Streams

NRA vs Big City Mayors

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Adam Winkler, constitutional law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, looks at why mass shootings, like the one in Aurora, Colo., don't lead to stricter gun control.

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [59]

@jgarbuz - Americans have a right to own cars? What interpretation of the Constitution conveys that right? Show me.

@Jim from nj - The 2nd Amendment CAN be read in more than one way. The standard - so far - has been, if you are going to have a well-regulated militia, then the citizens that make up said militia will need to be armed. Makes sense if you have a militia but as you point out, we don't.

The lastest from SCOTUS on this is that citizens also have a right to keep arms because they have a need to defend themselves. [Kind of a weak branch, in my opinion, because development of a non-lethal, effective method for protecting oneself can only be a matter of time...and then what happens?]

The Second Amendment has been out of date since public militias were set aside - let's use the closing of the Frontier as a marker - and even those frontier towns had ordinance to prevent carrying at certain places and times.

Amend the Second Amendment. Limit it to long arms. Limit hand gun ammunition for public sale to rubber bullets. Who ever develops the first non-lethal self-defense weapon that is as effective as a firearm will have a license to print money.

Aug. 05 2012 01:32 PM
Chris Garvey

Clive Betters is correct about the racist origins of gun control.
NY's Gun Control Law, the Sullivan Law of 1911 had several things to going for it:
1. Sullivan represented a dock district, and many of his constituents were muggers. Sullivan was leader of a notorious Irish gang. Their criminal work was impeded by the fact that citizens were arming themselves before going to that bad neighborhood, thereby making robbery a dangerous business. Sullivan wanted to protect his criminal constituents from armed victims, and his law has made New York safe for robbers ever since.
2. Tammany wanted to disarm Italians and blacks. The law served the same racist purposes that gun control served in Dixie: to disarm disfavored races. That's why the pistol licensing agent has unbridled discretion to discriminate under the Sullivan Law.
3. Tammany Hall wanted to be able to arrest political opponents.
4. Colt had missed paying their annual Christmas bribe to Sullivan, who presided over the NY Senate. He was therefore annoyed at Colt, and this law was a form of revenge. The law is thus the product of a corrupt legislator.
5. Sullivan was crazy anyway, and soon was committed to an insane asylum. He eventually committed suicide. The law is as insane as he was.

Jul. 25 2012 09:00 AM
scott Bankey from SOHO

I can't believe I made it on the air 2 days in a row. I was disappointed that my point did not make it across the way I intended.

I do not think people should have bazookas, tanks, or giant machine guns stock piled in their homes. I do believe that history has demonstrated that just about any government has the potential to turn against it's people or maybe just a segment of it's population. I hope that we never have to experience that here in the US, but if it does, I'd like the opportunity to to go down swinging.

I also think that people, no matter where they live, should have the right to protect themselves from being raped, murdered, robbed, etc. I realize that violent crime is not rampant, but it does happen. The net result of this is that innocent people are turned into victims. If having a gun in a home prevents an innocent person from becoming a victim, I'm all for it.

Jul. 24 2012 04:16 PM
clive betters

one mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter

one mans riot,is another mans uprising

Jul. 24 2012 03:31 PM
clive betters

just look at john white[who is black]on long island. he was not allowed to defend his family, from white holigans. he was convicted, for shooting and killing a low life degenerate, who was threatening him and his children. were it not for a pardon,from the the first, and only, black governor of ny, he'd still be in jail. so lets cut the bull,and never pretend, that it's not about race. it almost always is.

Jul. 24 2012 03:19 PM
UdoDirkenschneider from Park Slope

We can agree that normal people wearing guns would have taken down the maniac. As it is we need to have a more liberal gun policy.

Carrying small arms prevents rape. You can google this.

And that "teenager invading your home" might not even be in you house if he knew you might come armed. You can google that to for stats.

I love Bloomie, but he is all wrong on this issue.

Jul. 24 2012 01:27 PM
AG

Gary from Queens - so where would that shooter have been positioned? In the ceiling? With all the ppl running and screaming it would take a special forces trained shooter to down that gunman... it's not a videogame - it's real life.

