The San Fernando Valley NRA Members' Council Posts

Coexist 2

Coexist 1

One of these bumper stickers elicits nods of approval from liberals. The other causes them to scream obscenities at children. Can you figure out which is which?

My wife and I own horses that we keep at a local boarding facility. Over the last few years, we’ve had the pleasure of watching a girl, who also boards her horses at the ranch, grow into an impressive, young woman. Sam is one of our closest friends on the ranch. She’s there almost every day feeding horses, turning them out, and helping with lessons; especially with the youngest students. She’s talked about joining the military once she’s graduated high school. She’s probably the most level-headed teenager I’ve ever met.

Sam has a trailer for her horses, so she drives a full-sized pick up. It has a “Coexist” bumper sticker. You’ve probably already guessed that it’s not the one on the top.

Now I can understand that Sam’s bumper sticker might cause a few liberals to get a case of the tight jaws. I’d also expect that they’d remember the message conveyed by their version of the sticker and just “coexist” with people like Sam. But as it turns out, “coexist” doesn’t mean the same thing to them that it does to the rest of us.

Sam was driving her truck a few weeks ago and had a man pulled up next to her and motioned to get her attention. This guy had his own small children in the car with him. Sam rolled down the window to see what he wanted. (She thought that perhaps something was wrong with her truck.) Instead, he starts cursing at her, calling her a murderer, and calling her a c**t. Keep in mind that he’s screaming at and threatening a teenager. And, he’s doing this with his own children in the car right next to him. (One can only hope that one of the kids asked later on that day: “Mommy, what’s a c**t?”. That would have made for a fun dinner conversation!)

So how’s that for coexistence?

When liberals talk about “coexistence”, they don’t mean with people like you. They mean coexisting with people who think what they think and believe what they believe. When they talk about diversity, they don’t mean a diversity of opinion. They expect you to march in lock step with them and toe the party line. “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.”

For gun owners, this means that their idea of “reasonable gun laws” are anything but reasonable. “Reasonable” implies compromise and they’re not ones to compromise. There is no point where they will announce that we now have enough gun control laws.

If they can’t tolerate a bumper sticker on a young girl’s truck, what makes you think that they’d ever tolerate you owning a firearm?



Grassroots Alert: Vol. 23, No. 17 4/29/2016

Hillary Clinton to Attack Gun Owners Her “Very First Day” in Office

Hillary Clinton to Attack Gun Owners Her “Very First Day” in Office
In what has become as reliable as clockwork, with the passing of another week comes another Hillary Clinton attack on gun owners. This time, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination explained to supporters her intent to make an assault on gun rights and NRA one of her top priorities. A video of her comments has been distributed by and can be viewed by clicking here.

View Related Articles
NRA Statement on President Obama's Latest Gun Control

NRA Statement on President Obama’s Latest Gun Control
Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) issued the following statements on President Obama’s latest gun control push.

Social Security Administration Releases Proposed Rulemaking on Disability-Related Gun Ban

Social Security Administration Releases Proposed Rulemaking on Disability-Related Gun Ban
On Friday, the Social Security Administration (SSA) released a draft of a proposed rulemaking that would supposedly bring the agency into compliance with what it claims is its responsibility to report prohibited persons to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The proposal focuses on five factors to determine if certain SSA recipients receiving Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” and are therefore federally prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. It would also create an administrative procedure for affected individuals to petition for restoration of their rights. The proposed rule will remain open for public comment for 60 days.

Aging Rocker to College Students: You’re Too Drunk, Violent, and Stupid for Your Rights

Aging Rocker to College Students: You’re Too Drunk, Violent, and Stupid for Your Rights
Throughout its history, rock-n-roll music has provided youth who are fed up with being lectured and condescended to by out-of-touch or hypocritical elders a voice to respond and to advocate for their own generation. Athens, GA, rocker Micheal Stipe and his band R.E.M. helped fulfill that role for those who came of age in the 1980s and ‘90s with a string of memorable hits.  On Monday, however, Stipe said too much, and not enough, with a preachy, barely coherent editorial railing against the Second Amendment rights of today’s college students.

