Before you consider concealed carry of a firearm and heading cross-country be sure to familiarize yourself with the rules of firearm carry.

Brad Fitzpatrick

When Illinois was ordered to overturn its ban on concealed firearms due to a decision by a federal appeals court in 2013, it became the last state to adopt concealed carry legislation. Although every state now has specific language that covers CCW (or CCP, or CCDW, or whatever your state calls it), the lack of federal laws provides legislative elbow room when it comes to specific state laws regarding concealed carry. That means every time you cross a border you may be playing by a new set of rules, and it’s your responsibility to know them.

With more than 8 million CCW permit holders across the country, websites and books are now available that helps those traveling from state to state stay inside the legal lines. And while it would be impossible to cover all of the state laws in a single article, let’s focus on some of the key points that vary from state to state. This will help you better understand the law as it pertains to concealed carry.

Shall-Issue Versus May-Issue: The vast majority of states are known as “shall-issue” permit states. That means that anyone who meets the criteria to earn a carry permit will receive that permit based upon state law. That doesn’t mean that every state has the same requirements, though. Background checks are common in many states, but the level of training required to earn your permit is stated in the law and anyone who meets those requirements shall receive a permit.

May-issue states are different. In these states, you must show cause to the governing body (usually local law enforcement) why you are qualified to carry a firearm and they may or may not issue a permit. Simply put, there are no guarantees of issuance. The ultimate authority lies with local law enforcement, and there can be great disparity from district to district regarding the number of permits issued. Currently there are only a handful of may-issue states including California, New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia, but this legislation can change quickly. All other U.S. states and Alaska are shall-issue.

Reciprocity: Some states honor permits issued in other states, and other do not. Furthermore, some states honor carry permits that are issued in certain states but not others. The topic of reciprocity can be very confusing, but you need to be certain that you know which states allow you to carry concealed with an out-of-state permit.

Rather than rehash the stats for each state, it’s much simpler to head to usacarry.com, which has an updated, interactive map of the states that offer reciprocity with the state that has issued your permit. My home state of Ohio, for instance, has reciprocity with 39 other states, the exceptions being California, Hawaii, Oregon, Illinois, and several northeastern and Atlantic states. This allows me to immediately recognize where I can carry and stay out of trouble.

For years, states like Florida have been issuing carry permits to non-residents who met the criteria for a Florida permit. The reasoning behind this is that a Florida permit has more reciprocity than other states, but time has leveled the legislative playing field and the majority of states now accept permits from other states. Still, be sure to check before you travel.

Restricted Areas: This is where the waters get murky because states laws governing restricted areas varies. In most states, for instance, elementary and secondary schools are considered restricted areas, though some states do have laws that allow for carry during drop-off and pick-up of students. Most state and federal government buildings are restricted, as are some establishments that sell alcohol. In some states, bars that serve food and single drinks are not restricted, and in some cases percentage of profits from alcohol products are used as a gauge. Nevertheless, knowing the restricted areas in your state is critical to staying out of trouble with the law.

The first step to securing our rights is to truly understand who is at fault when a crime occurs.

Brad Fitzpatrick

October 27, 2015

Several of the current frontrunners for the 2016 Democratic presidential candidacy have emphasized their support for legislation that would allow individuals impacted by a gun crime to seek financial compensation from firearms manufacturers in civil court. In short, in the event of a shooting gun companies could be held liable. Many gun control proponents are, as you might imagine, in favor of this legislation.

Anti-gun legislation is nothing new, but perhaps this particular topic sheds light on a much broader and more dangerous attitude regarding firearms and crime in America—many voters seem to have a great deal of trouble identifying who is really at blame when a gun is mishandled.

Let me provide a simpler example. Several months ago, I was researching the best holsters to wear while exercising and, during the course of that research, I came upon a running forum that addressed the topic. A young woman—new to running but familiar with firearms—asked which holsters were best to wear while exercising. It seemed a logical question to me; runners are frequently the target of assaults, and many holsters simply wouldn’t stand up to the abuse. Instead of addressing the woman’s question, the responders took this as an opportunity to attack her. The first response to her question read, “Maybe if you think you need a gun you should find another place to run.”