Jul. 24 2012 01:01 PM
Chris Garvey

Lance asked: "If gun ownership is so ubiquitous in Colorado then why is it that no one, again no one of the hundreds of people, including military personnel, returned fire taking out this lunatic"?
The Aurora Colorado Theater was a Gun-Free Zone. The "No Guns" signs deterred all, except the mass murderer, from being armed.
The Texas Restaurant, where Suzanna Gratia-Hupp watched her parents and 21 others executed, while her gun sat, as required by law, in her car, was a gun-free zone.
Columbine High School; Virginia Tech; The Empire State Building; The Flights of 9/11, even Fort Hood - - all Gun-Free Zones.
Hitler's Germany, for all but government Nazis, was a gun-free zone.
Parts of the South were gun free zones; But only for slaves.
East Timore was a gun-free zone. And was helpless to resist Suharto's invasion, and 25 years of Indonesian genocide.
The death toll of gun-free zones: Thousands, Millions, and it accrues,
Massacres at shooting ranges, gun shows: none. But that's not news.
Copr. 2000, 2012 Chris Garvey

Jul. 24 2012 11:58 AM
The Truth from Becky

I think every time one of these gun toting weirdos snaps ALL registered gun owners should be fined!! An invoice should be mailed to your home, when one of your fellow gun nuts pops his cork!

Jul. 24 2012 11:42 AM
Jon Pope from Ridge, NY

Keith from Queens,

News flash, if spend millions of dollars a year in legal bribery known as campaign finance (NRA spent 10 million in the 2008 election), you are no different then any other lobbyist group in DC legally bribing the government. Everybody has the right to lobby the government 24/7, 365 days of the year. Even big corporations. But nobody should have the right to persuade government policy with any amount of money, no matter how good of cause you may think they are fighting for....

Jul. 24 2012 11:37 AM

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia,
[ "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males at least 17 years…and under 45 years of age who are…citizens….
(b) The classes of the militia are-…
(c) ...the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia." 10 US Code §311]
being necessary to the security of a free State,
[the reason for the right]
the right of the people
[“people” throughout the Constitution, means all the individuals. When the drafters want to refer to the United States, or the States, they use those terms. So this is not a State’s right. It is the people’s right.]
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law...” But the 2nd Amendment just says “shall not be infringed.” So no government, Federal, State, nor local can “infringe” the right, “to keep and bear Arms.”

Jul. 24 2012 11:28 AM

In the late 1700s, the meaning of "well regulated" meant properly functioning. A well regulated clock was properly adjusted. A well regulated militia was well trained.
There were two types of militia:
1. The King's Militia, a.k.a. select militia, organized militia, state militia, government militia; and
2. The unorganized militia, a.k.a. well regulated militia, people's militia.

Jul. 24 2012 11:06 AM

Militia NY Constitution
Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Jul. 24 2012 10:49 AM
Lance from NJ

"Why don't mass shootings result in better gun control?" Let me answer that question with the real question, the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring. If gun ownership is so ubiquitous in Colorado then why is it that no one, again no one of the hundreds of people, including military personnel, returned fire taking out this lunatic. As always, the knee jerk, hysterical, reflexive reaction to such events suffers from the age old dilemma, the solution is the problem.

Jul. 24 2012 10:48 AM

Militia
"The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who are not serving in any force of the organized militia…who are…citizens…." 36 NY Consolidated Laws Art. I Military Law § 2 (2) [emphasis added]
10 US Code §311 is similar:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males at least 17 years…and under 45 years of age who are…citizens….
(b) The classes of the militia are-…
(c) ...the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia."

Jul. 24 2012 10:47 AM
Amy from Manhattan

Joseph Cavalieri: Yes, there's the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, at bradycampaign.org.

yosif: Good point, & very well put!

Jul. 24 2012 10:44 AM
Ken Atkatz from NYC

The idea of defending your home with a gun is based on a stereotype: The evil criminals invade the house and attack your sleeping family in the dark of night, and the brave homeowner shoots them. A more realistic scenario: You come home and find a teenager rifling the drawers. Are you really ready to take his life? Could you live with yourself if you did?