Hollywood Ramps up Anti-gun Campaign

Hollywood Ramps up Anti-gun Campaign
Gun control advocates and Hollywood have long been allied in an effort propagandize the public against firearm ownership. However, as detailed in an April 27 piece in entertainment industry trade publication Variety, anti-gun groups and television and film producers are increasingly collaborating on projects and escalating their campaign to indoctrinate viewers. As we noted back in March, gun control groups and Hollywood have often worked hand in hand to condition the public. Since 2000, the Entertainment Industries Council, whose purported goal is “Encouraging the entertainment industry to more effectively address and accurately depict major health and social issues,” has urged content producers to explore anti-gun scenarios and talking points in their television programs and films.

Say What? Gun Control Advocates Try to Change the Language of Crime

Say What? Gun Control Advocates Try to Change the Language of Crime
As a cabinet level official in the Obama administration, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both reflected and informed the regime’s values and tactics, some of which she has carried forward into her own campaign for the White House. This includes careful and selective use of language to fulfill the Obama imperative to “punish our enemies” and “reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us”. And just as Obama pledged to fundamentally transform the United States of America, he and Clinton are fundamentally transforming the English language to reorient the public on “issues that are important” to their shared agenda of gun control.

Poll: Voters Not Swayed by Clinton’s Anti-Gun Duplicity

Poll: Voters Not Swayed by Clinton’s Anti-Gun Duplicity
We’ve been reporting on Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and her anti-gun mentality for months. She has been especially focused on the alleged immunity gun manufacturers have under federal law, the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).  She has often claimed, incorrectly, that gun manufacturers “are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” Despite the fact that her accusations have been completely debunked as false on Politifact and elsewhere, Ms. Clinton continues to trot out these deceptive talking points, promising she’ll repeal “the gun industry’s unique immunity protection” if elected.

Get Your Tickets to the 2016 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum!

Get Your Tickets to the 2016 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum!
Make sure you get your tickets to this year’s NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on Friday, May 20, 2016 at the NRA Annual Meetings in Louisville, Kentucky! Featuring our nation’s top Second Amendment leaders, this forum is a must-stop for candidates seeking the highest levels of elected office— governor, congressman, senator or president of the United States. With some of America’s biggest names and best political minds on tap, it’s no wonder this has become a can’t-miss favorite for NRA members. Tickets to this event sell out fast, so you’ll want to ensure that you secure your seat for an unforgettable series of motivational and inspirational speeches.

You're Invited to the Second Annual Youth Leadership Conference

You’re Invited to the Second Annual Youth Leadership Conference
NRA-ILA invites you to attend the Second Annual Youth Leadership Conference on Saturday, May 21st at 3:00 p.m. This special event is being held in conjunction with this year’s NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Louisville! At this FREE event, NRA-ILA Grassroots Staff will provide in depth training for student leaders that will focus on current issues we are facing, how to effectively combat anti-gun myths, and opportunities to get involved with the NRA. The event itself, and all associated materials and food, are FREE!

Attend Firearms Law Seminar in Louisville

Attend Firearms Law Seminar in Louisville
The Annual National Firearms Law Seminar will be held on Friday, May 20, 2016 as part of the NRA Annual Meetings. The gold standard in firearms law classes, this day-long seminar provides legal instruction for attorneys and all others interested in Second Amendment law. CLE credit for all states is available.  


Help Prevent Merrick Garland’s Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court!
Help Prevent Merrick Garland’s Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court!
In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that President Obama has a carefully planned strategy to advance Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Please call the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell your U.S. Senators that Merrick Garland must not be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Write your lawmakers and learn more at 


Alabama Alabama
Alabama: Pro-Gun Reform Needs Your Immediate Action
Arizona Arizona
Arizona: Pro-Gun Bills Could Soon be Scheduled for Third Read
California California
California: Anti-Gun Bills Still Alive After Policy Committee Deadline
Connecticut Connecticut
Connecticut: Gun Surrender Bill Moving through the General Assembly
Hawaii Hawaii
Hawaii: Two Anti-Gun Bills Enrolled to Governor- Your Urgent Action Needed!
Michigan Michigan
Michigan: Important Firearm Preemption Legislation Will Likely Receive Committee Vote Next Week
Minnesota Minnesota
Minnesota: Anti-Gun Amendments Defeated on the Floor!
Ohio Ohio
Ohio: Military Carry Permit Reform Bill Goes to House Floor for Consideration
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania: Sunday Hunting Legislation Will be Heard in Senate Committee
South Carolina South Carolina
South Carolina: Pro-Gun Bill Vote Postponed

