DONATIONS ACCEPTED Official Publication of Western Missouri Shooters Alliance May 2016

FROM ENGLAND TO CALIFORNIA TO AMERICA, THE NAME OF THE GAME IS THE SAME; CONFISCATION By Larry “Lorenzo” Swickard

“Our first campaign was for a complete ban on all handguns. This was fiercely resisted by all the shooting organiza-tions who claimed that pistol shooting was the fastest growing sport and could not be tampered with. However, pub-lic revulsion to the killing of 16 small children and their teacher in Dunblane Primary School was so extreme that suc-cessive governments could not ignore it. In February 1997, John Major’s Conservative government introduced legis-lation to ban handguns over .22 calibre and in November 1997, the new Labor government extended the band to cov-

er all handguns.”1 Over the years I’ve encountered Liberals one would not characterize as confiscationists at first blush. They acknowledge the 2nd Amendment guarantees some type of right to possess firearms for militias (National (sic) Guards) and even a handful concede the right is individual. In either case, they deny intentions to abolish that “right.” Regard-less of which interpretation is embraced, liberals however are united in the conviction the “federal” government has the right to pass “national” laws restricting what, when, and where arms may be possessed. Although attempting to dis-guise and even lie about their agenda, spilling the beans is the meaning liberals pour into key terms; “gun, sensible gun laws,” and “assault weapons.” Whether they understand how the firearms under discussion actually function, and I sus-pect many don’t, their tactic is to convince Americans civilian variants of military weapons, the semiautomatic AR15 for example, is close enough to a military weapon, the M16/M4, (at least in appearance) they should be banned for civilian use regardless of function. Considering so many Americans are unaware of the difference, this is a surefire tactic. When challenged about the nature of the individual right to keep and bear arms, their default argument is to claim the 2nd Amendment’s meaning is subject not only to interpretation but re-interpretation in keeping with “modern” times. Rein-terpretation may be done by the courts or federal legislature with no mention this subverts the amendment process re-quired in Article 5 of the Constitution. Based on this view, liberals claim retroactive reinterpretations as to what fire-arms are covered by the 2nd Amendment, as well as dictating magazine capacities, are within the law. They have are wrong. Claiming the right to regulate what type of firearms people may own as well as ammunition capacity is the nec-essary precursor for what comes next. For years liberals have labored to promote the belief no arms carried by soldiers should be in the hands of “civilians” (citizens). They depict M16/M4’s fired full on auto and then wave in their hands AR15s, guns to be banned, as if there is no difference. This deception works because so many Americans don’t know the difference. They don’t un-derstand the difference between “selective-fire” and “semiautomatic.” How did this happen in a nation with such a prevalence of firearms ownership?

Having taught history for 23 years, I know not only what is but what is not taught in public schools. Kids are not taught it was because Americans had similar, if not the same rifles as British soldiers, they were able to fight and defeat King George’s armies. This nation’s Founding Fathers recognized only a well-armed populace could restrain a tyrannical federal government and to do so, they must have the same rifles as federal soldiers. Nevertheless, my son’s sixth grade socialIST studies teacher told her class last year that the 2nd Amendment does not cover modern rifles like the AR15 because the Founding Fathers never envisioned such weapons when they drafted the amendment.2 Common sense should indicate the silliness of such a claim. When the Founders drafted the 2nd Amendment weapons in use on both sides were state of the art for that time. One hundred or so years from now, will future Americans look upon to-day’s advanced weapons as quaint and archaic? Liberals direct much of their disinformation at the non-gun owning public because they know, by and large, that cohort is ignorant with respect to firearms. They take advantage of generalized unfamiliarity with firearms and laws governing their possession to push gun registration, “so we know who has what,” magazine limits because “only mass murderers need more than 5 or 10 rounds,” and weapon bans, because “military weapons should only be in the hands of soldiers in combat” and these they label them as sensible gun laws. “Who could oppose common sense gun laws?” they ask allowing Confiscationists to paint opponents as extremists and kooks. “Who could be against making our

streets safe? Who would be against protecting the children?” Highway maps tell drivers how to get from point A to point B. So-called “sensible” gun laws comprise a map taking America from an individual right to keep and bear arms to confiscation. Liberal’s from point A to B map includes registration, restrictions on the types of firearms citizens may own, storage laws, magazine capaci-ty limits, regulation of ammunition purchases, and various licens-ing schemes. Will liberals who are not outright confiscationists stand with pro-2nd Amendment organizations once their ideologi-

ENGLAND (Continued on page 5)

IN THIS ISSUE

PRESIDENT’S CORNER PAGE 2

LIBERTY NOTES PAGE 3

EVENTS • COURSE PAGE 5

THE BULLET PAGE 2

...dedicated to the restoration of the inalienable

right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment

The Alliance is a regionally-based, grass-roots organization that seeks to: 1. Counter the designs of malicious legislators. 2. Confront the media’s twisted portrayals of gun rights issues. 3. Politicize and activate gun owners in defense of their rights. 4. Acquaint the public with the true nature of the Second Amendment. 5. Network with other pro-gun groups to coordinate local, state and

national strategies. 6. Train people in basic firearm safety and handgun defense. 7. Sponsor and support pro-gun legislation 8. Make politicians aware that gun owners are awakening from their

accustomed apathy and WILL TOLERATE NO FURTHER EROSION OF THEIR FREEDOMS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OFFICERS: BOARD MEMBERS: Kevin Jamison, President Bonnie Werner, Board Member Carl Smart, V-P Larry Swickard, Board Member Curt Cotton, Recording Sec. Tom Van Eyck, Gun Show Director Bob Hanson, Treasurer Mike Watson, Board Member Raymond Smith, Board Member