There was general agreement with the “find another place to run” response on the forum, but that comment infuriated me. Although it may seem benign, this is the type of attitude that abdicates criminals for their actions and levels a measure of guilt on victims. There are several fundamental problems with the “maybe you should find another place to run” attitude, and here are a few:

1. Violence Only Occurs in “Bad” Places: The notion that you know where crime will occur is absurd. Sure, there are statistics that show that certain areas have higher rates of crime than other areas, but that doesn’t mean you are completely safe in your suburban neighborhood where folks are watering their lawn or shooting baskets in the driveway with their kids. Crime is everywhere, in every community, good and bad, poor and rich.
2. Avoidance Is An Effective Means Of Crime Prevention: No one in their right mind (save first responders, who risk their lives for others on a daily basis) would seek out violent confrontations. But don’t mistakenly believe that avoiding crime will protect you from crime. One of the most frightening things about violent encounters is that they happen at any time, anywhere—at your kid’s soccer game, while you’re on vacation, when you’re walking from your driveway to your front door. If your sole protection against crime is avoiding crime you will fail.
3. Carrying a Gun means You’re Looking for Trouble: I don’t carry a gun looking for a conflict. I carry a gun because I don’t want to be a victim of violence, and if every other option is closed off to me then my last resort will be a firearm. Whether I’m at the store, on the road, or, yes, jogging on a trail through a park, I carry a gun because I may have no other option but to use it.
4. The Victim of Violence Shares in the Blame: Let’s be very clear about this one—when a crime occurs it isn’t the fault of the gun company, the community, the current economical condition, or the victim. It is the fault of the criminal alone. The victim of a crime isn’t at fault because she ran in the wrong area, because she got lost in the wrong neighborhood, or because she stopped at a rest area on the highway alone at three in the morning. Instead of warning victims against running where there is a remote chance that a criminal will attack them, let’s issue this warning instead—if you are a criminal and you choose to harm another person be prepared for them to exercise their Second Amendment rights, which may mean that you get shot. Magazine restrictions, civil litigation against firearms companies, and warnings against running in certain areas of town are all methods by which the uninformed point the finger of blame at law-abiding citizens. The battle for gun rights starts with a clear understanding of who is at fault when violence occurs, and that is criminals.

From the Ottoman Empire to Australia, private citizens have been forced to forfeit their firearms, and the results have been disastrous.

Brad Fitzpatrick

October 23, 2015

Americans are granted the right to own and bear firearms, a right that has been stripped away from citizens in many countries over the last century. But before any new gun control legislation passes, it’s worthwhile to examine how similar laws have affected ours and other nations in the past. Do less guns make us safer? What has happened in the wake of nationwide gun grabs? What can history teach us about firearms ownership that could prove valuable as we move into the future?

First, a few statistics from the NRA-ILA. There are an estimated 300 million firearms in America and approximately 100 million gun owners. Roughly 40 million of those gun owners have handguns, and it is believed that approximately 40-45 percent of homes have at least one gun. Many of these guns are owned by hunters, which account for the sale of 14.5 million hunting licenses annually. Those hunting licenses create billions of dollars and revenue, and the Pittman-Robertson Act has generated millions of dollars for conservation—not to mention the funds generated for wildlife by groups like Ducks Unlimited and other organizations. But there’s another telling statistic that has been largely buried since a 1982 study of violent criminals in 11 states. Of those criminals who were surveyed, 40% said that they had decided not to commit a crime because they believed the intended victim owned or had access to a firearm. 34% of the criminals surveyed said that they had been personally shot at, wounded, captured or scared away from the scene by private firearms owners, and 69% responded that they knew of at least one other criminal who had been stopped or scared away by firearms.

