Category: Shotguns » Pump » 12 Gauge
|
DP-12 Double Barrel Pump Repeater 12 Gauge Shotgun 16 Round Capacity Manufactured by Standard Manufacturing
6 Customer Reviews
| |||||||||||||||||
Saturday, August 1, 2015
DP-12 Double Barrel Pump Repeater 12 Gauge Shotgun 16 Round Capacity
Los Angeles City Council Targets Law-Abiding With Magazine Ban
APPEARS IN
News
Legal & Legislation
Los Angeles City Council Targets Law-Abiding With Magazine Ban
Friday, July 31, 2015
Back in 2013, the city of Los Angeles’s city council proposed an ordinance banning the possession of
magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds (so-called
“large-capacity” magazines). Unfortunately, on Tuesday, July 28, 2015,
after a two year delay, the city council unanimously passed an amended
version of this useless ordinance and sent it to the Mayor for his signature, which the Mayor has indicated he is eager to provide.
This ordinance will not prevent violent crime or mass shootings, but it does limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners who choose these magazines to defend themselves and their families. As most gun owners already know, magazines holding more than ten rounds are standard equipment for many popular pistols and rifles, especially those that are selected for defensive purposes. These standard capacity magazines are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense.
If signed into law, people who legally possess magazines over 10 rounds have a 60-day grace period to sell those magazines, remove the magazines from the city, or turn them over to Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Unlike California’s magazine law, individuals currently in lawful possession of these magazines will not be protected by a “grandfather” clause. The ordinance effectively amounts to confiscation because the magazines must either be turned-in or removed from within city limits. Either option obviously eliminates the inherent value in these magazines as tools for self-defense.
Sunnyvale and San Francisco have already adopted similar ordinances, and both of those ordinances have been challenged in court. The NRA supported case against the Sunnyvale ordinance is currently awaiting an appeal after the Ninth Circuit ruled against an attempt to prevent the ordinance from going into effect.
These ordinances give insight into what anti-gun activists will pursue if given the opportunity. Law abiding citizens who are in compliance with California’s already burdensome gun laws are not a public safety threat, yet Sunnyvale, San Francisco, and now Los Angeles are seeking to turn the law-abiding into criminals one step at a time. While court battles against these ordinances continue, the best option for gun owners is to ensure that their elected representatives, including those at the local level, understand that ineffective, ideologically-driven restrictions on our Second Amendment rights have consequences at the ballot box.
This ordinance will not prevent violent crime or mass shootings, but it does limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners who choose these magazines to defend themselves and their families. As most gun owners already know, magazines holding more than ten rounds are standard equipment for many popular pistols and rifles, especially those that are selected for defensive purposes. These standard capacity magazines are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense.
If signed into law, people who legally possess magazines over 10 rounds have a 60-day grace period to sell those magazines, remove the magazines from the city, or turn them over to Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Unlike California’s magazine law, individuals currently in lawful possession of these magazines will not be protected by a “grandfather” clause. The ordinance effectively amounts to confiscation because the magazines must either be turned-in or removed from within city limits. Either option obviously eliminates the inherent value in these magazines as tools for self-defense.
Sunnyvale and San Francisco have already adopted similar ordinances, and both of those ordinances have been challenged in court. The NRA supported case against the Sunnyvale ordinance is currently awaiting an appeal after the Ninth Circuit ruled against an attempt to prevent the ordinance from going into effect.
These ordinances give insight into what anti-gun activists will pursue if given the opportunity. Law abiding citizens who are in compliance with California’s already burdensome gun laws are not a public safety threat, yet Sunnyvale, San Francisco, and now Los Angeles are seeking to turn the law-abiding into criminals one step at a time. While court battles against these ordinances continue, the best option for gun owners is to ensure that their elected representatives, including those at the local level, understand that ineffective, ideologically-driven restrictions on our Second Amendment rights have consequences at the ballot box.