EX-OFFICIO: Richard Hime, Corporate Secretary Erik Johnson, Membership Coordinator Gary Davis, Newsletter Coordinator Al Hale, Assistant Gun Show Coordinator

CONTACT: Business correspondence - WMSA, P O Box 11144, Kansas City, MO 64119

Editorial correspondence - E-mail to: Bob.WMSA@gmail.com

WMSA Hotline/Fax - (877) 333-WMSA (9672)

Web page - www.wmsa.net DISCLAIMERS:

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Board of Directors, Officers or the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. The writer, editor

and others contributing to this publication are neither engaging in terrorist conspiracy nor advocating acts of violence against the government of the United States. Statements are presented to stimulate political discussion in real or hypothetical contexts pursued in the spirit of free inquiry. All material contained herein is copyright © 2016 WMSA and may be reprinted unless otherwise specified, with attribution to this publication, author, and date of issue.

RALLY DAY STAND YOUR GROUND

SHAKY GROUND Rally Day was 13 April, 2016. We had a poor turn out. I remember having several hundred people there. A few dozen is a disappointment. We found that there was a bill for a “gun court” pending. This was a concern. We have seen such courts in other states. The proponents present them as being like juvenile courts or drug courts; to help the persons coming before it. In practice they become institutions with extremely high bonds in order to keep the presumed violent offenders in jail. They expand to prove their value by abusing their authority. When these courts were first proposed almost twenty-five years ago the NRA was in favor. That swiftly changed when the NRA saw how they were implemented. We must remember that anti-gun groups encourage their people to “SWAT” gun owners; to call the police on us. Some commentators advise exaggerating the situation; to lie and claim that we are threatening people. I believe that I was the victim of SWATing. I was having a conversation in a Starbucks. I was wearing my WMSA cap and “Guns Save Lives” button. A police office came in, stared at me intently and left. No harm, no foul but police officers respond to “man with a gun” calls pumped with adrenaline. At least one man has been killed. With no other information than the complaint the gun owner could find himself in gun court treated like a real criminal. The gun court bill has been stalled. It may die and it may be tacked onto another bill in the flurry of activity at the end of the session. It will probably be resurrected in the next session. Another bill was introduced which appeared to make it a crime to carry into a place with a “no guns” sign. I have seen some of these signs only when on my way out of businesses either because they were not of legal size or not prominently posted or both. This is an easy way to get our people into gun court. This bill has had a flurry of amendments and it is difficult to

PRESIDENT’S CORNER

THE BULLET PAGE 3

state what the bill actually says. After consultation with our lobbyist I am sure that it is no longer a danger to us. Constitutional carry, concealed carry without a license, has passed the house and has gone to the senate; where many good bills go to die. Our stand your ground bill was the theme of Rally Day. It appears to be standing on shaky ground. We will be back next year. What does the membership want?

We have a volunteer to assist in scheduling people to work at Gun Shows! Alvin Hale has agreed to take this responsibility for the organization. Don’t be surprised when you get a call from him inquiring if you can work a four (4) hour shift at an upcoming gun show. We have discussed how to proceed and he is going to start calling members 2 to 3 weeks in advance of the next show. This should allow people time to adjust their schedule and work. It is fun working these shows, telling people about WMSA and selling raffle tickets. Workers also hand out applications and Stay Out of Jail Cards. Plus you get into the show for free. The Board of Directors is also looking for ideas to add incentive to members to work the show. If you want to volunteer to work gun shows contact Al at: halea253@aol.com

Leif, my 5 year old was adamant about attending the rally. When his mom asked why he told her "I don't want them to take my gun.". I do NOT prompt any of this! But he is proud of the 22 he has had since age 4. Today while visiting relatives who live close to Jeff city he pulled one of his uncles to the side and whispered to him "They may take your guns away. You didn't go to the rally." He gets it. I got a great laugh.