Photo credit: Joshuashearn

Historically, there are several instances when governments seized firearms from private citizens and then committed atrocities. In 1911, the Ottoman Empire began a gun confiscation program that eventually led to the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. In 1938, Hitler’s Nazi party implemented gun confiscation programs that preceded the Holocaust, and in 1935 the Chinese government forced citizens to turn over their firearms, and between 1935 and 1952 20 million citizens were murdered. Similar gun control measures, gun seizures, and subsequent acts of violence against citizens have occurred in Cambodia and the Soviet Union, where unarmed populaces were left with little recourse when governments initiated acts of violence.

The Australian gun buyback program of 1996 resulted in the collection of approximately 650,000 guns, but did that serve to reduce homicide rates? Not according to a long-term study that was released in 2007 titled, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” authors Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran examined homicide rates in Australia from 1980 until 2004. What is clear from their study is that homicide rates dropped steadily from 1980 until 1996, when a shooting prompted the legislation. According to Baker and McPhedran, the buyback program and stricter legislation had, “no influence on homicide in Australia.”

Such programs, if ever implemented in the United States, would cause major resistance and would cost a tremendous amount of money. History has proven once again that disarming legal citizens and stripping away their gun ownership rights has no positive effect on public safety.

What candidates—and statistics—say about gun violence in America.

With the 2016 presidential election on the horizon, candidates from both parties have developed stances on gun control and Second Amendment rights. As you might imagine, these stances vary greatly, and the recent Democratic debate sparked controversy over gun rights in America. Of particular interest to candidates on both sides of the debate were “assault” weapons bans, magazine restrictions, and universal background checks.

At the forefront of the debate was the notion of an “assault” weapons ban. Both Martin O’Malley and Hillary Clinton support legislation that bans or severely limits the sale of “assault” weapons, but the very term “assault weapon” is ambiguous and could open the door to the regulation of a wide variety of firearms. The sale of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and a variety of other weapons has been regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act, and today most candidates use the term to describe semiautomatic weapons like AR-15s. But the NRA-ILA contends that banning these firearms would have little effect on crime rates and would unfairly restrict American citizens from purchasing firearms designed for hunting, sport shooting and home defense.

photo credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

“ ‘Assault weapon’ is the term that gun control supporters use to malign general-purpose rifles like the AR-15,” says the NRA-ILA website. “Americans now own five million AR-15s, the number is growing by several hundred thousand annually, and the nation’s murder rate is down by more than half since 1991. They’re commonly used for home defense, sports (such as the NRA’s National Defense Match, NRA High Power, and Three-Gun), and hunting.”

The increase in the number of state-issued concealed carry permits and a growing number of right-to-carry laws has coincided with a significant drop in U.S. homicides—a fact rarely addressed when stricter gun control laws are being pushed.

“Forty-two states have Right-to-Carry laws, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law,” says the NRA-ILA. “From 1991 to 2012, the total violent crime rate declined 49% to a 42-year low, and the murder rate declined by 52% to a 49-year low.”

Magazine restrictions, often erroneously referred to as “clip restrictions” by gun control advocates, are recommended by O’Malley, Clinton and others. Many self-defense handguns have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and these firearms would, under these proposed laws, be considered unlawful to own. But the NRA contests that magazine restrictions are not an effective means by which to control gun violence but rather another restriction that is aimed at gun owners and manufacturers.

“Most modern ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes hold more than 10 rounds for handguns and 20 or more rounds for rifles,” says the NRA-ILA. “Not surprisingly, gun control supporters who claim that firearms aren’t useful for defensive purposes, claim that such magazines are also not useful for defense, but are instead only useful to criminals. The congressionally-mandated study of the federal ‘large’ magazine ban of 1994-2004 found that such magazines had only rarely been used in crime, a subsequent study found that revolvers were more associated with criminal gun injuries than semi-automatic pistols, and the official report on the Virginia Tech shooting concluded that a 10-round magazine limit would have not made much difference in the outcome of the crime. Americans own well over 100 million ‘large’ magazines and the nation’s murder rate is nearly at an all-time low.”

The issue of background checks has also taken center-stage in 2015, and several candidates are pushing for “more thorough” checks. But according to the NRA’s findings, background checks are not an effective means by which to control violence but rather a further restriction on gun owners. Current federal law requires anyone who purchases a firearm to be screened through the National Instant Criminal Background Check, or NICS, and felons are currently prohibited from owning firearms.