When Bureaucrats Make “Sport” of Fundamental Liberties, Congress Must Act
APPEARS IN
News
When Bureaucrats Make “Sport” of Fundamental Liberties, Congress Must Act
Friday, July 31, 2015
In May, I discussed the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ varying interpretations of the phrase
“sporting purposes” in federal gun control law. We had just fought the
agency to a standstill over its plan to ban the manufacture and
importation of the M855 cartridge, the second most common variety of
ammunition for America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15. B. Todd Jones,
then director of BATFE, resigned in the aftermath of that debacle, but
not before telling a Senate Appropriations Committee that with pistol
platforms for the cartridge available, “any 5.56 round, it’s a challenge
for officer safety, public safety.”
With statements like that, Mr. Jones will not be missed by
the pro-gun community. But the attitude he displayed, and the events
surrounding M855 ammunition earlier this year, point toward a more
fundamental problem with federal gun control that will not go away with
the tabling of one bad proposal or the departure of another BATFE
official. That problem arises from two words: “sporting purposes.” By
making undefined “sporting purposes” the test for legality under
numerous federal firearms laws, Congress not only delegated too much
discretion to BATFE, it deemphasized the primary reason Americans own
firearms and the primary purpose of their constitutional protection.
That reason is self-defense.
While the NRA has no problem with sports, or the sporting
use of arms, that phrase misses the point when it comes to heart of the
Second Amendment. By making
undefined “sporting purposes” the test for legality under numerous
federal firearms laws, Congress not only delegated too much discretion
to BATFE, it deemphasized the primary reason Americans own firearms and
the primary purpose of their constitutional protection. That reason is
self-defense. The M855 episode is just the latest example of why the
current congressional scheme, administered by the highly-politicized
BATFE, has become untenable. With your help, and the help of Rep. Rob
Bishop (R-Utah), the NRA intends to see this problem fixed for good.
In June, Rep. Bishop introduced a bill to “revise various
laws that interfere with right of the people to obtain and use firearms
for all lawful purposes,” known more simply as the “Sporting Purposes
Reform Act.” Before I discuss the specifics of that legislation, I’d
like to elaborate upon the meaning of the Second Amendment and its place
in American culture and constitutional structure.
When I say that self-defense is at the heart of the Second
Amendment, I’m not alone. According to the results of a Pew Research
Center poll released in March 2013, “protection” was the number one
reason Americans cited for owning a gun, nearly eclipsing all other
reasons combined. The percentage mentioning protection was nine points
higher than the combined percentage mentioning hunting, target or other
sporting shooting. Nearly eight in ten gun owners surveyed revealed
owing a gun made them feel safer. Gallup also reported last November
that 63% of Americans, a record-high percentage, now believe that having
a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be.
Yet while public sentiment is important, the Constitution
has its own independent meaning, established by the Founders and meant
to carry the nation through good times and bad. In the case of the
Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has made clear that individual
protection comprises the “core” of the right to keep and bear arms.
Although gun control advocates like to pretend otherwise,
this was clear even before the landmark Heller and McDonald cases of the
21st Century. At the extreme, firearm prohibitionists cite
the 1939 case of United States v. Miller as holding the Second Amendment
protects only a “collective” right of states to maintain their own
militias.
To the contrary, the Court’s opinion in that case took for
granted that Miller – who never claimed membership in a state militia –
could raise a Second Amendment claim against federal regulations that
applied to his personally owned short-barreled shotgun. The Court noted
that at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, “the militia”
was understood to comprise “all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense.” When called for service, “these men
were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the
kind in common use at the time.”
Thus, Miller’s actual participation in an organized
militia was considered irrelevant to the resolution of the case. Rather,
the Court focused on the character of the weapon Miller possessed and
whether it could be considered among the “arms” protected by the Second
Amendment. Such arms, the opinion indicated, include those in common use
at the time which are either “part of the ordinary military equipment”
or the use of which “could contribute to the common defense.” Because
Miller had not put forth evidence on any of these matters, and because
the Court could not say as a matter of common knowledge that a
short-barreled shotgun met these criteria, it ruled against Miller on
the Second Amendment claim. The Supreme
Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller reinforced this
message. There, the court held that “the right to keep and bear arms”
means “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of
confrontation.” The sort of confrontations the Court was referencing are
not those involving big game or occurring between contestants at the
National Matches. Rather, they involve resistance against lawless acts
of violence, whether that involves repelling invasion, suppressing
insurrection, opposing tyranny, or protecting one’s home or person
against a dangerous criminal.