---Erik J. WMSA Member

"Amplification is the vice of modern oratory." —Thomas Jefferson

LIBERTY NOTES By Kevin L. Jamison

It is a good day for Liberty. Eight members of a southern Ohio family were murdered “execution style.” Pike county Sheriff Charles Reader has told relatives to be armed. The Kansas Supreme Court issued four opinions relating to sex of-fenders on 22 April, 2016. The fourth opinion reversed the other three. The difference is that the first three opinions were heard with a different judge. A new appointee to the court heard the fourth opinion and suddenly the majority in the first three opinions turned into a minority. This demon-strates how critical this election is to the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. The next president will have an opportunity to pack the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton hates us more than she hates ISIS. No matter how vile a character the Republicans run for President; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The very real danger that Ms. Clinton could be our next President shows that we must work to elect a gun-friendly congress. At minimum we must have a congress that does not hate us. This may involve supporting people who have disappointed us. We work with the materials at hand. A number of politicians and newspaper commentators have com-plained about freer gun laws, but in the next sentence tell me that they think I am reasonable. I first thought that they were trying to schmooze me. This may be part of it but I think that some of them really think that I am different from other gun owners. I must be doing something wrong. I am not just one of the gun nuts, I am their leader. A fellow has been writing in to the local paper claiming that AR 15s can fire 800 rounds per minute and are legal but switchblades are illegal. It seems that a number of people wrote to the paper to complain. They suc-ceeded. The paper called us for a ruling. Carl Smart thinks that an AR 15 might have a theoretical firing rate in that vicinity; I do not. We both agree that it is not possible to squeeze a finger 800 times per minute. The news-paper actually printed a correction from our information. Switchblades are legal in Missouri; except on federal property. It is encouraging that the pa-per called us. I have been called by people complaining that private businesses ban guns. They demand to know why businesses are allowed to violate their Second Amendment rights. First, because the law allows them to do so. Second, only the government can violate Constitutional rights. With the exception of slavery and discrimination based on race, creed, color place of national origin and increasingly sexual orientation private business do not violate constitutional rights. It doesn’t have to make sense, it’s just the law. Third, property owners and renters have the right to control their property and if they want to make stupid rules, it is their property and their right. I get to sue them if I am injured because I am unable to defend myself. If they make these rules, they accept the consequences. The Clay county Juvenile Justice Center asked us for a seminar on gun safety. It was attended by a few lawyers and a number of social workers who want to know what resources were available if a home had guns in it. In custody disputes one party will ominously warn that the other has guns. The point was made that WE are that resource. The NRA provided a quan-tity of Eddie Eagle material. Attendees were told that NRA Home Firearms Safety instructors could be called on as expert witnesses. They called us. The anti-gun groups were not there. The Missouri Supreme Court has found that a gun shop can be sued for selling a gun later used in a murder. The buyer was disabled for reasons of mental disability but Social Security had not taken the additional step of finding her dangerous or unable to handle her own affairs. She was, there-fore, not in NICS. Her mother had called the store warning that she was crazy. The clerk asked for some evidence, which was never provided. Two days later the woman bought a pistol and killed her stepfather. The Court

LIBERTY (Continued on page 4)

THE BULLET PAGE 4

"To disarm the people ... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." —George Mason

ruled that because of her extensive mental history, she must have been acting crazy and the store was negligent for making the sale. This is a major change in Missouri law and requires gun shops to be very careful on making sales on even second hand unconfirmed claims. They can no longer rely on NICS. Lawyers for the store have asked for reconsideration but such motions are seldom success-ful. My storage room has been pillaged and looted. Af-ter the last Board meeting Board members went looking through supplies. One thing lead to another and the back of my car was soon full of old paperwork headed for recy-cling. We found papers dating back twenty years. There is more room now. In taking this much trash out of the room it also took it out of us. Some of us are not as young as we would like. We need new blood for such projects. We need new blood for many other projects. The cable show “30 Days” put people into sur-roundings totally foreign to their beliefs and watches to see what happens. One episode placed an anti-gun per-son into a family of avid shooters and had her work in a gun shop. It was interesting. The lady was anti-gun be-cause a friend had been shot and killed. The first time she fired a gun was at a trap range. I would not have given her a 12 gauge for her first shot. She broke down in tears. The shooters were clearly unprepared for this reaction. A gentler caliber might not have changed her reaction; it could have helped. She was terrified of the sound of gun-shots. Her 30 day home was in the country and she kept saying that she could not understand why someone would want a gun in an area with such a low crime rate. Even through her loathing of guns she recognized they were useful in self-defense. I doubt she would admit this. She took her host to a meeting of people who have lost loved ones to “gun violence.” One of these people told him that he is only working to keep property; they were working against guns out of grief. She said that meant they would out last him. I don’t think the group understands our people. The lady eventually came to see us as human be-ings. This was an improvement. However, she would go back to her home in the city. Her friends will remind her that we are monsters. Still, this helps. We may all see a chance to convert the other side. Take it. Take it gently but take it. In the novel The Lost Constitution the author has delegates at the constitutional convention jot down pro-posals for a Bill of Rights on an early draft of the Constitu-tion. The document disappears into various hands and multiple adventures sought after by persons who desired to use it as support for the various issues of the next two

LIBERTY (Continued from page 3) centuries. Finally there is a movement to repeal the Second Amendment. A dealer in historical documents is hired to locate the document. He moves among gun and anti-gun persons and has a number of adventures. The book is well-written. It is also prejudiced. The gun people are portrayed as thuggish or prone to use the violence. Anti-gun persons are focused but do not use violence in pursuit of the document. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. If you’re not home by then, you are in real trouble. We shall overcome.

Nation's Last Handgun Ban Shot Down The U.S District Court for the Mariana Islands

struck down the nation's last handgun ban, ruling that permanent residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) have the constitu-tional right to keep and bear arms. "The Second Amendment, as well as the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, are the law of the land in the CNMI as if it were a state," wrote Chief Judge Ramona Manglona. "The Second Amendment, made applicable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the fun-damental right of armed self-defense, and prohibits any state from completely banning handguns." David Radich, a Navy veteran of the Gulf War, and his wife, Li-Rong Radich, took the commonwealth to court after Li-Rong was attacked and beaten when she was at home alone in 2010. When they applied for a weapons identi-fication card to get a gun to protect themselves, they were ignored.

This isn't the only Second Amendment win of late. Last week, Idaho became the ninth state to insti-tute constitutional carry, codifying that any resident 21 years or older has the right to carry without a permit. And earlier this month, the West Virginia legislature overrode its governor's veto to institute constitutional carry in that state. Such developments show that from the Appalachians to the furthest islands in the Pacific Ocean the law recognizes everyday Americans have the right to self defense, a right that is becoming harder for the Left to erode.

