There is a troubling piece of legislation going through Congress right now that anyone who values gun rights should be aware of.

What H.R. 45 Does


The legislation has three main components.


1. Increasing requirements for firearms purchases.


2. Creating a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.


3. Stiffen penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database formed in section 2.


To purchase a firearm a person would be required to pass a written firearms examination, release all health records — including mental heath records — to the Attorney General’s office, and submit to a two-day waiting period, as well as pay an “appropriate” fee of $25 per firearm.


Additionally, every firearm sale would be recorded in a database, which would track the serial number, make, model and identity of the owner. The legislation would also make all private sales of firearms illegal, and a felony offense.


In addition to these regulations, the legislation includes excessive regulations and penalties for bureaucratic missteps from simple failures to report address changes to failure to report stolen weapons.


Provisions of H.R. 45 include:


– Requires passing a written examination to purchase a firearm.

– Releases medical records – including confidential mental health records – to the Attorney General for Government review.

– Requires a two-day waiting period on all firearms purchases.

– Institutes a fee of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.

– Creates a national database with all firearms and firearms owners registered by serial number with the Federal Government.

– A Federal ban on all private firearms sales.

– Increases in penalties for clerical errors related to this national firearms registry.

You can read the full text of the bill here.

Written by Spencer Aland


Far too often people think the solution to solving gun crime is to just take all guns away instead of developing ways to be able to track down illegally used guns. Well instead of spending money to print out new paperwork for legal gun owners some police forces are developing technology to track down illegal guns. The new system is called ‘ShotSpotter’ and it uses highly sensitive microphones designed to pick up specific gun shot sounds within city limits. The system uses these microphones in different locations to triangulate within a few blocks where a gun has been shot, all within a few seconds.


The system is great in the fight on gun crime because it can often alert police before anyone can call 911. There is no invasion of privacy because it only targets the illegal use of weapons within city limits, and if a law abiding citizen has to defend themselves with their firearm the police will be able to come and assist them more quickly.


This is what the government needs to be spending more time and money on- systems and tools to fight illegal gun use and gun crime, and not legal gun owners.

Written by Spencer Aland


An Ex-soldier in Britain has been found guilty of possession of a firearm, and could face up to five years in jail, for finding an illegal gun dumped in his backyard and then turning it into the police station. When I first read this story I had a hard time believing it to be true; I doubled checked to make sure I hadn’t clicked on a news satire website on accident, but to my absolute dismay it is a true story. The man found a sawed-off shotgun dumped into his yard from an adjoining park and decided that he should get it to the police straightaway. He took the weapon into the police station where he was immediately arrested and locked up for possession of a firearm. The court found him guilty, because it is ’strict liability’ and his intentions made no difference.


This is a perfect example of how gun control laws alienate the general public. The public is taught that the government has everything under control and that self preservation is not only unnecessary, but can be punishable. How many times have we heard of would-be burglars suing their intended victims for causing them some kind of harm in self defense? These types of things should not happen. An armed citizen should have the right to defend themselves, and a law abiding citizen has a right to report crime without fear of punishment.


Gun control laws in Britain should serve as an example of where that type of legislation can lead. Harsh gun control laws lead to a world of absolutes; a world where a person’s intent is irrelevant; a world where everyone with a gun is the enemy regardless of where, when, how, or even if they ever use it. The general public may be the best ally the police have in winning the war on crime, but heavy gun control is nothing more than friendly fire.

Written by Daniel White


Gun control advocates in this country know they are losing the hearts and minds of more and more Americans every day. Poll after poll has shown that support for gun control is at an all time low, repeatedly their agenda has been defeated in the courts, and pro-gun laws are still sweeping the country.


Ever since the “assault weapons ban” (AWB) sunset in 2004, they have been waiting for the right moment to try to get it restated. Now, five years later, some think they have that chance thanks to the Ft. Hood shooting. The fact that what have been arbitrarily defined as “assault weapons” by these activists were’t even used in this shooting is immaterial, this incident is little more than a means to an end for them.


They’ve already seized on reports that a FN Five-Seven pistol was used by Nidal Hasan, the killer at Ft. Hood who is being called a domestic terrorist by some. The Five-Seven was targeted by gun control groups right around the time that the AWB sunset as the latest demon gun that needed to be banned because it had armor piercing ammunition. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claimed to have successfully penetrated a bulletproof vest using the gun. While it is true that armor piercing ammunition does exist for the pistol, it is only available to law enforcement or military personnel. Whether Hasan had that kind of ammunition has not been released. What Brady forgot to tell you was that they used the second thinnest vest on the market, one that can be penetrated by many common handguns.


But this isn’t about truth, it is about agenda. Ever since they were invented there have been people who wanted to ban guns. Mass shootings in countries where guns have been banned tell us those bans don’t accomplish much other than to ensure that if someone does go on a rampage there is nobody there to stop them. Most mass shooting have one thing in common, they are ended at the barrel of a gun when someone is able to fight fire with fire.


