Hyatt Gun Shop of Charlotte, N.C., told Secrets that the subsidiary, Authorize.net/CyberSource, simply sent an email to owner Larry Hyatt to announce that it was suddenly breaking off the business relationship. The reason: “The sale of firearms or any similar product.” The company email said that gun sales violated a section of the service agreement the two signed over four years ago and after Hyatt went into detail about its sales and products -- and name. "We’ve never seen anything like this,” said Justin Anderson, Hyatt’s marketing director. He said it took a week and thousands of dollars to line up a “gun friendly” credit card processor for online sales. It's getting to the point where the firearms industry will have to open up its own banking services.
Hat tip to The Gun Wire.
Support common sense gun control measures As Governor, Terry will support mainstream and majority supported gun control measures like universal background checks, limiting the size of magazines, and a return to the 1-gun-per-month rule. These measures respect Virginians’ right to bear arms while reducing gun violence. Then at the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate, McAuliffe went further:
Did you hear that? McAuliffe thinks "mail order" purchases are a problem that needs to be addressed and the only way to do that is with so-called "universal" background checks. Once again, he reads off of the talking points of Mike Bloomberg and the gun ban lobby. As AWR Hawkins noted yesterday, "mail order" purchases is a myth perpetuated by the gun ban lobby. Firearms sold over the Internet through sites like Auction Arms or Gallery of Guns.com have to be completed through an FFL just like when you go to a local firearms retailer.
But if gun owners don't act now, we will be hearing blather like this for the next four years in Virginia. You can help now by contacting the NRA-ILA Field Rep nearest you and volunteer to help with phone banks right in the comfort of your own home. The list of Field Reps is below:
Please contact the rep nearest you today and they will let you know how you can help.
When asked what Virginia should do in the wake of the horrific shooting at the Navy Yard, Terry McAuliffe went all in on gun control advocating for an assault weapons ban, magazine limitation, one handgun a month restriction, and universal background checks. Six weeks away from the election in which the best turnout estimates are 40%, McAuliffe gave Cuccinelli an Alabama offensive line blocking hole on the only hot button issue that blows up the polling crosstabs – guns. Yes, he won forever the admiration of Piers Morgan, but he very well could have lost the election. Saxman used to represent part of the rural Shenandoah Valley. He knows just how important gun owners are and how much they value their rights. Saxman also knows that these gun owners are not the stereotypical old white male and are more and more, women, who own firearms for self-defense: While the narrative laid out by the media is that all NRA, gun rights activists are mouth breathing, tobacco chewing rednecks, the reality in the political world is that many women in this Commonwealth rely on guns for self-defense. The most ardent gun rights people in my Shenandoah Valley House of Delegates district were women. They would grab my arm during parades looking right at the back of my retina and say with grinding teeth “Don’t take my gun.” All of the polls so a significant gender gap between the two candidates. Will McAuliffe's comments related to gun control push some of those women who might have been leaning toward him over to Cuccinelli? We'll have to wait and see. But what McAuliffe did do was give enthusiasm to a block of Cuccinelli voters. Enthusiasm could also lead to more donations for Cuccinelli. The two can add up to a potent final round for the Attorney General.
As Bitter said elections have consequences. Now we have to make sure the Senate never ratifies it. We know where Tim Kaine stands on this based on his vote earlier this year on the Inhofe amendment to the budget. Mark Warner voted against the amendment too and he is up for re-election next year. Will gun owners hold him accountable for his vote? Will Warner try and have it both ways and vote against ratification if Harry Reid brings it up for a vote?
"I've yet to see any conclusive data that suggests that a waiting period would work. We have an instant background check in Virginia. We are one of the first states to have that some 20 years or so ago," the pro-gun Republican governor said on Tuesday morning's program. The Tribune article noted that even though the Navy Yard killer had numerous mental health issues, he passed a background check. What the Tribune did not mention was he had never been adjudicated as mentally disturbed.
Thanks Governor McDonnell for standing with law abiding gun owners.
Hat tip to The Gun Wire.
Brietbart has the story here.
McAuliffe's website was updated yesterday to mention gun control for the first time. McAuliffe has come out for so-called "universal" background checks, limiting the size of magazines, and a return to handgun rationing.
The so-called "universal" background checks and limits on the size of ammunition magazines were passed in Colorado earlier this year.
McAuliffe must be feeling confident going into the final month of the campaign to now overtly mention gun control, even though recent polls show him with a lead either within or just outside the margin of error. With tonight's Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate, one stumble could give additional momentum to Ken Cuccinelli who has gained in the recent polls.
Hopefully this strategy change by McAuliffe will energize gun owners for Cuccinelli.
Better and more accessible care for the truly mentally ill is a worthwhile goal, and one which should be pursued. (And Kelly Ayotte already has a plan to do so without infringing anyone’s Second Amendment rights.) But we need to stand firm against any proposed federal legislation which purports to make everyone safer by keeping guns out of the hands of (or confiscating them from!!!) the mentally ill. That last sentence is sure to set the hair of many liberals afire, but there’s a reason for this sense of caution. You see, we already know where that path leads because we’ve seen the terminus of it in the state of New York, and it’s a nightmare. Shaw is referring to what happened after the "NY Safe Act" became law when a man was confronted by police at the front door of his home and having his guns confiscated under threat of arrest.
The reason for the showdown was that authorities had mistaken him for somebody else who had committed the sin of seeking medical help and receiving medication for depression at one point in the past. Shaw concludes that the nation already has a system in place for defining those who are too "deranged" to own firearms, that involves having people adjudicated as such in a court of law with the opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the finding if they wish. We need to gaurd against any law that purports to protect all of us by further expanding who is mentally ill. If the gun ban lobby had their way, they would classify anyone who wants to own a firearm as "mentally ill."