News Politics



After a busy week of hearings, Friday April 22nd marked the deadline for bills with a fiscal note to be passed out of their respective policy committees. Bills not meeting this deadline are considered defeated for the 2016 legislative session.  The good news is that a couple anti-gun bills are dead for the session.  The bad news is, many of the most egregious bills are still moving. Additionally, several bills have been placed in the suspense file and will not be considered until the end of May.  For an update of where we stand please see below:

Anti-Gun Assembly Bills still alive:

Assembly Bill 2607 would amend the “Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO)” procedures that were created by AB 1014 (2014).  GVRO’s were opposed by NRA during the 2014 session because of the lack of due process when depriving an individual of their right to keep and bear arms.  AB 2607 would compound the existing problems by significantly expanding the class of individuals who could seek a GVRO.

AB 2607 has moved to the Assembly floor and could be heard at any time.  Please contact your state Assembly Member and urge him or her to OPPOSE AB 2607.  Contact information can be found here or by clicking on the TAKE ACTION button below.

Anti-Gun Senate Bills still alive:

SB 880, SB 894, SB 1006, SB 1407, and SB 1446 all passed through the respective policy committees and could be heard as early as Monday, May 2 by the Senate Committee on Appropriation.  Please take a moment to contact the members of the committee and urge them to OPPOSE SB 880, SB 894, SB 1006, SB 1407, and SB 1446.  Contact information can be found here or by clicking on the TAKE ACTION button below.

Senate Bill 880  would massively expand the current definition of “assault weapon” to include ALL semi-automatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine.  The California State Sheriffs’ Association has already testified in opposition to this egregious bill.

Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours.  Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation.

Senate Bill 1006 would enact a California Firearm Violence Research Act and would declare legislative intent regarding the principles by which the university would administer the center and award research fund at tax payer expense in an effort to continue to erode your constitutional rights.  Let’s be clear, the NRA is not opposed to research that would encourage the safe and responsible use of firearms and reduce the numbers of firearm-related deaths.  Safety has been at the core of the NRA’s mission since its inception.  But that is not the goal of the gun control advocates who are behind Senate Bill 1006.

Senate Bill 1407 would make it a crime under California law for an individual to manufacture a firearm without first obtaining California Department of Justice (DOJ) approval to do so and subsequently engraving a DOJ-provided serial number on the firearm.  This legislation should be opposed because it will effectively nullify the long-standing and constitutionally protected activity of building one’s own firearms.   Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2014.

Senate Bill 1446 would ban the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.  The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness.  Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.


Assembly Suspense File:

The following bills have been placed in the Assembly suspense file and will not be heard until the end of May.  Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you posted on potential hearings as the time nears.

Assembly Bill 1663 and Assembly Bill 1664 are similar and would massively expand the current definition of “assault weapon” to include ALL semi-automatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine.  The California State Sheriffs’ Association has even testified in opposition to both of these egregious bills.

Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that can be readily convertible. This expanded definition continues to push the limits on when a hunk of metal or polymer can be classified as a “firearm” regardless of the significant machining and fabrication necessary.

Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the current restriction on the number of firearms an individual can purchase within a 30 day period. Currently the “one gun a month” rule only applies to dealer sales of handguns. This legislation would make it applicable to all firearm transfers, including long guns. If this ridiculous proposal becomes law the average competitive shooter might be required to wait months to purchase all the necessary firearms for their competition.

Assembly Bill 1695 would make it a misdemeanor to report to a local law enforcement agency that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing that report to be false and create a 10 year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of this offense.  This bill would also require the Attorney General to send a letter notice to each individual who has applied to purchase a firearm informing him or her of laws relating to firearms, gun trafficking, and safe storage and would allow the Department of Justice to use funds in the Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund.

Anti-Gun Legislation Defeated for the 2016 Session:

Assembly Bill 2459 would have meant the end of almost every gun store across the state.  As previously reported this legislation would have placed four crippling burdens, in which the cost of compiling these unnecessary and ineffective changes would have driven FFL’s out of business.

Senate Bill 1037 would have effectively removed the SOL from many firearm crimes including many common missteps because of the existing draconian measures that are often confusing and buried throughout CA statute.  This means a gun which an owner may have believed to be in compliance for the past 10 years could continue to be a crime and lend an owner to becoming criminally culpable.  Further it would have created a presumption in state law that would presume the person in possession of the firearm is the owner.  Meaning that a person who is borrowing a gun within the current transfer exemptions would need to prove their possession was legal as opposed to how our system of justice works in almost every other situation, “innocent until proven guilty”. A continuing trend for CA gun owners, the anti-gunners believe you are guilty until proven innocent for exercising your constitutional rights.