Jul. 24 2012 10:44 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

We should leave our gun laws as they are. These terrible incidents, when they happen, inexorably leads to this same debate. The fact is, guns are not the problem; people are the problem. There is no way to stop individual "lone wolf" nuts from periodically carrying out these kinds of terrorist atrocities.

Just look at what happened in Norway last year. These things happen everywhere from time to time. If you stop manufacturing guns, they'll use swords and knives, bows and arrows, and poisons and chemicals and what have you. Moderate gun controls may be necessary, but new gun laws probably won't help on iota to stop these things from sporadically happening.

Jul. 24 2012 10:42 AM
Aaron from Queens

I sometimes wonder if the whole gun rights issue is manufactured by the NRA to increase their influence and membership dues.

No one is even considering taking away access to hunting weapons, and there is widespread acceptance of some kind of handgun carrying permit.

The NRA hysterically portrays ALL gun legislation as complete bans, thus generating misinformed backlash from people who just want hunting rifles and handguns, not assault rifles!

Jul. 24 2012 10:39 AM
Marc from Brooklyn

The caller from the gun control pressure group is lying. Texas and Florida's violent crime rate surpasses New York's, but with similar CCW laws Washington DC's and California's surpasses New York's by wide margins. New Hampshire's, Idaho's and Alaska's, with more lax CCW laws, boast lower rates for violent crimes, according to the US Census Bureau. Clearly -- once the political goggles are removed, something other than CCW laws are moving crime rates.

And therein lies that woman's mendacity: she won't acknowledge that discrepancy, and never will.

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html#footnote3

Jul. 24 2012 10:37 AM
The Truth from Becky

Yes in fact, I think you should lose your car/license if you kill someone with it...it is a privilege not a right to have a drivers license. If you are wreckless driving and the new thing - texting you should lose your vehicle.

Jul. 24 2012 10:37 AM
Amy from Manhattan

I'm surprised Mr. Winkler didn't mention the attempts to pass the Brady Bill after Pres. Reagan & Jim Brady were shot.

Jul. 24 2012 10:37 AM
Maria from Bronx

This whole argument is so damn silly. You think passing a law will stop a criminal whose intent is to break many laws?! They'll want to steal, kill, etc, but will stop and think about the gun law and say oh I better not. please. Even if guns were completely unobtainable by law abiding citizens, you think there would not be an underground trade?! What a waste of time this discussion is.

Jul. 24 2012 10:34 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Jean Marc Russ

The United States was born in a revolution against Great Britain. Australia wasn't. Our American mentality regarding guns and taxes and government in general comes out of the philosophies that led to that very revolution.

Jul. 24 2012 10:34 AM
Janet from Westchester

The NRA's power is money and its ability to bribe elected officials or
threaten to bribe their opponents. The fear is only partly from worry
about the gun loving voters, who cling to their phallic toys because they
obviously have limp penis issues. Guns seem to give them more fire power.
Have you noticed that people without penises are not
obsessed with guns and violence? - hmmmmm.

Jul. 24 2012 10:33 AM
Udodirkschneider from Park Slope

The race angle is important as the historian says:
the homicide level for white Americans is similar to European levels (+-4 per 100000).
The real problem is black men with guns, since their community have 6 times higher murder rate (20+ per 100000). And the offending level is 7 times higher. See Bureau of Justice Statistics, GOV
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

Jul. 24 2012 10:32 AM
Jeff Pappas from Dumbo

On the shooting in Co USA. That would be a good day in Iraq;

When the USA and other Nations still insist on using Killing as a means to solve problems. All they do is use Semantics, Hypocrisy and a warped sense of Justification to Kill.
Terrorists or Patriots , Good vs Evil and Us vs them ….

I have always wondered why our Politicians get upset when this kind of " Senseless Violence " happens, it implies that if the State does it its OK , sense of course they have a Sovereign Right, Ha
I call Bulls… on that. All they do is tell us its OK if you have a reason, and also that Father knows best crap , I can do it but you can't.
So why get all in a huff when someone who needed mental help goes ballistic ?? There is no national health care no way to easily define and get people the help they need.
All the gun rights folks are like " more or at least one person should of had a hand gun to defend the entire theater against a heavily armed nut. Guess what happens.