THE BULLET PAGE 5

cal brethren move down the highway from a right to keep and bear arms to a government sanctioned privilege? Will liberals claiming support for the 2nd Amendment right stand in opposition to registration and confiscation? California’s extensive statewide program to “track down illegally owned guns” is an example of a “sensible gun-law” in action with the in-herent potential to inflict real harm on the right to keep and bear arms. The state’s Department of Justice (DOJ) examines records determining who owns what firearms cross-checking those against records of individu-als flagged as felons; involved in “domestic violence crimes,” or adjudicat-ed “mentally unstable.” Behavior causing one to be flagged may have oc-curred prior to or after acquisition of a firearm. Once flagged, the individu-al is contacted by the DOJ and ordered to surrender their firearm(s). The DOJ employs “militarized” officers wearing ballistic vests festooned with guns to contact violators in order to demand they hand over all firearms in their possession or on the premises.3 Any law whose criterion triggers government action, which is vague or subject to interpretation, invites criticism. Confiscators respond by ac-cusing critics of wanting to put guns in the hands of violent criminals, fel-ons, wife-beaters, and the insane. Once again, opponents of crypto-confiscation programs are painted as extremists and unreasonable. A “felony” could be anything from shoplifting a pair of expensive sunglasses at Nordstrom’s above the price threshold between a misdemeanor and fel-ony, failure to pay income taxes, possession of a certain quantity of a con-trolled substance, to an athlete caught with performance enhancing sports drugs. But the public reads “convicted felon” and sees a hitman for the Ma-fia or bank robber. If treating all felonies as equivalent for the purposes of confiscating guns wasn’t problematic enough, suppose city, state, or feder-al government “felonizes” politically incorrect speech for example, protest-ing outside an abortion clinic or a Christian owned bakery refusing to bake and present a wedding cake at a wedding for homosexuals? Suppose politi-cally incorrect speech becomes “hate-speech,” as it has on many American university and public school campuses, and government agencies establish a scale of offense reaching a felony in their interpretation. Suppose a girl-friend or wife accusations of abuse triggers a-priori court confiscation or-ders before the defendant has been afforded due process? Consider the consequences to gun-owners should all divorce filings filed by estranged wives automatically spawn restraining orders, evidence of any threat pre-sent or not, which in turn trigger gun confiscation until the matter is adju-dicated. Suppose claims by family members or others, substantiated or not, of mental instability become grounds for confiscation orders. And what if the subsequent diagnosis of “mentally unstable” is based upon po-litically correct interpretations of “instability?” When I took the standard-ized psychological test to become a policeman in California it was assumed by the test, and shrink, who interviewed applicants, that belief in the su-pernatural and praying to divinity was a red flag. In contemporary America pop-culture and its propaganda megaphones, Hollywood and the Liberal Media, the devoutly religious and those who believe in heaven and hell are often depicted as unstable and kooky. As it stands now, this perception is having a negative impact on employment and promotion in the workplace. This perception could become grounds for confiscation. Is this simply hys-terical alarmism on my part?

Already liberals have suggested persons in possession of a Bible and copy of the Constitution in conjunction with a pro-2nd Amendment automobile window decal might be a domestic terrorist.4 Is it such a great leap for Confiscationists in government, ill-disposed to and fearful of grassroots movements, like Tea Party groups, to conclude they are “unstable” and perhaps ineligible to own firearms? Confiscationists al-ready smear 2nd Amendment supporters as “nuts, dangerous,” and “mentally unstable.”

ENGLAND (Continued from page 1)

ENGLAND (Continued on page 6)

COMING EVENTS • • •

WMSA

General Membership Meeting

May 24, 2016 July 26, 2016 Sept. 27, 2016 Nov. 22, 2016

Bass Pro Conservation Room Independence, MO

• • •

MVACA Missouri Valley Arms

Collectors Assn. July 29-31, 2016

KCI Expo Center Kansas City, MO

One Day Show Sept, 18, 2016

American Legion Hall 499 S 7 Hwy Blue Springs, MO

• • •

R. K. Shows KCI Expo Center

June 18-19, 2016 Aug. 20-21, 2016 Oct. 22-23, 2016 Dec. 17-18, 2016

• • •

WANENMACHER'S TULSA ARMS SHOW

EXPO CENTER-EXPO SQUARE (TULSA FAIRGROUNDS)

TULSA, OKLAHOMA

Nov. 12 & 13, 2016 ———

Call 877-333-WMSA

or check the web site www.wmsa.net

"You might be a liberal if college adults need a safe space, but North Carolina children in a bathroom don't." —Twitter satirist