“Gun control supporters demand that sales and trades of firearms that don’t involve dealers be subject to NICS as well,” says the NRA-ILA. “They claim that such a law would prevent criminals from getting guns, but most criminals obtain guns from theft, the black market, or ‘straw purchasers’—people who can pass a background check and who buy guns for criminals. Furthermore, none of the high-profile crimes that they cite involved guns bought without a background check.”

The rights of America’s estimated 100 million gun owners are at stake, and legislation that, in effect, restricts or limits gun owners and does little to address the root causes of violence, serves little purpose in making American streets safer. The notion that purported “gun control” measures will help make the United States a more secure nation has not been backed by statistical evidence. It’s more important, then, that American gun owners understand that our rights as citizens must be preserved and that other significant issues in our culture like concerns over mental health are need to be addressed immediately. Taking firearms out of the hands of American citizens is not the answer to decreasing violence and preserving our rights.

-Brad Fitzpatrick

Writer/Contributor

October 22, 2015

Photo: Las Vegas Now

Hillary Clinton didn’t roll the dice much on a campaign stop in Las Vegas. She went to town yesterday for a town hall meeting in a predominantly African-American neighborhood in North Las Vegas. The leading Democratic presidential candidate did not talk about her own pending legal or criminal issues. Yet, she did clearly make attempts to appeal to black voters with comments about the criminal justice system and gun violence.

If you are a supporter of the Second Amendment and gun rights in America, the house in Sin City would not let you place a bet guessing which side of the issues she just stood for in front of the North Las Vegas audience. It’s already “game over” for gun owners if she becomes president. She will push for more gun control.

During the town hall gathering, the former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator from New York was asked her opinion on “Stand Your Ground” laws. She said she believed many of the laws regarding “Stand Your Ground” situations need to be “re-written.” She said for too many Americans reaching for a gun has become a “knee-jerk reaction.”

Here is what Hillary said in paving the way for her own presidency reaching out against gun owners. “Yes, there is a role in extreme situations to defend yourself and defend your home,” said Ms. Clinton. “But unfortunately what we’ve seen too much of in the last few years is a spate of people who have reached for a gun before they really figured out what was going on. They’ve been much too eager to use that gun. We’ve seen it with policing and we’ve seen it with civilians.”

Ms. Clinton was also asked a leading question on what she would do to strengthen gun-control laws across the country. Hillary responded by saying she was “not backing off of this fight.” She brought up the Charleston shooting which killed nine African-American churchgoers in June, and said the gun issue in America is “way out of balance.”

She also told them, “I don’t see any conflict between the legitimate protection of Second Amendment rights and protecting people from gun violence from people who should never have guns in the first place.”

Once again yesterday, Hillary Clinton proved to gun owners in America it wasn’t about the house winning in Las Vegas. The big gamble is what happens to the right to bear Arms if she wins the White House.

Photo: Barvetta Silngletary. SC Now

Welcome to where TMZ meets C-SPAN. A President Obama staffer is now facing gun charges. Police say the domestic violence dispute stems from a lover’s quarrel between Barvetta Singletary and her boyfriend. He happens to be a U.S. Capitol Police Officer.

For more than a year, Barvetta Singletary has served as a Special Assistant to the President and House Legislative Affairs Liaison.

A White House spokesperson released this statement about the Obama Staffer:

“We are aware of the matter and have temporarily place the employee in question on unpaid leave and revoked her access to the complex until we have more information. We will take additional actions as needed.”

According to the charging documents with the Prince George’s County, Maryland, Police Department, 37-year old Barvetta Singletary sent her boyfriend a text asking him to come to her Upper Marlboro, Maryland home for sex. Like just about any guy would, he agreed.

Soon after they had sex, investigators say Singletary confronted the boyfriend. She wanted to know about other women he was dating. She led them outside. They went to the boyfriend’s car and both got inside. Then she asked to see his cell phones. He refused. Allegedly, Ms. Singletary then reached into his bag, grabbed two cell phones and the U.S. Capitol Police Officer’s service weapon. It was a .40 caliber Glock 23.