Please stay tuned to NRA-ILA for updates.  Please take a moment to forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners and sportsmen.  The Second Amendment in California is going to need all of its supporters to survive.

AB 1663 AB 1664 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2459 AB 2607 Anti-gun Legislation News Privacy SB 1006 SB 1037 SB 1407 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State

There’s a problem that affects all presidential candidates: The electorate voting in the primaries is not the electorate you’ll face in November.

We see this highlighted in Hillary Clinton’s “Bernie Problem”. Democrat primary voters are the party’s activist core. They’re far more left wing than are the party’s rank-and-file voters and way to the left of the average American. But before she can win the general election, Hillary has to win the primaries by winning over those far left wing voters. And to do that, she has to get to the left of Bernie Freakin’ Sanders. That’s like getting to the left of Karl Marx. To accomplish this, she’s settled on gun control as the issue where Sanders might be vulnerable. This is not going to end well for her.

In 2008, with her party still smarting after Algore’s defeat in 2000, Hillary dialed back the anti-gun rhetoric. Gore lost his home State of Tennessee, and the election, because he championed gun control. (After years of claiming to support gun rights.) But now she needs to get around Bernie Freakin’ Sanders’ left flank…

But now Hillary is all in against gun rights at a time when gun ownership in America has been rising for at least a decade and now surpasses 100 million gun owners. Hillary has even made her desire to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) into a common part of her stump speeches. She says the PLCAA gives gun makers “carte blanche” protection from civil liability, which is such a whopper that Politifact looked into this and ruled Clinton’s claim to be “false.”

After coming out this strongly against a basic American freedom, Hillary will have a hard time pivoting to a less extreme position on gun rights. It will be especially hard for her given that the U.S. Supreme Court’s balance is so obviously at stake in this November’s election.

Any sailor will tell you that there are times when the wind doesn’t take you in the direction you want. And in a race, wind shifts can leave you badly out of position. You might have made great time chasing the wind off on the left side of the course at the beginning of the race, but a change in the wind could leave your opponent closer to the finish line. You were ahead,  but now you’re forced to make an extra tack before you can get close to the buoy on the left end of the finish line. Your opponent, who stayed closer to the centerline of the course, doesn’t have that problem.

In racing, the wind is what it is and you can’t predict it. That’s not the case in politics. Hillary knows the wind will shift come November. It always does. She’s going to have a hard time tacking back to starboard if she wants to be competitive this Fall.

News Politics

It’s a bit of a stretch, right? Just because Chelsea Clinton believes that her mother is going to appoint anti-gun extremists to the Supreme court, that doesn’t mean that Hillary actually will. Right? And just because she’s speaking for her mother’s campaign, at an official event, that doesn’t mean this is really what’s going on inside her mother’s head. Right? I mean c’mon… Sometimes apples really do fall far from the tree. Right?

News Politics

To hear the anti-gun left tell it, gun owners are nothing but a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic rednecks. We get our news from only Fox News and We’re a bunch of mind-numbed robots who listen everyday for our marching orders daily from Rush Limbaugh. Our idea of diversity is tuning in to Larry Elder.

If it’s different from us and our gun-totin’ friends, we hate it.

So then, what should we make of “Professor Myrtle Lynn Payne”? The professor, writing under pseudonym, is in a quandary over writing a recommendation for one of her students. “Sarah” is a good student. She’s not necessarily a great student, but “she had great energy and was a class leader. Definitely a process, and not a content, type of gal.”. Sarah wants to be a teacher, but she apparently has one devastating character flaw: Sarah is insufficiently terrified of firearms.

“Professor Payne” had promised to write the recommendation for Sarah, but that was before the Umpqua Community College shooting. (Which Sarah didn’t commit, by the way.)

She seems to be a good kid, Sarah. And I don’t know what she really thinks of gun advocacy and political failures that have cost us all these lives and our sense of safety as educators. I don’t know what she does on the weekends. I also don’t know if she understands emotions, or what real rage feels like. It seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun.

So what do I do? Do I write her a recommendation because I originally said yes? Do I say no and explain myself? Do I ignore her email?