THE BULLET PAGE 6

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." —Zacharia Johnson

Gun registration, labyrinth-like licensing schemes, targeted firearm specific bans, and gun con-fiscation began in the modern era across the Atlantic in England. It was imposed incrementally with each stage increasingly more restrictive until almost all handguns, rifles, and shotguns were banned by 1997. It was actu-ally the gutless “Conservative” Party of Britain that introduced a handgun ban, the necessary “first step,” that was quickly expanded upon by the Labour (Socialist) Party.5 It was also “conservative” Republi-can President George H. W. Bush who signed into law (14 March 1989) a bill banning targeted semiautomatic rifles (mostly from the AK family of rifles) betraying his promise not to do so. This was in spite of the fact that such weapons were and are not the weapon of choice for criminals and the ban left legal other rifles of identical caliber and function but of different appear-ance. Bush and his advisors made a political calcula-tion that it was better to throw his pro-2nd Amendment supporters under the bus as opposed to riling up politi-cal opposition from the liberal media.6 Following in dad’s footsteps, President George W. Bush declared if Congress passed a bill renewing the expiring so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” he would sign it into law (September 2004).7 The notion that the rights of gun-owners in America are safe in any given political party is a myth. The English Firearms Act of 1920 banned no guns. Britons were required to submit to a registration process including obtaining a certificate from the po-lice. In the United States, Illinois requires citizens to obtain a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card prior to being allowed to purchase firearms and ammunition. Massachusetts requires firearm purchases be vetted above and beyond the federal background check and prospective owners must obtain permission to pur-chase from police authorities. Meanwhile, back in Brit-ain Parliament In 1937, delegated to British police de-partments authority to add their own restrictions and requirements to already existing national laws to own a gun along with registration.8 In Maryland, as well as Massachusetts, application of gun control and registra-tion laws has been delegated to the State Police. Mary-land is a “may-issue” state in which the head of the State Police typically a political appointee, has authori-ty to determine what requirements must be satisfied by applicants to receive a license to carry. Needless to say, in ultra-liberal states permission is seldom if ever granted to “average” citizens outside the orbit of politi-cians, celebrities, and those who are “connected.”9 Hence in Baltimore, when looters began to riot, the law-abiding were at the mercy of violent thugs and gang-sters, some of whom carry guns, especially after the liberal-Democrat mayor ordered the police to stand down. Following the 19 August 1987 Hungerford (England) shooting in which Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people including his mother, yet another “gun-control” act was passed (1988) banning “high powered self-loading” and “burst-fired weapons.” Re-strictions on shotguns followed the 1996 Dunblane

ENGLAND (Continued from page 5) Scotland school shooting leading to an almost total ban on firearms in the United Kingdom.10 And the conse-quences of disarming citizens; by 2009, the London Dai-ly Mail reported the United Kingdom was the most dan-gerous country in Europe averaging 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 residents compared to France’s average of 504 per thousand and other European nations with low-er rates and less restrictive gun laws.11 No one wants to touch this third-rail of political correctness but, typical-ly, European nations with the most ethnically and racial-ly homogenous populations have lower homicide rates than heterogeneous counterparts. Liberals, especially those on the extreme far left like President Obama, continue to bleat that they have no intention of taking away anyone’s guns. Yet he and like-minded liberals demand the U.S. adopt the Australi-an gun-control model which included registration, bans, and mass confiscations.12 Hillary Clinton, big surprise, is calling for a new ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high” (sic) capacity magazines and demanding new reg-ulations governing retail record keeping and ultimately universal background checks meaning registration.13 But that will never happen here is the common refrain heard from proponents of “sensible-gun-laws.” Univer-sal background checks would require transfer of all fire-arms, whether sales or gifts from one family member to another, go through a government background check establishing universal registration as well. Registration is the necessary prerequisite to confiscation. In 2010, Michael Roberts was forced to surrender 21 firearms to the Torrance, California Police Depart-ment in response to a restraining order filed against him by his doctor. Roberts had had a dispute with a member of the doctor’s staff leading to the restraining order trig-gering a California law compelling Roberts to hand over all his firearms or the police would enter his home and take them. Roberts plead no-contest in court, the issue was resolved, and both the Court and California Depart-ment of Justice ordered that the firearms be returned to Roberts. But the Torrance Police Department refused both orders. With assistance from the NRA, Roberts filed a lawsuit in federal court (May, 2014). Although the lawsuit was settled in Robert’s favor, he received a check for $15,000 dollars instead of the guns. The Torrance PD claimed Robert’s guns, many of which were heirlooms, had been destroyed.14 Chuck Michel, (Michel & Associ-ates) the attorney representing Roberts contends the problem of police department confiscation and destruc-

ENGLAND (Continued on page 7)

Missouri Concealed Carry

and Self-Defense Law version 2.5

Updated information at a new low price

Contact www.LearnToCarryProductions.com

THE BULLET PAGE 7

"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it." -- H. L. Mencken

tion of firearms is widespread. In California, the Justice Department “wrongly tells police not to give guns back unless the person can document ownership of the gun and it is registered in the state DOJ’s database.” But this is not required by law.15 Individuals who have received firearms as gifts or purchased guns many years ago and never did or no longer possess the sales receipts may not be able to prove ownership. In addition, the DOJ has failed to enter guns in their data base. The result is, guns confiscated from law-abiding citizens may not be re-turned to their rightful owners but be destroyed instead. The purpose of such tyranny is to compel people to ac-cept universal registration. Rick Bailey lost firearms valued at $25,000 dollars in Glendale, Arizona as a result of a “harassment order.’ Bailey had complained several times to the city of Glen-dale about a neighbor who owed a landscaping company for parking dump trucks, which emitted “toxic chemical odors” in front of his house. The neighbor obtained a “harassment order” against Bailey and soon the Glendale Police were at his door and seized Bailey’s gun collection. Alan Gotlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is assisting Bailey in his legal defense.16 Massachusetts law enforcement agencies also seize the firearms from any-one against whom a restraining order has been filed. While such cases are being litigated, the police store seized firearms with a private company and they in turn charge the gun-owner high storage fees that can run into the thousands of dollars by the time the case is settled. Guess who gets stuck with the bill? Gun owners unable to pay the storage fees face the same fate as hapless KC Metro-area motorists whose cars are towed by the police subsequent to an accident. Unable to pay the “storage fees” (they also have a habit of losing your keys as well) they forfeit ownership to the storage company who then auctions off the firearms. This form of corruption has gone on for far too long. The reality is most people won’t care about such stories until they land in the cross-hairs and then wonder why there is no hue and cry in their defense. How many people have the financial resources to fight restraining order abuse, police-department overreach in seizing guns, government destruction of the private property, and taking to court a state agency in state court? Unless gun owners start to take up the banner of defending all gun owners everywhere, Confiscationists march on to-ward their ultimate goal. 1 The Gun Control Network (GCN-United Kingdom) at http://www.gun-control-network.org/6cn08.htm 2 Brittany Hills Middle School, Blue Springs, Missouri, 2014-2015 school year. 3 At http://washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2-15/05/california-discovers-its-really-expensive-to-confiscate-peoples-guns-htm. 4 Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D., et al, editor, University of Mary-land Law Enforcement Guide to Extremist Related Ter-minology (Tallahassee, Florida, Institute For Intergov-ernmental Research, 2001), 15, 19, 33, 34, 58, 59, 83, 118, 119. 5 David B. Kopel, The Samurai, The Mountie, And The