Nevertheless, what is clear from the Court’s opinion is
that to be considered within the scope of the Second Amendment, a
firearm has to be of the sort that an ordinary person summoned to defend
the community would be expected to own and could use for that purpose.
While “sporting” arms are not necessarily excluded from this category,
the suitability of a firearm for deer hunting or trap shooting is not
the controlling inquiry. Rather, the test hinges on the firearm’s
usefulness in defense.
The Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v.
Heller reinforced this message. There, the court held that “the right to
keep and bear arms” means “the individual right to possess and carry
weapons in case of confrontation.” The sort of confrontations the Court
was referencing are not those involving big game or occurring between
contestants at the National Matches. Rather, they involve resistance
against lawless acts of violence, whether that involves repelling
invasion, suppressing insurrection, opposing tyranny, or protecting
one’s home or person against a dangerous criminal. While the Heller
Court reiterated that preserving the militia justified including the
Second Amendment in in the Bill of Rights, it also emphasized that
purpose did not limit or confine the scope of the right itself. The
right to keep and bear arms, the Court wrote, is derived from and
embodies “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and
“the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”
The Heller Court determined that handguns were among the
arms protected by the Second Amendment, not because they are used for
Bullseye or silhouette competition, but because the people themselves
choose them to defend life and property. The “American people have
considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon,”
the Court stated. Accordingly, “a complete prohibition of their use is
invalid.”
Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court
reasserted that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right … and … individual
self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”
Against this backdrop, the idea that federal firearms law
should draw the line of legality at “sporting purposes” is clearly not
sustainable, at least not when BATFE insists on making artificial
distinctions of the sort I discussed in May between the “sporting” and
practical uses of firearms. The fundamentals of marksmanship and the
proper handling of firearms developed in a sporting context can
certainly be transferrable to the “real world” use of firearms in a
confrontation. Yet when a bureaucrat takes so narrow a view of “sporting
purposes” that the term excludes arms or features specifically because
of their suitability for protective purposes, Congress must intervene.
That’s exactly what Rep. Bishop’s bill would do. By
removing “sporting purposes” as the governing standard in various
provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, the
legislation would accomplish a world of good for gun owners. The bill
would eliminate BATFE’s authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition
as “armor piercing ammunition.” It would ensure the same types of
firearms and ammunition already commonly available to Americans from
domestic manufacturers could also be imported. It would protect
shotguns, shotgun shells, and larger caliber rifles from arbitrary
classification as highly-restricted “destructive devices.”
Rep. Bishop’s description of the bill speaks volumes: “The
founding fathers recognized that the right to bear arms is
fundamentally tied to self-defense. This is as true today as it was over
two centuries ago when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The BATFE has
exploited vagaries present in federal gun law to chip away at basic
rights. This legislation will slap the over-reaching hand of the federal
government and restore some of the freedoms our grandparents enjoyed.”
Reform of this sort is long overdue, and we thank Rep.
Bishop for his leadership in this vital effort. It’s time for BATFE to
stop gaming your rights. It’s time for Congress to blow the whistle on
“sporting purposes.”
Gun Control "Study" Misses the Mark Badly on Lawful Self-Defense
APPEARS IN
News
Gun Control "Study" Misses the Mark Badly on Lawful Self-Defense
Friday, July 31, 2015
Likely as a response to the growing number of American’s who have come to realize that having a firearm makes them safer, a blogger at the washingtonpost.com recently reported on a “study
” by an anti-gun professor that attempts to discredit the utility of
carrying a firearm for self-defense by placing participants into
simulated self-defense scenarios. The “study” was notably prepared for
the anti-gun group National Gun Victims Action Council.