An article posted after the Ft. Hood attacks highlights the illogic being used by the gun grabbers. Louis Klarevas, a Professor in the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, wrote an article called It’s the Guns, Stupid: Why Handguns Remain One of the Biggest Threats To Homeland Security. Part of his argument on why we are so stupid contains the following:

Think of this simple fact. According to the U.S. government’s National Counter-Terrorism Center, over 50% of the 11,770 terrorist attacks that occurred worldwide last year involved armed attacks. Most prominent among these attacks was the siege in Mumbai, India, which claimed 173 lives (including six Americans).

I no longer wonder “if” a Mumbai-style attack will occur in the U.S. Absent the implementation of serious gun control measures, I now ask “when”?

Here’s some facts for us stupid folks to consider. Permits for owning weapons are available to the citizens of India, but the licensing process is so complex that very few citizens make the effort to legally obtain guns. The result of this is that the Mumbai terrorists had the run of the streets with very little opposition.


Here’s something else to think about. Klarevas lists 11,770 terrorists attacks worldwide. How many happened in the United States? Which country is decried for lax gun laws? It looks to me like there might be a connection! So, to answer Klarevas’ question, “when” will there be a Mumbai-style attack in the U.S.? When they are finally able to ban guns here, stupid!


Cleveland Family Examiner Becky Roob made a good observation when she stated:

The media are talking about the type of weapon and have named the store where it was purchased! Who cares about the store where, oh my, they sell guns? If I have a dinner party and one of my guests gets drunk and kills someone on the way home – will the media tell the name of the wine store where I bought the alcohol? This is stupid. The guy was a nut! He would have killed any way – any how if that’s what he wanted to really do.

Absolutely right. Taking it one step further, who is really to blame for the drunk driving accident, the person behind the wheel or the wine itself. Do we ban white zinfandel because of someone’s lack of judgment? Do we sue the vineyard for pressing the wine? Do we sue the seed company for providing the means to grow the grapes that made the wine?


Gun control advocates have an agenda to get rid of guns by any means necessary. They will seize on any tragedy to further their cause and will deny all logic that gets in the way. It is up to the American people to see through the lies and spread the truth.

Written by Spencer Aland


Good news from Canada. The new government has finally voted to scrap the long gun registry. Now let me make something clear before I continue; I am in favor of handgun registration. I believe that knowing who purchased a particular handgun is important in law enforcement to prevent illegal second hand sales. However, I am not in favor of the government having a detailed record of where every gun is at all times, especially in respect to long guns.


This is a big step forward for legal gun owners in Canada because it breaks down a barrier to gun ownership. Under the previous law your guns had to be stored in a registered container and in a particular part of the home; the police also had to come and inspect your home for compliance yearly. This program was costing the Canadian people millions of dollars every year and doing virtually nothing to prevent crime. Police officers should be spending their time preventing illegal gun sales rather than ensuring that a law abiding citizen remembered to store his or her firearms correctly.


Programs like the one in Canada are red herrings that distract people from the real problems. Activist groups make people feel that if the gun registry is defeated that crime will run ramped through the streets and children will be shot on every corner. It doesn’t take an expert to know that things are not true, but most of these groups feed on nothing but fear. They attempt to scare people into what they think is best. The solutions to gun crime will not be found in policing lawful gun owners.

Written by Spencer Aland


Is more of nothing something? Apparently the gun control advocates believe that it is. For example, a recent report out of Scotland Yard reported that the number of gun crimes in the UK has doubled in the past few years, but instead of changing the way that they approach gun crime they insist that they should strengthen the current measures. In other words, the government wants to take a program that has obviously failed, and do more of it in an effort to stop what it already failed to in the first place – confused yet?


One of primary problems with government is its inability to change and adapt. When something doesn’t work government programs tend to increase their efforts rather than adapt. Gun crime and gun control are no different. Following a serious crime involving guns, the government decides that if it restricts the ability of everyone to get guns they can prevent that crime in the future. A few years later, another crime similar to the first happens so they restrict gun ownership further. Finally you get to a point where it is illegal to own guns – like in the UK – and yet gun crime is still rising.


When I was two years old I learned that two wrongs don’t make a right; however, the government feels that hundreds of wrongs may eventually equal a right. Gun crime is still a problem, and the illegal weapons market is becoming more profitable. It is time for a change, not more of the same failed practices.

Written by Spencer Aland


Since Obama won the Presidential election in 2008 gun sales in the Unites States have been soaring. Citizens feared that with a democratically controlled congress and presidency that gun rights would inevitably end up on the chopping block. In reality, gun rights have actually increased in America since President Obama took office – especially with the ruling of DC v Heller. President Obama had even stated on several occasions before he ever ran for public office that he actually believes the right to bear arms is an individual right and is not dependent upon militia service. And the number of democrats in congress that are supportive of gun rights makes it highly unlikely that any gun regulation will be on the docket anytime soon. While it appears that the general public may have over-reacted to the threat on gun rights it has actually given us a unique opportunity to look at what happens to crime rates as the number of private gun owners dramatically increases along with the number of conceal and carry permit holders.


More recently, the number of conceal and carry permit holders has more than doubled in most states. The surprising part is that in areas with the largest increase in conceal and carry permits we are also seeing the greatest reduction in violent crime. Although this is nothing new – as far back as 1997 there have been studies linking crime reduction with the number of conceal and carry permits – it is still surprising to many people when they hear about it, and many choose to disregard it.