ENGLAND (Continued from page 6) Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Control of Other Democracies? (Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 1992), 59-135. John Major was the Conservative Party Prime Minister who got the ball rolling on ban-ning handguns. See also: “On This Day, 16 October 1996, Handguns to be Banned In the UK” the BBC, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/October/16/newsid_311000/3110949.stm., Katie Pavlich, December 12, 2012: “Gun Crime Soars in Eng-land Where Guns Are Banned, at http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime0soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528?scrlybrkr=701e8f7, and “Politics, Gun Crime” at www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime. 6 At http://www.millercenter.org/president/bush/key-events. 7 Bill Schneider, Friday September 10, 2004, “Can You Get Away With Defying Public Opinion? Sometimes You Can Even Get the Political Play of the Week.” At http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/assault.weapons.ban/index.html? 8 Awr Hawkins, “How Gun Control Made England The Most Violent Country In Europe,” 24 September 2014, Breitbart, at http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/ 9 At http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/maryland.pdf 10 Breitbart. 11 IBID. 12 At http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australian-gun-law-while-condemning -latest-mass-shootings-in-us/? See also: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/obama-again-touts-australian-gun-control-misleads-again-on-background-checks 13 Awr Hawkins, “Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is Vigorously Campaigning On a Platform of More Gun Control for Law Abiding Citizens,” Breitbart 29 August 2015, at http://breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/29/gun-control-a-key-hillary-clinton-campaign-component/ 14 Malia Zimmerman, 13 April 2015, FoxNews at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/13/right-to-bear-arms-gun-grabbing-sweeping-nation/? 15 IBID. 16 IBID.

THE BULLET PAGE 8

Missouri House Passes “Constitutional Carry” Written by Michael Boldin Tuesday, 26 April 2016, the Missouri House

passed a “Constitutional Carry” bill to support the right of carrying a handgun openly or concealed with-out a state-issued permit by a vote of 112-37.

Introduced by Rep. Eric Burlison, House Bill 1468 (HB 1468) w ould allow people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit anywhere where it is not expressly prohibited.

“Requiring people to pay background checks and heavy fees, does not put anything on the criminal. It puts the burden on the people who need to defend themselves,” Burlison said about his bill.

Gun Owners of America described the bill this way:

House Bill 1468 specifies that a person who may otherwise legally carry a concealed handgun is not required to obtain or possess a license or permit from the state to carry a concealed handgun. In other words, you can carry a concealed gun with-out registering yourself with the government or pay-ing a permission fee.

If you have to ask for permission, pay a tax on it and register yourself with the government, it’s not a right.

“Constitutional carry is a big step to-wards being able to exercise a natural right that has been infringed at all levels for far too long,” said Scott Landreth of ShallNot.org.

If passed into law, Missouri would be the 12th state to do so. "If children were forced to learn about the Consti-tution, about how government works, about how this nation came into being, about taxes and about how government forever threatens the cause of liberty per-haps we wouldn't see so many foolish ideas coming out of the mouths of silly old men."

—Lyn Nofziger

Bureaucrats Strip Vets' Gun Rights Congressional lawmakers want answers. Senators Charles Grassley and Johnny Isakson sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs asking why the agency reports any veteran who is assigned a fi-duciary trustee to the FBI as mentally defective, thus stripping the veteran of their right to keep and bear arms. So far, the VA has reported to the FBI 260,000 individu-als — equivalent to a quarter of the number of people in Texas who have a license to carry. While all federal agen-cies are required to report "mentally defective" individu-als to the FBI so they can be noted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the VA refers an astounding 99.3% of such cases. All other agencies ac-count for just 0.7%. With ruthless "efficiency" like that coming from the same bureaucracy guilty of the wait-time scandal, does anyone suspect abuse of the system? In a statement, Grassley said, "Our military heroes risked their lives to protect and defend this country and all that we stand for, including our most basic constitu-tional rights. Now the very agency created to serve them is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA's careless approach to our veterans' constitutional rights is disgrace-ful." No one wants someone with serious mental health issues to become a danger to themselves or others because they had access to firearms. But before basic constitution-al rights are denied, the question is what constitutes men-tal illness? And who decides? A bureaucracy with no due process is most certainly not the answer. Yet the gun-grabbing Obama administra-tion wants to institute a similar policy as the VA within the Social Security Administration. Our hope is that this new bureaucratic scheme won't survive the increased scrutiny that was established through the Supreme Court's Heller decision "The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenev-er that government forgets that it is servant and not mas-ter of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Consti-tution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and in-crease the chance that we will lose it all."