Hat tip to VSSA's Executive Director who forwarded the Hotair.com article.
While around 13 people spoke against plans to expand facilities at the Lafayette Gun Club at a York County Planning Commission meeting in July, support for the club during a Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday was overwhelming. The supervisors unanimously voted to approve the club's plans to build a new 6,000-square-foot club house, 3,800-square-foot picnic pavilion and expand a gravel driveway around one of the outdoor ranges at its 26-acre campus on Dare Road. There are no plans to expand any of the club's firing ranges. Congratulations to the Lafayette.
Yes, it is just Sebastian's initial thoughts on the Starbucks announcement with a promised lengthier post later but his second point that this was self inficted came to my mind as well when I first heard the news. Sometimes we can be our own worst enemy.
Durbin, who is Reid’s top deputy, suggested on Tuesday morning that a measure to expand background checks — which the Senate defeated in April — might have prevented the shooting. From my recollection, Manchin/Schumer/Toomey was to make sure all (or almost all) firearm transfer's went through a background check. The Navy Yard shooter did submit to a background check and passed. So, how exactly might Manchin/Toomey/Schumer prevented him from getting his firearm?
The shooter had several run-ins with the police in the last 10 years, none of which were prosecuted, or at least charged at a level that would make him a prohibited buyer. Given these facts, even if Manchin/Toomey/Schumer had passed, it would have had no impact on the shooter's ability to purchase his firearm. Second, it appears that the shooter had mental health issues - again, to my recollection, something not addressed by Manchin/Toomey/Schumer. Charles Krauthammer discussed the mental health issue last night on Fox News.
For some reason, Congress does not want to address the mental health issue although that was supposed to have been one of the issues addressed after Newtown. The administration and their allies in the Senate decided to focus only on gun control and when they lost that battle in April, moved on to other unrelated issues.
Jim Geraghty this morning pretty much summed-up why the renewed talk of gun control after Monday's murders rings particularly hollow:
I begin rather skeptical of most gun-control proposals. The ones that are pitched in the aftermath of mass shootings are particularly cynical, as they often attempt to regulate circumstances unrelated to the shooting. And that is exactly the problem with all of this talk of background checks. The shooter went through a background check and passed. Nothing in the proposal from this past spring would have changed that.
The Navy Yard shooting exposes a fallacy in that argument. A military facility, the Navy Yard had plenty of good guys with weapons who were nonetheless were unable to stop Aaron Alexis, the alleged shooter, from killing a dozen innocent persons. In the coming weeks, we'll learn more about Navy Yard security and how Alexis was able to thwart it. (We'll also learn more about how he obtained his arms, but let's leave that aside for now.) A little education Mr. Cooper; Military installations are technically “gun free” zones meaning that military and civilian personnel are prohibited from possessing weapons without special authorization. This policy includes those living on military bases who are not allowed to keep personal weapons in their domiciles. Regulation 90-114 regulates firearms on military bases and was implemented by President Clinton in 1993.
Cooper then tries to qualify his totally incorrect statement:
True, the Navy Yard is not a heavily armed facility. It's not like, say, walking into a military base in the U.S. let alone onto a war zone. But neither was it the kind of gun-free school zone that the NRA has described as an inviting target for crazed shooters. It was at least as heavily armed as we can expect any elementary school could ever be under the National School Shield program. And yet, carnage. Which is the point we have been making about why teachers and administrators should have the right to be armed. If the security guard at the school, or in the case of the Navy Yard, facility is taken down, you need additional people to be armed as back-up. Speaking to the issue of military installations, we trust enlisted personnel to be armed on the battlefield, but not on base? We saw at Fort Hood just how prohibiting military personnel from being armed worked out. The bad guy (the Fort Hood shooter) disobeyed the regulation and went on a shooting rampage while his victims abided by the restriction and paid the price. Gun Free Zones (which the Navy Yard was in essence) only prevent law abiding people from carrying firearms.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., an advocate for gun control since the assassinations of San Francisco's mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978, went there.
"Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life," she said Monday. Reports are that the shooter entered the Navy Yard with a shotgun purchased in Lorton, VA, and later took an AR-15 and handgun from one or more of his victims. It has also been reported that he was a federal contractor, and that he had previous run-ins with the police.
So, if he was a federal contractor, apparently he was not prosecuted on the previous charges, or at least not with a charge that barred him from legally purchasing a firearm or holding a federal job because contractors go through the same background checks that federal workers are required to undergo. It would appear, based on what we know at this time, this is not an issue of gun laws being to lenient, but of a criminal justice system that once again let someone slip through the cracks that should have been stopped long ago (as far back as 2004), whether for violations of the law, or for other issues that have come to light after the shooting.
Hat tip to From the Barrel of a Gun.
We appreciate the continued support of all our customers. We thought our members would like to know.
NBC12 emailed Petersburg Police and the City Attorney to find out if organizers obtained that required ordinance. We received a statement addressed to Petersburg Police Chief John Dixon reading, "We must postpone Mothers Against Violent Crimes' 1st annual gun buyback due to circumstances beyond our control."
NBC12.com - Richmond, VA News
That ordinance is necessary thanks to a state law that VSSA helped pass in 2012. That law, HB22, states that no locality can participate in any program in which individuals are given a thing of value in exchange for surrendering a firearm to the locality unless the governing body of the locality has enacted an ordinance authorizing the participation of the locality.
Note that NBC12 said the event has been postponed, which gives the impression this may be brought before the city council. But given the additional restrictions on the events, specifically that the law requires ordinances include a provision that firearms received through the exchange must be offered for sale by public auction or sealed bids to a person licensed as a dealer before otherwise disposing of the firearm. That may be more than the city wants to deal with and this may be the end of the "annual" event before it ever got started.