownership. We’ve heard anecdotal reports from all over the country about people flocking to gun shops who had never before owned a firearm. Now that they are gun owners, we expect them to be very protective of their rights.”

March, April and May saw record numbers of background checks, according to FBI data and information from industry sources. June data should be out within days, and CCRKBA expects the trend to continue.

“As we’ve said before,” Gottlieb recalled, “we welcome all of these new gun owners to the firearms community. We know many of them are minorities, especially Black and female citizens from literally all age groups, and they will find gun owners have a big tent with lots of room for newcomers. They can take advantage of training opportunities, meet new friends who share more interests than they might have suspected, and gain a new understanding of our efforts to protect the one fundamental right that actually protects all of the other rights.

“We’re not surprised to hear about new first-time gun buyers who have discovered how much enjoyment they get out of shooting,” he added. “We’ve seen this with generations of new gun owners who may never have had any previous experience with firearms. Many of them discover a sense of empowerment that allows them, maybe for the first time, to understand they can take care of themselves, and that they are responsible for their own safety.

“This new wave of gun owners could become a formidable force during this year’s election,” Gottlieb noted. “From now on, we expect millions of new gun owners to pay closer attention to candidates, and reject those who would trample on their Second Amendment rights. With legions of new gun owners ready to protect these newly-discovered rights, it could be a pretty scrappy election year with lots of surprises.”

June 24, 2020 | Cam Edwards  California’s law requiring background checks on every purchase of ammunition has been a gigantic clusterfark since it took effect back in 2018. Since then, tens of thousands of Californians have been denied the ability to purchase ammunition because of problems with the government’s database of gun owners, while others have had to wait through lengthy delays to simply purchase a box or two of ammunition.

Back in April, a federal judge issued a stay on enforcement of the law, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly overruled the lower court, and the law remains in effect for the time being, though the case (known as Rhode vs. Becerra) is still actively being litigated. On Monday, a coalition of 16 attorneys general, all of them Democrats, filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the California law is constitutional and urged the court to permanently vacate the district court’s injunction.

If you live in Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, or Washington you should know that your attorney general has given the green light for your state legislature to implement California-style ammunition control if they want.

First, the amici States object to the district court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment constrained California’s ability to enact the ammunition regulations at issue here. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment allows States to address the harmful effects of gun violence through new regulations. And California’s ammunition regulations—which are similar to numerous laws across the country—are an appropriate exercise of that prerogative.

Second, the amici States disagree with the district court’s apparent view that California’s interests in public safety and crime prevention cannot be substantiated by the types of evidence presented here. On the contrary, it is settled that States may support their interests in public safety and crime prevention with a wide range of evidence, including social science studies and legislative findings.

First off, there’s no other state in the country that requires background checks on ammunition sales, though the requirement was part of the SAFE Act signed into law in New York in 2013. The New York State Police never figured out how to actually conduct the background checks, however, and in 2015 Gov. Andrew Cuomo suspended the requirement due to the failure of his administration to find a way to implement the law.

The AG’s brief ignores New York’s failure and tries instead to point to laws in several states that they claim bear a strong resemblance to the law being challenged in California.

Relevant here, a number of States have also extended background checks or similar requirements to ammunition sales within their jurisdictions. Indeed, four States in addition to California require some form of background check to purchase ammunition. Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey currently require that individuals possess a license or firearms identification card—which requires passing a background check—before purchasing ammunition.

The District of Columbia also imposes restrictions on ammunition sales; District residents may only purchase ammunition if they are listed as a registered owner of a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition they seek to purchase. D.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-2505.02(d), 7-2506.01. Nonresidents seeking to purchase ammunition must demonstrate that they lawfully possess a firearm of the same caliber or gauge. Id. § 7-2505.02(d). And like California, the District also requires all ammunition sales to be conducted in-person.

None of the states mentioned by the AG’s require background checks to be performed before every ammunition purchase, and none of them prohibit ammunition purchased out-of-state from being brought back home by legal gun owners. In fact, if that’s the law in Washington, D.C., no gun owner in the city would be able to purchase ammunition, because there are zero gun stores in the District. It’s laughable that the anti-gun attorneys general are citing a law that is utterly unenforceable in their quest to have California’s ammunition background check law declared constitutional.

If you’re a Second Amendment legal nerd, be sure to read the entire brief. And if you live in one of these 16 states with AG’s backing California’s asinine infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, you better contact your lawmakers now and urge them to reject any attempt to impose California-style ammunition purchase restrictions, even if your attorney general has given the go-ahead.