First, let’s be clear that this is about perceptions. The BLM vs. Cliven Bundy story isn’t about who’s in the right or who’s in control; it’s about who appears  to be in the right and about who appears to be in control.

A little background first. Cliven Bundy is a rancher who lives outside of Mesquite, Nevada. His family has been ranching on that land since before Nevada became a State. The Bureau of Land Management, BLM, claims control of the land the Bundys graze their cattle on. Bundy’s position, in a nutshell, is “I was here first”. But like I said, the right or wrong of the arguments isn’t anywhere near as important as public perception.

The BLM has been arguing with Bundy over grazing fees for two decades now. Note that I said arguing and not doing X, Y, or Z. So right away, who looks to be in the weaker position? Not Cliven Bundy. Now, over 20 years later, the BLM is attempting to flex its atrophied muscles to intimidate the Bundys into paying the fees. Remember that this is about perception. That last sentence can be called hyperbole, but that is the perception and the BLM should have realized it before this fiasco began. Instead of sensibly, and quietly, folding, they raised when the other guy was showing a pair of kings. Bundy called them and raised them several thousand protesters, the Internet, and Militia. It’s that last part that really stings now that the BLM has pulled back. It appears that the Obama administration retreated in the face of armed opposition. That’s never a position a government wants to find itself in because appearances matter.

Now turn your attention further east. In the State of Connecticut, Governor Dannel Malloy rammed through an “assault weapon” ban following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary. His incorrect perception was that there would be widespread public support for his law and that gun owners would be cowed into compliance. But that didn’t happen. Instead, gun owners in his State ignored him and his law. The response from Hartford has been indignant sputtering and empty threats. So rather than appearing strong, Malloy’s government appears to be quite the opposite. And as is the case with the BLM, it appears that he’s backing down in the face of armed opposition.

This same tale is playing out in neighboring New York as well. There, Governor Andrew Cuomo also rammed through a draconian gun ban with the expectation that the rabble would quietly obey. As I write this, the deadline for registering or surrendering an “assault weapon” has passed. But in New York, the problem is much bigger than it is in Connecticut. A million NY gun owners may have chosen defiance over compliance. While the pundit class saw a political victory for the Governor, gun owners in NY perceived weakness. In the face of growing opposition from citizens and local law enforcement, Coumo should have backed down. Why support a law that you can’t enforce? Instead, he doubled down and forced his SAFE Act through. And now he’s stuck defending a position he should have abandoned. The perception is that he’s weak. He’s about to have a million felons on his hands and he doesn’t have a plan to deal with them.

Anti-gun politicians like Dannel Malloy, Andrew Cuomo, and Barack Obama have overplayed their hands. They believed their own narrow minded “moms” and ignored conditions on the ground. They foolishly staked out indefensible positions; whether on legislation or grazing fees and land control. They’ve converted a letter writing opposition into armed opposition. And rather than responding forcefully to that armed opposition, as any prince worth his salt should, they blinked.

The anti-gun Left hoped for revolutionary change in America. They hoped to end the American tradition of an armed citizenry. They hoped to overcome it with a powerful and dynamic State enforcing its will on knuckle-dragging gun owners. They hold similar dreams to remake American traditions of land and business ownership. And they thought that their revolutionary dreams were finally about to come true. What they missed was the importance of perception. The public never viewed them as strong enough to accomplish those goals. So their attempts to do so appear to be driven by a weak desire to save face, not by the kind of political power they imagined themselves to possess.

They’re getting a revolution all right; but not the one they hoped for.


Would they be willing to be first through the door on a “Dynamic entry”?

Legislation News

The passage of the New York “SAFE Act” has caused a jump in membership for SCOPE (Shooters Committee on Political Education). The group now has more than 5400 members, but, as SCOPE president Steve Aldstadt told The Batavian

“Unfortunately it took something like the SAFE Act to get everybody aware and involved,”

This writer isn’t going to criticize NY gun owners who weren’t politically active prior to the passage of the SAFE Act. I joined the NRA after the passage of the Roberti-Roos bill here in California in 1989. But quite obviously, those of us who are politically aware need to reach out to our friends who aren’t. Better to have them involved too early rather than too late.

Now, it may be tempting for some in the Republican Party to assume that gun control laws passed by Democrats will mint new GOP voters. That isn’t necessarily the case. As gun owners become more and more politically aware, they start to notice that many gun bills pass with Republican support. The Party needs to realize that we notice when 1 or 2 go-along-to-get-along Republicans are the gun grabbers’ margin of victory in a floor vote. Going back to the example of the Roberti-Roos assault weapon ban of 1989, that bill passed because 2 Republicans in the Assembly voted in favor of it. 6 Democrats opposed it, and had the GOP kept their 2 in line, the bill would have failed in the Assembly and never seen the Governor’s desk. But it did reach the Governor’s desk; and many of us thought that Republican Governor George Deukmejian would veto it. He didn’t. The GOP should note that we remember these little things. And no, a veto of one gun law by someone like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie  isn’t going to give the rest of you a fig leaf to hide behind when some other Republican betrays the interests of gun owners.

Yes, the GOP has an opportunity to turn gun owners into Republican votes, but only if they show solid, unwavering support for gun owners.

News Politics’s Kelly Picket reports

Six gun companies have announced plans to stop selling any of their products to any government agency in states that severely limit the rights of private gun ownership.

Disappointed with New York State lawmakers and other jurisdictions around the country who have passed strict gun control legislation, the companies—composed of firearm manufacturers, gunsmiths, and sporting goods retailers—have announced these policies in the past week.