Many advocates of gun control tend to sight that crime in general rises when gun are more present in an area. Generally speaking this is true, but the number of violent crimes and crimes committed with firearms actually decrease. It is believed that when criminals face a higher risk of encountering potential victims that are armed they tend to substitute into committing more petty crimes rather than more violent crimes. While the outcome of this criminal-substitution effect generally leads to an increase on overall crime it also decreases violent crime. This essentially leads to fewer crime related deaths and an overall better outcome. I guess President Obama actually has helped make America safer – so you can’t say he hasn’t done at least one thing.

Written by Spencer Aland


Just the other day I had the fortune of riding for the first time in a car in England. My wife and I were offered a ride back to our apartment after a church activity and I was excited to accept since I had not yet experienced the excitement of driving on the left side of the road. The nice couple that drove us home are actually citizens of Australia, but have been living in England now for many years. Unfortunately I did not get to enjoy the full experience because the conversation quickly turned from driving, to the metric system, and then to government regulation. The couple and I agreed that the metric system was better, but they contended that the government should forcibly impose the system in America making it illegal to produce any products not based on the metric system. Being the free market advocate that I am, I stated that it was unnecessary and that if it was profitable, the market would move to the metric system on its own, and much more smoothly. This Australian man then stated something that I will never forget, he said:

“Being from Australia and also living in England has made me used to hard regulation, and I feel more comfortable with it; the government should force people to adapt to things that are better for them.”

Fortunately the conversation never reached gun control or I might have ended up having to walk the rest of the way home. If you didn’t already know, Australia has permanently outlawed the possession of guns just like England did before them. Although we never spoke about guns, I couldn’t stop thinking about what he said and how it related to gun control and gun rights.


I sincerely hope that we never get so used to government regulation that we feel uncomfortable without it. But sometimes I feel like we are already at that point. Every time there is a tragedy or disaster it seems as if no one can sleep at night until some new law has been passed to prevent that catastrophe from happening again. Society now turns to government for answers in times of peril instead of to each other. This didn’t happen overnight; the government regulates inch by inch, not mile by mile.  Before we realize what has happened, we have nowhere else to turn. What does this have to do with gun rights? Gun rights are perhaps the best example of what I am arguing. Why do you believe the people allowed the governments of Australia and Britain to ban all guns? Was it because they sincerely believed that it would stop gun crime, or was it because that so few people were actually able to own guns that nobody really cared? Inch by inch the number of people allowed to own guns dwindled until there wasn’t nobody left to defend them.


In America we have a false sense of security in respect to gun rights. The 2nd amendment itself is not bulletproof. The more gun rights are restricted for law abiding citizens the more comfortable we are with it. The battle for gun rights will be won or lost by inches, not miles.

Written by Spencer Aland


Last week a New Jersey Court ruled that Americans do not have the right to own handguns. Even with the Supreme Court ruling of D.C. v. Heller the New Jersey court stated that the ruling “has no impact upon the constitutionality of” the state law. If you ask me, it sounds a lot like they don’t want to follow the Supreme Court ruling ‘just because’.


I have said this before but perhaps its needs to be said again: You cannot defend one set of rights and argue against another without being hypocritical. The court in New Jersey was so determined on ruling against gun rights that they didn’t care about other rulings or even about the very right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is just astounding how this same court can reverse a very large eminent domain case upholding an individual’s right to property and then shortly after rule that we have no right to protect our property.


This case highlights again how important next year’s hearing in the Supreme Court will be when they review McDonald v. Chicago challenging Chicago’s restrictive gun laws. If the Court rules in favor of gun rights again then these types of selective-rights trampling may finally come to an end.

Written by Spencer Aland


A new California law has been passed and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger that creates a new ammunition registry. I guess if you can’t take away gun rights you can try to take away ammunition. The law will not only require specific ID information and records kept by both the supplier and purchaser, but also the right thumb print of the customer. I have to agree with the Gun Owners of California when they said, “[this bill] creates a liberal feel-good logbook that will do nothing to stop crime.”


If we think that the black market for guns is bad because of overbearing gun control then just wait for the ammunition market. The biggest problem with the program is that it is a classic slippery slope. There are thousands of people that are reloading enthusiasts and don’t purchase ammunition. Will the government require them to keep records of every bullet they reload, or will they ban reloading? Any criminal with half a brain can reload any caliber of ammunition. When will it be justified to force shooters to record each bullet they shoot and maybe we should engrave the initials of each buyer into the bullets while we’re at it. My point is that the line gets more and more blurred every time we allow another unnecessary law like this.


I understand that the government wants to deter criminals from using weapons, and they think that if ammunition is harder to buy then maybe they will not use them. But the logic doesn’t follow. In economic terms we would say that the market for ammunition has a high elasticity of demand, meaning that it very easy for customers to switch between markets. Reloading is not difficult, and traveling across state lines is too easy. Simply put, the ways to get around the rules are far too easy for this law to have any affect on anyone other than law abiding citizens.