Police say Barvetta Singletary took the items and ran back into her home. The victim went after her pleading for her to give back his weapon. She would not comply. Instead, she demanded the passwords to his cell phones.

The arrest warrant says after the boyfriend refused, Singletary pulled the gun out of its holster, pointed it at him and said, “You taught me how to use this. Don’t think I won’t use it.” After he again refused to give her the passwords, she told him, “Your phone is more important than me holding the gun on you.”

Police say Singletary then pointed the firearm in the victim’s direction. Then she pulled the trigger and fired off one round. The victim ran away from the home, and called 911. He also told police he witnessed Ms. Singletary wiping down his gun with a towel to remove her fingerprints.

Barvetta Singletary was arrested at her home without incident. President Obama cannot be happy about the story of her wrongly bearing Arms with a U.S. Capitol Police Officer’s gun. Her right to work in the Obama White House may soon be infringed.

Patriots, can you speak up for the “Live Free or Die” motto? Do you believe New Hampshire citizens should have Constitutional Carry Rights? If so, you can easily make a difference. But you must act quickly. New Hampshire Senate Bill 116 - SB116 is scheduled for a House floor vote on Wednesday, April 29, 2015.

A Chance to Do What is Right for Gun Rights.

SB116 is New Hampshire’s Constitutional Carry bill. It was introduced by Republican Senator Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro. The bill was passed by the NH Senate in late January. We want and need it passed by the NH House of Representatives on Wednesday. The bill will restore the Constitutional Rights of New Hampshire citizens to carry a loaded or concealed pistol or revolver without government infringement.

Passing SB116 will repeal the current law RSA159:4. It now requires law-abiding citizens to obtain a government permission slip to exercise their Constitutional Rights to carry. The new law will make a license optional to those legally entitled to own firearms.

The importance of getting SB116 passed goes beyond the Granite State’s borders. New Hampshire’s pistol/revolver license is reciprocal with 22 other states from Alabama to Wyoming. Click the link to see the list of states reciprocating with New Hampshire.

Voice your Support for Constitutional Carry Rights and Firearms Freedom Now.

Political pressure is real. Find your elected official in the State of New Hampshire House of Representatives. If you cannot find yours, pick one (wink wink). Make a quick phone call, or send a quick email. Urge the House members to vote for the passage of SB116. Let them know you’re watching how they vote, and this bill is important to you (and them). Please, be polite, but crystal clear in expressing your opinion. Every voice counts.

A strong vote to pass SB116 puts a loaded issue on the desk of New Hampshire Governor, Maggie Hassan for her signature. The Democrat is no friend of gun rights or the Second Amendment. Yet, she is up for re-election.

Governor Hassan has spoken out in support of a few police chiefs who say Constitutional Carry is a public safety concern. They say it will summon the inner-Clint Eastwood of citizens and return New Hampshire to the old Wild West days.

Whoa horsey.

Even Vermont, New Hampshire’s neighbor to the left geographically and politically speaking, allows its citizens to carry concealed without a permit. Guess which state has the lower homicide and violent crime rates – Vermont or New Hampshire?

Vermont.

The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition and the Gun Owners of New Hampshire are firmly behind of the passage of SB116. If you have a minute, before April 29, 2015, show them you are behind it, too.

Let’s help the Granite State have the strength to live up to its motto: Live Free or Die.

It appears to be an open and shut case. This week, firearms regulations allowing open carry of handguns in public places are coming to Texas. “We are seeing historic progress in Texas,” said Terry Holcomb, Sr. He’s the Executive Director of the gun-rights group, Texas Carry.

Mr. Holcomb is right. Finally, Texas gun laws are closer to matching the state’s image as firearms-friendly. For decades, Open Carry Texas legislation proposals never even made it to the floor for a vote. They got holstered in legislative committees.