In NYC a few weeks ago two men were wrestling with a gun , one was a trained ATF agent the other a bad man, well the NYPD shot the wrong guy and then shot the bad guy, no charges were filed !
And Travon was gunned down without having a weapon !

Peace...

Also we are lucky so far that no coordinated multiple city strike using this one man rampage has been used by Americas Enemies, much cheaper than training a few pilots and hijacking some planes. Like then it will be our own weapons and polices that will drive the next " Terrorist " attack….

Jul. 24 2012 10:32 AM
Mark

Hey, maybe James Holmes determined that the government was tyrannical and so he planned this insurgent attack as the first blow to take back America? There were service members in the audience that night...

Jul. 24 2012 10:31 AM

It's also a whole mentality. That cop who shot his son (and I have deep sympathy for him) was ready for a fight. There is a mentality of danger around every corner and we need to be armed and ready - the easy ownership of guns ENCOURAGES and VALIDATES that kind of paranoia which will lead to more gun fights.

Jul. 24 2012 10:31 AM
Jean-Marc Russ from Manhattan, New York

I have moved to the US from Australia... and one of the most distinct cultural differences is this notion that the citizenry needs to be well armed in order to perhaps one day protect itself from it's own hostile government.
There is absolutely no such concern in Australia.
There are many reasons to mistrust government and this is why we have a true democracy in Australia - with compulsory voting.
We vote Governments out of power - we don't even entertain the idea of defending the electorate from draconian or oppressive government policy with assault weapons.
It's paranoia pure and simple.

Jul. 24 2012 10:30 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

a lot more people are killed in automobile accidents. Should that be a reason to ban the right to own cars?

Jul. 24 2012 10:30 AM
BK from Hoboken

Is 4.3 million members of the NRA a lot? Yes it is. But it is still 1% of the population having an enormous influence over the lives of an entire country.
The killer in CO had an AR-15 which is a civilian version of the M-16 used in the US Army. Why does anyone need a weapon like that? Do you need to pump 20 bullets into that menacing duck to bring it down?!
Even scarier is that the NRA and its lackey Congressman pushing to extend certain states concealed carry laws into other states. So if the wackos in Arkansas all want to pack heat in Times Square, their wacko home state legislation would allow this. The NRA is NOT a moderate organization. They will never give an inch for fear that the "foreigner" in the White House is coming for their guns.

Jul. 24 2012 10:30 AM
Laura from UWS

"Fighter jets have bombed eastern areas of Syria's second city Aleppo, a BBC reporter near the city says."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18973719

So much for the notion that guns can protect you against a tyrannical government. . . . .

Jul. 24 2012 10:30 AM
Amy from Manhattan

From what I remember at the time, the Black Panthers' position was that they needed guns for self-defense, against the police.

Jul. 24 2012 10:29 AM
yosif from manhattan

If we can regulate free speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater), why can't we regulate these guns?

Jul. 24 2012 10:28 AM
MC from Manhattan

Gun Nuts can't read ... " a WELL REGULATED Militia" that says it all..... ( let's regulate well and more) At some point in time we can see the USA ending up like Libya or Yemen ... like the caller said If This government wants to get you it will..... good luck with your home grown revolution ... its not going to happen.

Jul. 24 2012 10:27 AM

the current caller would never defend himself under any case its sounds like.

Jul. 24 2012 10:27 AM
Joel from Westchester

Please comment on the Supreme Court decision of 1938 U.S. v Miller.

Jul. 24 2012 10:26 AM
Mike from Jersey City from Hudson County NJ

The U.S. had a standing army in 1812. It won a major victory at Baltimore. The Star Spangled Banner is about this battle. Washington DC was never defended. This had nothing to do with the availability of militias. If your guest knows this little about basic U.S.history, why should I believe anything else he has to say?

Jul. 24 2012 10:26 AM
Unheard from NYC

Please don't overlook the recent shooting of a 4 year old boy in the Bronx.

Jul. 24 2012 10:26 AM
Pat from Maplewood

But isn't the phrase "well regulated" the most important part of the second amendment, now that we can see what misery has been brought without adequate regulation ?