No wonder she’s using a pseudonym.

All she knows about Sarah is that she once fired an AK at a range and that she may have a CCW. These are both lawful activities. The latter shows that Sarah can pass an intensive background check, so there’s little doubt as to her quality of character. And it’s not like “Professor Payne” is unfamiliar with firearms. Her father owned a Browning over-and-under. Had he committed suicide with that Browning, we might understand why she thinks others should be appalled by firearms; but, he died of natural causes.

So what’s going on here?

One answer is that “Professor Payne” wants to trash the career of an insufficiently liberal student, but she doesn’t want to get caught doing it. A simpler answer is that she’s just being a bigot, knows it, and she’s hoping that others will giver her some cover for her actions. A check of the comments shows that her fellow educators aren’t rushing to her defense. Most are appalled that she’s letting her own biases color her thinking about this student. But, that’s standard procedure in academia.

Anti-gun college professors may accuse gun owners of hating those who don’t look like them, but it’s the academy that’s shut its doors to outsiders. They hide behind their ivy-covered walls and refuse to admit staff that may not hew to their political views. “Payne” is hardly an anomaly. The overwhelming majority of college staff are liberals and most of them are anti-gun. When a conservative or libertarian applies for a teaching position, their application is round-filed (In the blue bin, of course!) as quickly as possible.

The harm done to students should be obvious. They receive only one side of an argument. By exposing them to more than one opinion, students learn critical thinking. They learn to evaluate arguments. They to distinguish between emotional appeals and logical arguments.

Several years ago, this Members’ Council was approached by a professor from one of our local universities. She realized that her students, who were studying firearms policy and paying a lot of money to do so, were only hearing arguments from groups like the Brady Campaign. Most had never handled a firearm. And while she’s no friend to gun owners, she recognized the harm being done to her students and reached out to us for help. We presented pro-gun information to the students as well as safety information. We then took them to the range where many fired guns for the first time. They were all grateful for the opportunity to have practical experience with firearms and contact with actual gun owners.

Now you’ll note that I’m being vague about this professor’s identity. She’s no longer at the same institution, but she did get into hot water over exposing her students to “those people”. I’m being cagey about her identity so that her good deed doesn’t get punished by her current employer. While I don’t agree with her politics, she’s a good instructor and I don’t want to see her suffer again for giving her students a well rounded education.

In short, I don’t want to risk exposing her to the bigots hiding behind those ivy-covered walls.

News Politics

In a touch of irony, the California Senate’s Public Safety Committee heard several bills on April 19, all designed to severely restrict its citizens’ cherished Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms. What is ironic is that April 19 is the anniversary of the “shot heard ‘round the world” — with an unregistered gun, incidentally — which marked the beginning of the American Revolution. by Steve Byas

Source: California Targets Second Amendment-protected Rights

AB 2459 Anti-gun Legislation SB 1446 SB 880 State

AB 2459, which would have outlawed gun dealers in California, failed to pass out of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. But, that didn’t stop the rest of the Legislature from flexing their stoopid…

In what critics call “Gunmageddon,” California lawmakers passed more gun restrictions and magazine bans out of committee on Tuesday.

Source: ‘GunMeggedon’ in California With More Gun, Magazine Bans – Breitbart

AB 2510 also passed out of committee. This bill requires the AG’s office to develop a uniform CCW license card. Right now, each county has its own design. While LEOs may recognize the formats used by neighboring counties, it’s unlikely that an Imperial County deputy has ever seen a Shasta County permit.

Shockingly, AB 2478 did not pass out of committee. This bill would have made gun theft a felony. Prop. 47 reduced the theft of many firearms (Those with a price tag under $1000) to a misdemeanor.

AB 2510 Anti-gun Legislation News Privacy SB 1006 SB 1037 SB 1407 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State

And by breaking, I don’t mean violating some law or another.

There are well intended laws that break the legal system. Off hand, I cannot think of any that aren’t some form of prohibition. This occurs when government backed do-gooders attempt to tell the American people that they can’t have some item that the People think is perfectly acceptable to possess.

Alcohol prohibition is the classic example of this. Teetotalers sought to impose their version of morality onto the public at large. The problem was that the public at large drinks. The temperance movement got what they wanted, but they inadvertently promoted the rise of organized crime. There was a lot of money to be made in the illegal booze trade and the Mob happily stepped in to do just that. Alcohol prohibition ultimately failed because it brought the rule of law into contempt.