So keep in mind friends, looks can be deceiving with Texas and guns. While this is a big victory for gun rights, hold your horses regarding the Second Amendment. To us, this latest development seems less about the Constitution and what Texans want, and more about politics with the big 2016 election coming up.

Let’s take a closer look.

In the wide open state, Texans have always been able to openly carry long firearms, such as rifles and shotguns. Plus, there are currently more than 840,000 residents with concealed carry handgun licenses. That’s about five percent of those 21 or older who are eligible.

Now, in what’s been described as a contentious situation, members of the Texas State House in Austin voted 96-35 on Friday to pass open carry laws for handguns. Last month, the Senate passed an Open Carry Texas bill. Both are proof of the current power of the Republican Tea Party in the land of Ted Cruz.

The legislation is expected to become official this week. After some minor differences are worked out for a procedural vote, it then goes to Governor Greg Abbott for his signature. That’s easier than Obama signing a nukes deal with Iran. Governor Abbott is on the record saying he will sign anything and everything if it “expands Second Amendment rights.”

The Lone Star State will be the 45^th and largest state to allow open carry of handguns in public. But, since everything is big in Texas, this includes a long, tall compromise.

Starting in 2016, Texans in public places will be able to carry handguns openly in a shoulder or belt holster…IF they have the appropriate license.

To get an Open Carry Texas license, one will have to pay a $140 fee, and pass a background check. They must also take four to six hours of classroom training, and pass both written and physical tests.

Open Carry Texas will carry the same current restrictions of concealed carry. Barred areas will include schools, sporting events, bars, and businesses with posted “no guns” signs.

“It’s time to go ahead and take this next step,” said State Representative Larry Phillips. The Republican from Sherman, Texas is the bill’s primary author. “It’s time to join the ranks of states like Massachusetts … and allow our citizens to have this right.”

The Texas Open Carry law is watered down from what Tea Party Republican, Jonathan Stickland, of suburban Fort Worth was pushing hard. The 31-year old “Young Gun Politician” repeatedly tried to force a house vote on “Constitutional Carry.” No license would have been required. We respect and appreciate that.

The Constitutional Carry measure was shot down early. Mostly, it seems due to what were considered uncool or threatening actions of Stickland’s team. Phillips publicly criticized Stickland saying, “It’s also how those that support your amendment have treated members of this House, their families and our staff.”

Opposition to Open Carry Texas

Texas Democrats relied on police opposition to drive their mostly widely rejected amendments for limiting open carry. Police leaders cited the “Urban Cowboy” syndrome in big cities like Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. They argued more guns would mean more violence. They expect more problems for law enforcement identifying who should have guns from who should not.

It seems the opposition doesn’t end with police. Back to our belief, looks may be deceiving with Texas and guns.

Polls show the Tea Party wanted an Open Carry Texas more than most residents. A recent University of Texas survey revealed:

• Only 1 in 10 Texans wanted open carry without a permit.

• Less than 1 in 2 said they would be okay with open-carry with a permit.

• 1 in 4 believed no one should be able to carry handguns openly in public.

Furthermore, a recent Texas Policy Project poll confirms our suspicion this long overdue expansion of firearms freedom is rooted in 2016 politics. The poll showed:

• A majority of Texas Republicans wanted no changes to the state’s gun laws.

• Even 55% of Tea Party respondents said there was no need for the state to add more gun rights.

The “campus carry” gun legislation issue in Texas remains out in the open.

A video and a Tweet have changed America. They’ve confirmed what we’ve expected for more than two years. They’ve confirmed what we’ll be hearing for the next year and a half. Hillary Clinton Gun Control Candidate is again running for President of the United States.

This afternoon, following her video announcement in social media she tweeted, “I’m running for president. Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion. –H” 12:27 PM - 12 Apr 2015

One day before Hillary’s announcement, President Barack Obama praised his 2008 Democratic rival and former Secretary of State saying, she had “some strong messages to deliver.”

“She was a formidable candidate in 2008.” Obama said of Hillary. “She was a great supporter of mine in the general election. She was an outstanding secretary of state. She is my friend. I think she would be an excellent president.”