The thrust of the Post article is a not-so-veiled attempt to convince readers that carry permit holders are unprepared for most self-defense encounters. However, the “study” doesn’t actually show this at all. The “study” didn’t limit the participants to concealed carry permit holders. Therefore, the conclusions in the study can’t be applied to people who have actually made the decision to carry a gun for self-defense.
Perhaps the most interesting finding, given the “study’s” consistent recommendation of extensive training for carry permit holders, is that there was no statistical evidence that training improved participants’ accuracy during the simulated encounters, largely due to the fact that the scenarios were so badly designed. But even without any evidence, the authors of the “study” press on, which is not uncommon among anti-gun fanatics trying to advance their cause.
Self-defense simulations are not needed to determine if lawfully armed citizens can defend themselves from criminal attacks. Armed citizens defend themselves and others on a daily basis. Just a few examples from this month show that armed citizens are able to consistently make the correct split-second decisions in real-life encounters with violent attack. On July 3, a Milwaukee clothing storeowner used an AR-15 to repel three armed men who had already crashed a van through the front of his store. In Georgia, an Army veteran ended an armed robbery with accurate fire from his lawfully carried pistol. In perhaps the best example, only days after Kansas’ permitless carry law took effect, an armed citizen carrying under the new provision foiled an armed robbery without firing a shot.
With over 11 million armed citizens with carry permits and many more carrying where no permit is required, criminals are more and more likely to be confronted by a lawfully armed citizen, which can only lead to more Americans understanding the societal benefits of having “a good guy with a gun” when and where you need them most.
The thrust of the Post article is a not-so-veiled attempt to convince readers that carry permit holders are unprepared for most self-defense encounters. However, the “study” doesn’t actually show this at all. The “study” didn’t limit the participants to concealed carry permit holders. Therefore, the conclusions in the study can’t be applied to people who have actually made the decision to carry a gun for self-defense.
Perhaps the most interesting finding, given the “study’s” consistent recommendation of extensive training for carry permit holders, is that there was no statistical evidence that training improved participants’ accuracy during the simulated encounters, largely due to the fact that the scenarios were so badly designed. But even without any evidence, the authors of the “study” press on, which is not uncommon among anti-gun fanatics trying to advance their cause.
Self-defense simulations are not needed to determine if lawfully armed citizens can defend themselves from criminal attacks. Armed citizens defend themselves and others on a daily basis. Just a few examples from this month show that armed citizens are able to consistently make the correct split-second decisions in real-life encounters with violent attack. On July 3, a Milwaukee clothing storeowner used an AR-15 to repel three armed men who had already crashed a van through the front of his store. In Georgia, an Army veteran ended an armed robbery with accurate fire from his lawfully carried pistol. In perhaps the best example, only days after Kansas’ permitless carry law took effect, an armed citizen carrying under the new provision foiled an armed robbery without firing a shot.
With over 11 million armed citizens with carry permits and many more carrying where no permit is required, criminals are more and more likely to be confronted by a lawfully armed citizen, which can only lead to more Americans understanding the societal benefits of having “a good guy with a gun” when and where you need them most.
Famed Law Professor, Defense Attorney Latest to Suggest Second Amendment Needs to Go
Famed Law Professor, Defense Attorney Latest to Suggest Second Amendment Needs to Go
Friday, July 31, 2015
The legal profession is full of blowhards,
egomaniacs, hypocrites, and elitists, but even so, rarely are all those
qualities present in a single individual to the same degree as in Alan
Dershowitz. At age 28, Dershowitz became the youngest full professor of
law in history with his appointment at Harvard. And, yes, it went to his
head. He has written that he “does not hide behind the distorting
shield of false humility” and has even suggested things might have gone
differently for Jesus if he had been there to represent him.
When not busy indoctrinating impressionable law students in his own
particular brand of politics, Prof. Dershowitz has advocated on behalf
of various celebrity clients, including in highly-publicized cases
involving allegations of murderous domestic violence.