Jul. 24 2012 10:25 AM
sg from Brooklyn NY

anyway you never hear stories that a criminal gets stopped from killing because someone is carrying a weapon. I think it is a delusional myth than something under reported.

If people need weapons to defend themselves from the government, how could they fight back an army with tanks and planes with an assault rifle? should the population be allowed then to buy anti tank and stinger missiles and cannons and tanks?

sounds like people twist the 2nd amendment.

what is this need to feel safe with a gun? I have mugged a few times once with a long knife in my throat and another time a guy showed me a machete and I did not wish I had a gun. I talked off the guy with the machete. the guy with the knife got arrested hours later and got my stuff back. Having a gun would have been a mess and dangerous for me and others/

Jul. 24 2012 10:25 AM
The Truth from Becky

...and I never agree with Bloomberg but on this clip, I do! Police officer's need to speak up for their own safety, the criminals are out gunning 'em this is nuts!

Jul. 24 2012 10:24 AM
carole bahou from NYC

I rarely agree with the mayor these days, but on this issue I think he is absolutely accurate. Unfortunately,
I have come to the conclusion that the reason the NRA is so powerful (and politically intimidating), is that
their position feeds into the culture of the American populace - this obsession with" freedom" without definition
or limits, and a kind of titillation that occurs during violent events. The fact that these events recur
continuously in our country, and that the public continues to maintain their stance of "shock" , suggests the
level of denial that exists among the populace. I actually think our country is more turned on by violence,
than it is by sex, unfortunately...

Jul. 24 2012 10:23 AM
Joseph Cavalieri from east village

I am totally against guns used for killing people and animals. Are there any organizations that are fighting the NRA?

Jul. 24 2012 10:22 AM
Xtina from E. Village

Sorry, caller, just because you don't know English and grammar doesn't invaalidate Madison's use of commas and the fact that you don't understand, or don't WANT to understand isn't enough of a rebuttal to dismiss the existence of the clause - for a well regulated militia. And NO, you are not the militia. You live in a fantasy land.

Jul. 24 2012 10:21 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

I bet Assad doesn't like military-style arms in the hands of Syrian citizens, nor did Khaddafi.

Jul. 24 2012 10:20 AM
Amy from Manhattan

Was there any discussion of modifying the 2nd Amendment after it didn't work out as expected in the War of 1812?

Jul. 24 2012 10:18 AM
RL

"One shot to the killer's body-armored chest"

anything less and the guy would just keep shooting. you really are depending on the others packing heat to be expert marksmen though a haze of tear gas. that's a lot of "if"s to be counting on. sad.

Jul. 24 2012 10:15 AM
Jim from nj


heed the phrase:
a well REGULATED militia
a well REGULATED militia
a well REGULATED militia

Jul. 24 2012 10:13 AM
RL

"this guy would have built a bomb that probably could have killed many more people."

Is that really a reason to make any weapon legal??? come on!

Jul. 24 2012 10:13 AM
The Truth from Becky

Nice, now we are going to make this about race and FYI the Black Panthers were NOT radical..like you said they were there to PROTEST not do any violence!

Jul. 24 2012 10:12 AM
Bobby G from East Village

Here's another thing we seem to have forgot; the oddly constructed Second Amendment contains the words, "well regulated."

Jul. 24 2012 10:11 AM
Jeff

In the case of mass shooters what we need is stronger mental health laws, not more gun laws. That's one area that has never been aggressively pursued by a politician in anti-gun violence legislation. Go ahead, ban all the weapons you want, I'm all for it. It will have zero impact on mass shooters who are by and large psychotic.

Well-meaning people hear the phrase "assault rifle" and their brains short-circuit and they get amnesia. Here's a reminder. Virginia Tech shooter Cho killed 3 times as many people as Holmes (37) without an assault rifle. He did it with 2 pistols. Loughner also used a pistol. U of Texas student Charles Whitman killed 16 with a shotgun in 1966. The Unabomber didn't need pistols at all, etc. etc.