--Ronald Reagan

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens." --Thomas Jefferson

THE BULLET PAGE 9

Big loss for anti-gunners in Virginia The gun prohibition lobby is whining over anti-gun Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s reversal on concealed carry reciprocity yesterday, honoring permits and li-censes from several other states, while trying to cele-brate something of a hollow victory over Facebook’s Friday decision to “crack down” on gun sales. It is publicly embarrassing because Virginia is the far bigger prize, and they know it. As members of the Northwest Firearms forum are noting today, Facebook is hardly a major place where people buy, sell or trade firearms. As gun people know, there are far better plac-es for that activity, and all of those on-line forums insist that transactions comply with the law. But The Hill is reporting the lamentations from gun prohibition lobbying groups. Anti-gunners are do-ing everything but calling McAuliffe a traitor. They are accusing him of “caving to the gun lobby’s demands.” Andy Parker, father of slain TV journalist Alison Parker (gunned down by a former colleague on live television last year during a remote broadcast) signed a letter chastising the governor yesterday, the Hill report said. It’s all about symbolism. Virginia was a “trophy” of enormous implications; Facebook, not so much. Now the trophy has been snatched away like a Miss Universe crown, and Virginia has returned to the substance of respecting agreements over making symbolic gestures that never accomplish anything. And just what are those “demands?” Only that Virginia recognizes the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans from other states that might trav-el to the Old Dominion. Last month when Attorney General Mark Herring announced that Virginia would stop recognizing concealed carry permits and licenses from 25 other states with allegedly “weaker gun laws,” the anti-gun crowd was dancing in the streets. Now they’re limping because Second Amendment activists just kicked their behinds. In the process, McAuliffe has had to recognize that gun owners have rights, too, and Herring may be eating crow. The con-cessions to which the governor agreed may not amount to much. One might suggest they simply follow existing law that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from having firearms, while expanding “voluntary” background checks, whatever that means. Meanwhile, Shannon Watts, founder of the Mi-chael Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, is trying to make the Facebook an-nouncement a bigger deal than it apparently is. She trotted out the discredited claim by gun control propo-nents that “In this country, 40 percent of gun sales are through unlicensed dealers, without background checks.” The Washington Post has shown this claim to be bogus at least twice, the first time calling foul on Presi-dent Barack Obama three years ago. More recently, in October of last year, the WaPo did the same to Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose problems with credibility lately go well beyond the gun control arena.

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." --James Madison

SCOTUS Unanimously Backs Second Amendment

Citizens have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear stun guns according to the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling. This is significant because in this post-DC v. Heller and post-Antonin Scalia age, the Court has enough sense to know that self-defense is a universal right, one that doesn't require someone carry-ing a .45 S&W. Less lethal measures can do. The case revolved around the plight of Jamie Caetano, a small-statured woman who was going through a rough patch. She was living in a motel room and the father of her two children was abusive — so much so that she once need-ed medical attention after he beat her. As protection, one of Caetano's friends gave her a stun gun to protect herself. Despite restraining orders, the abusive ex showed up waiting for her to get off work one night. Caetano merely brandished the stun gun and scared him off. When the police came and sorted everything out, however, they arrested her for possessing an un-lawful weapon. As Massachusetts reasoned to the high court, the Second Amendment doesn't protect stun guns because when it was written Ben Franklin was still flying kites in thunderstorms and stun gun technology was unheard of. Furthermore, Massachusetts (incorrectly) noted that stun guns are not used by the military. But at a time when the court is evenly split along partisan lines, The Wall Street Journal notes that SCO-TUS is enforcing the landmark decision of Hel-ler, not seeking to undermine its broad scope — at least not yet. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in an opinion ac-companying the per curiam decision, "Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amend-ment's protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amend-ment." “The most unresolved problem of the day is pre-cisely the problem that concerned the founders of this nation: how to limit the scope and power of govern-ment. Tyranny, restrictions on human freedom, come primarily from governmental restrictions that we our-selves have set up."

—Milton Friedman

THE BULLET PAGE 10

We’re having a Raffle WMSA was very successful last year raffling an AR (M4 clone). It was so successful that we’re doing it again! This time, instead of an AR, we’re raffling a semiautomatic AK-47 clone by Century Arms. It will be a short-term raffle, the drawing for the AK will be at the Missouri Valley Collectors Association Gunshow on July 30, 2016.

Western Missouri Shooters Alliance Raffle

877-333-WMSA / 877-333-9672 www.wmsa.net

Century Arms AK-47 Rifle • 7.62X39mm • 16.25” Barrel

640 rounds ammo • Bayonet • 4-30 round mags • Carry case

$10 Donation Each • $25-3 • $50-7 • Only 500 will be sold!

Tickets can be obtained at most local gun shows, WMSA general meetings and via mail by sending a check to the WMSA, P.O. Box 11144, Kansas City, MO 64119

We’ve changed the rules slightly to provide some price breaks with buying multiple tickets. If you re-read the line above, note the pricing change. A single ticket is still $10—just like last year. However, three tickets can be bought for only $25 instead of $30 and seven tickets for $50 instead of $70. Again, like last year, there are a lim-ited amount of tickets, only 500 printed.

And! We’re continuing the membership drive. Bring a prospective member to one of our general meetings (every odd month) and receive a ticket FREE when your recruit joins WMSA.