Despite his reputation in some circles as a civil rights
champion, Dershowitz is no fan of the Second Amendment. He has advocated
for a variety of gun controls, including banning all semi-automatic
firearms. As he said on the (since cancelled)
Piers Morgan show, “If I could ban 100 percent of guns without
violating the Constitution, I would do that ….” In the same appearance,
he called the idea that guns have a role in protecting liberty “a myth.”
Nevertheless, at least at one point,
he was willing to go on record as admitting the Second Amendment
protects an “individual right to ownership of guns,” although subject to
regulation.
Nevertheless, Dershowitz (who admitted in 2003 that he's never held a pistol) on Monday claimed America’s “experiment” with private ownership of firearms “has failed miserably.” During an appearance on Newsmax TV,
he went on to say, “If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I
would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world
that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms.”
Even though Dershowitz is famed for his expansive readings
of other provisions of the Bill of Rights, he would have no problem
regulating the Second Amendment into oblivion. “What
is needed,” he said, “is some very tough legislation on both the
federal and state level to make it much, much harder to get guns and to
create a presumption against gun ownership instead of a presumption in
favor of gun ownership ….”
Although perhaps the most obnoxious, Dershowitz is by no
means the first legal prima donna to suggest rewriting the Bill of
Rights to eliminate the Second Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg has publicly suggested that a “future, wiser court” could
revisit the landmark Heller decision, which recognized a private right
to arms under the Second Amendment. Later, in a televised appearance
from Cairo, Egypt, Justice Ginsburg remarked that she “would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
More recently, another dissenter from the Heller case, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote an entire book
about how he would refashion the U.S. Constitution to his liking. Among
his suggestions is limiting “the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms” in the Second Amendment with the phrase, “when serving in the
militia.”
While we at the NRA don’t think much of their
constitutional scholarship, we can at least credit these influential
legal thinkers for their candor and for illustrating the true
philosophical underpinnings of the gun control movement. No matter how
else they may couch their rhetoric – most recently as “gun safety”
proponents, gun control advocates simply hate guns and do not trust the
American people to have them. It
should surprise no one that the legal elites among them are perfectly
willing to repeal or judicially nullify the Second Amendment entirely.
The next U.S. president could appoint perhaps three or
even four Supreme Court justices to a bench where the Heller and
McDonald decisions currently survive by one vote. The importance of who
makes those appointments should not be lost on those who value the right
to keep and bear arms. Whatever else can be said of his tendency
towards incessant bloviation, that’s one lesson from Prof. Dershowitz we
all should heed.
Take Two Losses and Call Me in the Morning: Florida Court Again Sides With Patient Privacy, Hands Nosy Doctors Second Defeat
Take Two Losses and Call Me in the Morning: Florida Court Again Sides With Patient Privacy, Hands Nosy Doctors Second Defeat
Friday, July 31, 2015
Anti-gun doctors may need to get their own blood
pressure checked after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit again upheld Florida’s Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act.
As we reported last summer,
the law was passed after an escalating series of events in which
patients were harassed or denied access to services because they refused
to be interrogated by their doctors about their ownership of firearms. A
group of Florida doctors committed to the idea of haranguing patients
for exercising their Second Amendment rights sued, claiming a First
Amendment right to grill patients about firearm ownership, even where it
isn’t relevant to the patient’s care.
Unsurprisingly, the appellate court upheld the law
last July, stating: “The essence of the Act is simple: medical
practitioners should not record information or inquire about patients’
firearm-ownership status when doing so is not necessary to providing the
patient with good medical care.” Far from a ban on doctors’ expressing
their views about firearms or other public policy or medical issues, the
court held, the Act merely “protects a patient’s ability to receive
effective medical treatment without compromising the patient’s privacy
with regard to matters unrelated to healthcare.”