Companies refusing to arm the Cuomo regime are:




    Buxton, ME –( Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York.

    We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York.

    As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.

    For “civilian” customers residing in New York: At your choice, we will:

    Complete your order and ship to a dealer of your choice outside of NY.

    Refund your payment in full.

    Hold your items here for up to 6 months, at no charge – if you are in the process of leaving NY and taking residence in another state.

    For LE/Govt customers in New York: Your orders have been cancelled.


    Another firearms manufacturer is willing to tell New York that they will not longer be doing business as usual with them…

    Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines.

    We feel as though the passage of this legislation exceeds the authority granted to the government of New York by its citizens, and violates the Constitution of the United States, ignoring such SCOTUS rulings as District of Columbia v. Heller – 554, U.S. 570 of 2008, McDonald v. Chicago – 561 U.S. 3025 of 2010, and specifically the case of United States v. Miller – 307 U.S. 174 of 1939.

    Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.

    Read more at Ammoland

    Related: LaRue Tactical: Rules for civilians will apply to anti-gun State and local governments


    Gov. Cuomo is sending out police to address local gun owners in New York; apparently with the goal of making them more enthusiastic about the Guv’s new passed-under-cover-of-darkness AW ban. You be the judge as to how successful they are at their new jobs as cheerleaders for the Nanny State…


    At the risk of sounding all blackhelicoptery, there seems to be a rebellion brewing out there. And it’s not among the “usual suspects”; it’s within the law enforcement community.

    Talk of rebellion usually comes from that crowd we’re all familiar with. You know ’em. They show up on occasion to our Members’ Council meetings. You see them out on the edges of the crowd at gun shows; unusual political views combined with some truly unique fashion choices. (Personally, I never would have imagined that a grown man would combine a field jacket, an Aussie snap brim hat, English riding boots, and black tights.) And their hair is perfect.

    But real rebellion is coming from an entirely different quarter. Sheriffs across the US are pledging to resist any anti-gun directives they receive from the Obama regime. In these pages, we’ve reported on sheriffs in UtahTexas, and Missouri announcing that they will not obey unconstitutional orders from “on high”. Now sheriffs in Florida and Colorado are announcing that they will not obey illegal mandates from Washington DC. Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr., whom we have reported on earlier, is also on a list of 219 sheriffs and organizations  opposing the regime.

    Now keep in mind that there is no shortage of wannabe JBTs out there;  tuchusleckers who support this President and his radical agenda. They hate the idea of an armed population. They want a nation where they hold a monopoly on deadly force. But these sheriffs are something entirely different. These are elected officials. They will answer to their constituents. And let’s be clear, many of their constituents don’t agree with them on this issue. Those who prefer safety to freedom will not like hearing that their sheriff will not support this president’s ambitions. It takes courage for these sheriffs to stick there necks out like this on principle.

    These men and women are putting the jobs on the line for the rest of us. I hope that all of you will remember them when they need your support.

    News Politics

    Over at, J.D. Tuccille notes that New York gun owners are a bit hesitant, to say the least, about obeying their Governor’s latest edict on semi-auto rifles…

    New York Governor Cuomo the Junior may have rushed through his new gun control law with such speed that police will avoid its restrictions only through the blessed miracle of selective enforcement, but he may have a little trouble getting the state’s firearms owners to attend his party. The new law requires owners of those scary-looking rifles known as “assault weapons” to register their property (amidst assurances that, oh no, the registration lists will never be used for confiscation), but gun rights activists are actively urging gun owners to defy the new mandate.

    Andrew Cuomo

    Also noted is what a rousing success AW registration has been here in California. Estimates vary, but it’s generally believed that 300,000 firearms met the State’s “Assault weapon” definition and should have been registered. According to the NY Times, only about 7,000 were actually registered.

    The reason for such reticence isn’t hard to fathom. When gun owners charge that politicians can’t be trusted to resist using registration lists for future confiscation, they’re not being paranoid — New York City and California have both done just that.

    Charges of paranoia also fall flat when one remembers American history. We fear a tyrannical, gun-grabbing government because our forefathers actually were victims of just such a thing. Remember that our former monarch really did try to disarm us. It can happen here because it did happen here.

    News Politics

    …and I’m talking about the bill as well as its sponsors.

    Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) are back yet again with another attempt to ban standard capacity magazines. David Sherfinski at The Washington Times writes:

    New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said Tuesday that they have introduced companion bills to ban high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

    “It is clearer than ever that there is no place in our communities for military-style supersized magazines like those used inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Aurora, and in Tucson, and I will keep working to reinstate the ban on them,” said Mr. Lautenberg.

    His bill has attracted 16 Democratic co-sponsors, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who is planning to roll out a ban on military-style, so-called assault weapons on Thursday. He first introduced the bill in 2011 after a deranged gunman killed six people and wounded 13 others, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, at a Tucson shopping center.

    Ms. McCarthy, a Democrat from New York, called high-capacity magazines “the common thread in every mass shooting in recent history.” Her husband was killed in a shooting spree on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.

    (It should be noted that the gunman who killed Rep. McCarthy’s husband was already violating several gun control laws before he even pulled the trigger. It strains credulity to claim that, but for one more law, he might have been stopped.)

    I guess that neither Lautenberg nor McCarthy could stand the idea of Dianne Feinstein getting all of that air-time without them.

    Anti-gun Federal Legislation News Politics