As. Dr. Harold Koplewicz of the Child Mind Institute pointed out after the Loughner shootings last year, the first signs of 75% of psychiatric disorders appear by the age of 24. We need to start treating it before it kills again. There were heroes in that movie theater in Aurora, but there were others who *could* have been heroes if they'd bothered to pick up a phone. Severe mental illness doesn't develop overnight. There were warning signs, and those who explicitly ignored them should be held criminally liable going forward.

According to an NPR story yesterday morning, the owner of an Aurora gun club thought that Holmes sounded scary enough that he informed his staff not to let him join. But he didn’t inform the police.

Under my proposed legislation, similar to a Good Samaritan law, the gun club owner would face criminal charges. If he had picked up a phone those 12 people might be alive right now. If I were the relative of one of the shooting victims I would be directing my rage at this guy first and foremost (second to Holmes himself). Maybe this guy thought it wasn’t his business to call the police but that’s exactly the mindset we need to change. Then maybe, just *maybe*, we’d stand a snowball’s chance of stopping some of the mass shootings in the future.

So while politicians, despite their good intentions, keep talking about the need for more legislation to keep assault rifles out of the hands of lunatics, well go ahead, why not?, can't hurt, I'm all for it, but you're missing the point that it still leaves the lunatic in the equation. Taking away a lunatic's particular choice of weapon doesn't cure his lunacy. With all due respect you are like a turtle putting its head in its shell and thinking it makes him invisible: does not compute.

Here's the bold legislation I want to see proposed by a politician with guts: If You Know Something, Say Something. The next of kin, most likely the parents, should be hauled in for questioning whenever a psychopath commits mass murder. If it turns out they knew the guy was severely mentally ill and never called the police or had him committed then they get charged with multiple counts of negligent homicide.

Jul. 24 2012 10:11 AM
RL

Keith, do you think that anyone really believes that gun makers are not big supporters of the NRA??? Both the corporations who make guns and the individuals who run the makers. your point just does not hold water... not even a drop.

and as for the NRA promoting gun safety... cigarette makers put out anti-smoking commercials, but does anyone think they don't want us buying cig's??? you are just way off base.

Jul. 24 2012 10:11 AM

Citizen's need to have guns in their homes for protection. Now lemme listen to history/opinion

Jul. 24 2012 10:09 AM
Eloy from Brooklyn

I believe that politicians and maybe somewhat the police turn to clamors for gun control as a way of deflecting attention away from both their failures of policy and and short-sighted view of what really causes crime.

It's so easy to cut mental health services, after school programs, playgrounds etc. then wonder what disenfranchised and/or emotionally disturbed youth do with all that time. Most likely, plan, plot and acquire the means.

As it has been for centuries, an ounce of prevention is worh a pound of cure.

Jul. 24 2012 09:55 AM
Gary from queens

The shooting in the theater might have ended much sooner had one of the movie patrons had a carry permit. One shot to the killer's body-armored chest, for example, would have brought him down (though not kill him) long enough for someone to disarm and detail him.

I can understand why some people would oppose assault rifles or large capacity clips. But why prevent the population from defending themselves where no police are available?

Even if Colorado had all the gun laws Bloomberg or Rep. McCarthy wanted, this guy would have built a bomb that probably could have killed many more people.

Lawbreakers find a way. We need to defend ourselves and not be helpless.

Jul. 24 2012 09:13 AM
Keith from Queens

Please note that the NRA is not a corporately funded, big business special interest group that lobbies only because there is an extreme profit motive. Because NRA is often labeled as a special interest, it is lumped in with the rest of the lobbyists in Washington and it's easy to forget that it is actually a membership organization of 4 million people, all of them good Americans who believe strongly in protecting our constitutional rights. If the NRA is persuasive in politics, I think it's a great thing - because they represent people, not corporations, and it gives a voice to the public to participate in government.

And BTW, the NRA is at the absolute forefront in promoting *actual* firearm safety in this country. Things like training people how to safely operate, carry and store their weapons, teaching children what to do if they find a firearm that is unattended, and training police and military personnel (or anyone else who's interested) to sharpen their skills and ensure that firearms proficiency is at its peak in the people who matter. In fact, NYS law states that the only legal way for a 12-16 year old youth to operate a rifle is under the direct supervision of an NRA certified and current instructor.

Love you and the show Brian.

Jul. 24 2012 07:33 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.