Is this a deal or what?

“The government solution to any problem is usually at least as bad as the problem.” —Milton Friedman

THE BULLET PAGE 11

Mail to: Western Missouri Shooters Alliance

P.O. Box 11144 Kansas City, MO 64119

Hotline (877) 333-WMSA

www.wmsa.net

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

WESTERN MISSOURI SHOOTERS ALLIANCE

The Alliance is a regionally-based, grass-roots organization that seeks to;

1) Counter the designs of malicious legislators. 2) Confront the media’s twisted portrayals of gun rights issues. 3) Politicize and activate gun owners in defense of their rights. 4) Acquaint the public with the true nature of the Second Amendment. 5) Network with other pro-gun groups to coordinate local, state and national strategies. 6) Train people in basic firearm safety and handgun defense. 7) Sponsor and support pro-gun legislation. 8) Make politicians aware that gun owners are awakening from their accustomed apathy and

WILL TOLERATE NO FURTHER EROSION OF THEIR FREEDOMS! Date: _____/_____/_____

Name: ______________________________ Address:_____________________________ City:________________________________ State:________ Zip:___________ Occupation: __________________________ County: ___________________ Home Phone: (____) ____-_________ Cell Phone: (____) ____-________ E-Mail _________________________ NRA member? ____ Registered Voter? ____ Check membership type: ___ Annual ___ Senior ___ Associate $25 (voting rights) $15 (65+) $10 (spouse, no newsletter) ___ Sponsor __ Sponsor __ Sponsor __ Sponsor $100 (4 business card $250 (12 business card $500 (4 half- page ads $1000 (12 half- page ads ads per year.) ads per year.) per year.) per year.)

Dedicated to the restoration of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment

THE BULLET PAGE 12

Gun Owners of America www.gunowners.org 703-321-8585

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership www.JPFO.org 262- 673-9745

The National Rifle Association www.nra.org 800-672-3888

The Paul Revere Network www.paulrevere.org 312- 482-9910

The Second Amendment Foundation www.saf.org 425- 454-7012

Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance http://www.gclastl.org/ 866 385-GUNS (4867)

Missouri Sport Shooting Association www.missourisportshooting.org/

Western Missouri Shooters Alliance www.wmsa.net

Second Amendment Sisters, Inc. www.2asisters.org 877- 271-6216

Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment www.aware.org 877-672-9273

Women Against Gun Control www.wagc.com 801-328-9660

NewsMax.com www.newsmax.com

The Washington Times www.washtimes.com

The London Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk

The Drudge Report www.drudgereport.com

CONTACT INFORMATION - Let them know what you think!

WEB ADDRESSES - Get educated!

...dedicated to the restoration of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment

Western Missouri Shooters Alliance P O Box 11144 Kansas City, MO 64119

PRESORT STD AUTO

U.S. POSTAGE PAID OAK GROVE, MO

PERMIT NO. 60

*REMINDER* Next General M eeting is scheduled for Tuesday, M ay 24, 2016 at 7:00 PM Meeting located at Bass Pro Conservation Room, Independence, MO

Missouri State Senate Jason Holsman—D -Dist 7 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 421 Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573)751-6607 Will Kraus—R -Dist 8 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 418 Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573) 751-1464 S. Kiki Curls—D -Dist 9 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 434 Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573) 751-3158 Paul LeVota—D—Dist 11 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 330 Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573) 751-3074 Dan Hegeman—R -Dist 12 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 332 Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573) 751– 1415 Ryan Silvey—R - Dist 17 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 331A Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573) 751-5282

David Pearce -R—Dist 21 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 227 Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573) 751-7381 Ed Emery—R—Dist 31 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 426 Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573) 751-2108 Rob Schaaf—R—Dist 34 201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 423 Jefferson City, Misouri 65101 (573) 751-2183

Missouri House Jim Neely—R—Dist 8 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 110A Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-0246 Delus Johnson—R—Dist. 9 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 302-1 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-3666

Pat Conway—D—Dist 10 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 109B Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-9755 Galen Higdon—R -Dist. 11 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 412A Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-3643 Kenneth Wilson—R _Dist 12 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 206A Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-9760 Nick Marshall—R— Dist 13 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 134 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-6593 Kevin Corlew—R Dist 14 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 201A Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-3618 Jon Carpenter— D - Dist 15 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 101-I Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-4787

Noell J Shull - R Dist 16 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 201B Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-9458 Nick King - R Dist 17 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 201-CA Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-1218 Lauren Arthur - D Dist 18 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 109H Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2199 Mike Cierpiot—R Dist 30 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 302B Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-0907 Sheila Solon - R - Dist 31 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 305B Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-8636 Jeanie Lauer— R Dist 32 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 413B Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-1487

Donna Pfautsch - R Dist 33 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 236B Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-9766 Rebecca Roeber - R Dist 34 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 116-3 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-1456 Gary L. Cross - R Dist 35 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 112 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-1459 T. J. Berry - R Dist 38 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 205 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2238 Joe Don McGaugh - R -Dist 39 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 236A Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-1468 Dean Dohrman - R Dist 51 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 115G Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2204

Nathan Beard— R - Dist 52 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 409A Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-9774 Glen Kolkmeyer - R Dist 53 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 400CA Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-1462 Denny Hoskins - R - Dist 54 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 301 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-4302 Rick Brattin— R - Dist 55 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 114C Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-3783 Jack Bondon - R - Dist 56 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 201F Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2175 Wanda Brown - R - Dist 57 201 West Capitol Ave Rm. 412C Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-3971