It’s no secret that the medical establishment has long been hostile toward the private ownership of firearms. No less a doctor than President Obama’s pick for U.S. Surgeon General has engaged in anti-gun activism. Even WebMD.com, a common online source for medical information, counsels parents
to “to avoid keeping guns and firearms in the home,” and only provides
recommendations for “secure” storage when purging the home of firearms
altogether “is not possible.” This history, as well as outright discrimination against patients who refused to discuss their gun ownership, formed the backdrop for Florida’s law.
It’s also no surprise that the plaintiffs and other gun
control advocates were not happy with the loss the Eleventh Circuit
handed to them back in 2014. “Censorship in Your Doctor’s Office,” huffed the New York Times. A Florida physician’s group called the decision “egregious” and “dangerous” and claimed it would silence “life-saving conversations.”
In any case, the panel of judges that issued the original
opinion decided on their own initiative to revisit their original
analysis. The results of that reconsideration were issued on Tuesday, in
a revised 77-page opinion. Spoiler alert: the doctors still lose and patient privacy still wins.
Whereas the original opinion characterized the regulated
behavior more as conduct – i.e., medical practice – rather than pure
speech, the revised opinion delves more deeply into the First Amendment
claims raised by the plaintiffs. Finding that inquiries into gun
ownership, entries about gun ownership in medical records, and even
verbal “harassment” of gun owners are all forms of “speech” protected by
the First Amendment, the court then considers the seriousness of the
regulatory intrusion and level of scrutiny to be applied to it.
The court observes, “All regulations of speech are not
created equal in the eyes of the First Amendment.” Here, the court
characterizes the regulated expression as “professional speech.” It then
finds the government has a freer hand to regulate in this context
because of “the authority—duty, even—of States to regulate the practice
of professions to ‘shield the public against the untrustworthy, the
incompetent, or the irresponsible.’” In this case, “The State made the
commonsense determination that inquiry about firearm ownership, a topic
which many of its citizens find highly private, falls outside the bounds
of good medical care to the extent the physician knows such inquiry to
be entirely irrelevant to the medical care or safety of a patient or any
person.” The court therefore determines that “intermediate scrutiny” is
the proper standard for evaluating the law.
The court identifies the state’s interests in enacting the
law as “protecting the public by regulating the medical profession so
as to safeguard patient privacy,” which it finds “substantial” enough to
satisfy intermediate scrutiny. It then goes on to find that the law’s
requirements have a “direct and material” relationship to alleviating
those harms. Citing the legislative record of complaints against
physicians, and the limited nature of the restrictions imposed by the
law, the court determines “’simple common sense’ furnishes ample support
for the legislature’s decision.” “The State need not point to
peer-reviewed studies or conduct extensive surveys,” the opinion states,
“to establish that proscribing highly intrusive speech that physicians
themselves do not believe to be relevant or necessary directly advances
the State’s interest in protecting its citizens from harmful or
ineffective professional practices and safeguarding their privacy.”
We certainly agree, and we credit the Court for its
thorough, well-reasoned opinion. Whether it’s the final word in the
case, however, remains to be seen. One of the three judges hearing the
case filed a lengthy dissent, echoing the familiar refrain that doctors’ must
be free to address the “public health problem” posed by firearms
according to their own beliefs. The plaintiffs still have the options of
petitioning the full roster of Eleventh Circuit judges to hear the case
en banc or to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative
Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of
America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding
individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to
purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed
by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
EXPLORE NRA-ILA
FOLLOW NRA-ILA
Friday, July 31, 2015
.223, AR-15 upper from Texas Black Rifle Company
|
TBRC Upper Reciever
Save Money On Shipping!
Each independent partner
warehouse competes for your business. Save on shipping by ordering from
one partner warehouse!
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Brand: Texas Black Rifle Company TBRC-M4-A-L
Item: ARR-1662 This fully assembled .223, AR-15 upper from Texas Black Rifle Company is a great start for any custom build. The flattop TBRC upper incorporates M4 feedramps, laser etched T-markings, forward assist, ejection port cover, and black milspec hard anodized finish. | |||||||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)