Gun prohibition is no different. The anti-gun left has gotten their way in many places. New York City is a prime example of their “success” at forcing their view of morality down the People’s throats. The problem is that Americans, as they did with alcohol prohibition, see no moral underpinning for gun laws. This leads otherwise law abiding citizens to violate the law. The end result is a population that reviles its own laws and denigrates the rule of law.

The latest example (No surprise!) comes out of New York City. The FBI has uncovered a conspiracy where NYPD officers were accepting bribes in exchange for gun permits. NYC generally prohibits gun ownership and licenses the right to keep and bear arms as though it were a privilege. The result, though, is not widespread compliance with the law, but rather widespread violation of the law. This leads inexorably to the type of corruption found in the NYPD.

Like the teetotalers before them, gun grabbers only succeed in diminishing the rule of law and the creation of black markets. Worse yet, they push otherwise law abiding citizens into the waiting arms of the criminal element. Far from making us safer, anti-gun laws endanger us all.


LexingtonWe often hear that fear of our own government seizing firearms is mere paranoia. “It can’t happen here” is the popular refrain. But in point of fact, it did happen here.

On this day, 241 years ago, 700 British soldiers marched out of Boston to confiscate arms held by His Majesty’s law abiding citizens. These legally owned firearms were at an armory (safely stored, if you will) at Concord about 20 miles outside of Boston. British troops encountered colonial militia in Lexington at approximately 5:00 am. While it is not known who fired “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World”, the British regulars unleashed a volley that killed 8 American colonists and wounded another 9. One British regular was lightly wounded in the skirmish.

concord bridgeThe British soldiers continued their march toward Concord with orders to capture or destroy the colonists’ arms. But by this point, news of what was happening had spread to all of the neighboring towns and settlements. Militia units were converging on Concord and were in place before the Regulars could secure the town. Fighting broke out and the soldiers were unable to accomplish their mission.

ConcordThings went from bad to worse for the British regulars as they made their way back to Boston. By day’s end, nearly 4,000 militia were in the area, many along the troops’ escape route back to their garrison. British losses would number 73 killed, 174 wounded, and another 53 missing. American losses were 49 killed, 39 wounded, and 5 missing.

Within a year, the Americans realized that the rift between them and the Crown had become irreparable. In May of the following year, Congress authorized the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. At that point, there was no going back. By 1781, the Crown had effectively lost its American colonies.

What amazes me is how quickly things turned to worms for George III in the Americas. In 1763, the Seven Years War had ended with a British victory. In the American colonies, that war was called the French and Indian war. This was arguably the true First World War with fighting on 5 continents. During the conflict, the American colonists fielded at least as many troops in the New World as the mother country did in Europe and the other theaters of war. The Americans had also spent millions out of their own treasuries to fund combat operations in North America. But in 1765, Parliament imposed special taxes on the colonies to recover some of the costs of the war. The Americans were outraged that they were now being asked to pay (again) for the privilege of bleeding to defend the Crown’s interests. Worse yet, the tax was levied by a parliament where they were unrepresented. The colonists, who still saw themselves as British citizens, protested repeatedly, but King George and his parliament ignored them.

The Stamp Act was the spark that led directly to the flames that erupted just after sunrise on April 19, 1775. The King’s American colonies went from living in peace to “shots fired” in 11 years. Each new provocation from the government was met with more protest. Rather than listen to these protests, London responded with indignation and a new round of provocations. And with each step, government further alienated itself from the governed.

Flash forward 241 years. The drive to disarm Americans has begun again. However, American gun owners remembered that “it can happen here”. The anti-gun left remembers too. They remember the Crown’s failure and its consequences. They’ve tried a slow roll approach to the problem that started in 1934. They’re tried reassuring words, telling us that “no one’s out to take away your guns”. But much to their dismay, American gun owners have pushed back. And we’ve done so with tremendous success thus far. The Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 was the left’s high water mark. Since then, the “assault weapon” ban expired and shall-issue CCW is the norm rather than the exception. Worse yet for the anti-gun left is the trend toward erasing CCW laws altogether and adopting “Constitutional carry”. West Virginia is the latest to do so.

But like George III before them, the anti-gun left has failed to take the hint. The California Legislature in particular seems immune to such hints! So the question remains: Will the anti-gun left make the same headlong rush to violence that the last American king did?