We know Barack Obama has been the ultimate gun-grabbing president. We also know the Obamas and Clintons like each other about as much as Second Amendment supporters like them.

So…isn’t it likely Hillary Clinton as president will try to outdo Barack Obama on gun control?

Ares Armor thinks so. She has already told the anti-gun vote what they want to hear. She has already shown us what we’re up against with her. The Hillary Clinton Gun Control agenda would seem to be the most dangerous of any U.S. President in history. Here’s some proven examples:

• “We’ve got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere anytime.”

• “We really have got to get our arms around it because at the rate we are going, we are going to have so many people with guns everywhere fully licensed, fully validated… it would be a bad idea to let people go to bars with guns, let them go to schools with guns, let them go to church with guns.”

• “[I believe in] the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands.”

• Hillary Clinton Gun Control Queen has also said she was “disappointed Congress didn’t pass universal background checks in 2013 after the horrors of the shootings at Sandy Hook… I will speak out [on this] no matter what role I find myself in.”

• When asked, “Do you think reinstating the ban on assault weapons and banning high capacity magazines would do any good?” Said Mrs. Clinton, “Yes, I do. I do.”

Candidates from all political parties will be gunning for Hillary Clinton. She’ll be the top target on the presidential campaign. Already, Republican Senator Rand Paul has angrily called her out on her hypocrisy regarding women. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker have taken shots at her anti-gun views. At the NRA Convention over the weekend, Senator Ted Cruz told the crowd his message to Hillary: “You Want Our Guns, Come Take Them!”

Besides the compeitition, the facts and truths might shoot her down with voters. New lies might shoot her in the feet. But the greatest weapon against the Hillary Clinton Gun Control agenda could very well be Hillary herself.

* Like the “Great Gun Salesman” Obama, her actions could rally Americans who are Pro-Gun, or at least anti-government.

* Like Obama, her ego and thirst for power might underestimate the size and strength of Second Amendment supporters. On a CNN Town Hall last year, Hillary Clinton said this, “We cannot let a minority of people-and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people-hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

Let’s begin to spread the truth online in fighting the Hillary Clinton Gun Control agenda. Share your voice using the hashtag: #Hillary2A.

Hashtag: #Hillary2A

There’s a buzz across America. Here it is: The BIG Hillary Clinton announcement. Win prizes this weekend in the Ares Armor Hillary Clinton Photo Caption Contest on Facebook. Now through midnight Pacific Time on Sunday, April 12, 2015.

Here’s how it works. It’s as easy as 1-2-3.

1. Take a look at the above photo of Hillary. From the looks of it she appears to be reading one of the emails deleted from the Clinton’s private server. She might be doing a Google search to discover who this Ben Ghazi guy is everyone’s talking about. She might be looking at gun porn, but we highly doubt it. She’s in public on an airplane.
2. Post your idea for the perfect caption for the Hillary Clinton photo. Go to the Ares Armor Facebook page. Type in your proposed photo caption in the comments section. Exercise your Freedom of Speech. Be creative. Be funny. Be politically incorrect with your commentary if you want.
3. Rock the Vote. Share the Love. Win Prizes. Make your photo caption great. Have it get so many “Facebook Likes” that Hillary Clinton actually finds out about it. WOW the Ares Armor judges and put yourself in place to win prizes.

Courtesy of Ares Armor CEO, Bryce Stirlen, you could win bragging rights and the following 3 prizes:

• Combat Pack for the 1^st place photo caption.

• Sling for 2^nd place photo caption.

• Be one of the people who “shares” this contest on Facebook, and you’ll be eligible to win an Ares Armor T-Shirt.

Disclaimer: Bryce Stirlen declares these are the only Hillary Clinton campaign donations he intends to make on behalf of Ares Armor. Members of Al Qaeda or ISIS are not eligible to enter or win.

Enter as often as you like. “Like” as much as you like. The gang at Ares Armor hopes this contributes to a great weekend for you. This despite reports Hillary Clinton will be announcing on Sunday she is running for President of the United States in 2016.

Best of luck everyone. We’re going to need it.

Hashtag: #Hillary2A