Meet Me at the SHOT Show!
Las Vegas, Jan 18 - 21, 2016
(Too late -- news on results below)

Click for eBooks!   You CAN take it with you!

CLOSE GUN SHOWS
In his town-hall gun-control show, Obama praised John McCain's gun-show "loophole" bill as a good place to start, and scolded Congress for not passing it -- 15 years ago. The bill was total deception and would have effectively closed gun shows altogether. It required registering anyone who entered with the FBI, whether they shopped or not, and getting prior federal permission to even run a show -- which feds didn't have to give -- just a pack of lies built on lies. They tried selling it as a harmless background check. Too bad for them, some of us can read:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/14/korwin-obamas-gun-control-starts-with-myth


GUN MYTHS
Gun deniers and the anti-rights advocates, largely out of blind fear, continually invent gun myths, a projection of their internal terrors. From "cooling-down periods" to dum-dum bullets, they interfere with focus on the real problems. Here is a list of dozens of phony stoppages to crucial programs like Arm-The-Pilots and national carry, where guns didn't "just go off."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/21/korwin-americas-real-gun-problem-the-gun-myths


It's the beginning of a series I'm doing examining the myths the left puts in the way of stopping crime, the global muslim jihad and psychotic spree murderers. They preserve the myths (and invent new ones) to create political capital that helps attack our rights in an effort to disarm the public (which they feel will make them safe -- but won't).
https://www.gunlaws.com/GunPhobia.htm


NORMAL CAPACITY MAGAZINES
Legislators asked me to prepare talking points refuting the arguments against 30-round magazines; The Daily Caller has published my full list: depriving us of gear as a way to stop murderers is misguided, puts you at risk, and is a thinly disguised effort to get to zero-round magazines -- in the false and dangerous belief that disarming innocent people will finally disarm criminals. Police never want less ammo because they know that's dangerous -- neither should you. http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/18/korwin-talking-points-for-the-30-round-magazine-debate


DIRECTORY OF ALAN'S WORK FOR: THE DAILY CALLER
I've finally gotten around to posting a list of my work for The Daily Caller and Townhall.com. It's some of my best material (the editors tell me). Just the list and descriptions (like above) make a good quick read. https://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm
 

====


Fully 6,000 of the tragic deaths annually are young black men killing each other in ghettos, typically in drug-related battles, making these war deaths, in the federally funded war on some drugs, not so-called "gun deaths." Government declared war, combatants killed. Solution: declare a truce, save 6,000 lives.

Because this would eliminate more than half the criminal gun deaths yearly it would reduce the political pressure to "go after guns" and so is unlikely to happen, casting doubt on the new phrase, black lives matter. (Most firearm mortality is suicide, a medical issue not a criminal problem, and most suicides are the elderly.)


====


MONUMENT TO MURDERER

Progressives in Tucson have decided they need a monument to the spree murder at a supermarket in their town, in which former congresswoman Gabby Giffords was injured but survived.

Giffords, who has become a figurehead in the anti-rights gun-control movement, has already had a naval vessel named after her (her husband is a former Navy officer).

Not everyone agrees building monuments like this is a good idea. In response to the announced release of the design of the monument, this letter went to hundreds of news outlets in the state. No word yet on results. Permission granted to send to your local outlets.

Dear Editor,
One day in Tucson at the "January 8th Memorial" site:
"Hey Mommy, what's that they're building?"
"It's a memorial hon."
"What's it for?"
"It's to remember some people who died there and the evil man who murdered them."
"Why would they do that?"
"Some people are afraid they'll forget them."
"Where is the evil man?"
"He's living in prison."
"Can he see his memorial?"
"No, honey, but he knows they're building it."
"Will it cost a lot of money Mommy?
"Four million dollars sweetheart."
"I wish I had four million dollars!"
"You could do a lot of good with that much money."
"Won't other people want to kill people so they can get memorials too Mommy?"
"I hope to God not, honey, I hope to God not. Come let's get away from here."

Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman



====


Counterintuitive Man Says:

"I don't believe anyone who tells me that in just a few more years, police nationwide will be able to check your out-of-state license plates and see if you have a CCW permit -- so they can single you out for harassment.

"They can do that now. It's just one more 'feature' of the permit system -- instead of an uninfringed right to keep and bear."


====


"I'll give up my guns when you give up your armed body guards."
--Skip Coryell, White Feather Press
http://www.skipcoryell.com/
http://www.whitefeatherpress.com/
We carry several of his excellent books -- Browse: https://www.gunlaws.com


====


THE MISGUIDED MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

A Page Nine reader writes:
I just saw where Regal Cinemas are now checking bags of patrons.  Excuse is because of the recent theater shootings.  But I don't carry my concealed handgun in a bag to the movies.  Methinks it's a ruse, an excuse to keep folks from bringing in outside food/drink to avoid the exorbitant price of popcorn and soda and has nothing to do with guns. Ted H.

[You're not alone in that Ted.
Won't stop anyone who needs a pat down.
What does the 16-year-old do when the kid finds
guns and bombs, knives, dope, booze, cash and porn?
Low-rent security guards, eh?
At least... they're ineffective.
Alan.]


====




====


That New Study by John Lott:

If you like stats with your gun debate this scratches the itch.

Since President Obama's election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:

The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever-increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued -- a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed-handgun permits.

5.2% of the total adult population in America has a permit.

Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed-handgun permits.

In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
[NOTE: GunLaws.com is tracking this and the logic behind it, with talking points for your legislators and "news" media; is your state on the list? https://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm]

Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by156%.

Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites...

[This is from the “executive summary.” The linked page below includes a map and a couple of graphs, along with a link to the full report.]

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2015/07/new-study-over-12-8-concealed-handgun-permits-last-year-saw-by-far-the-largest-increase-ever-in-the-number-of-permits/

As always, John Lott's work is exemplary, so it is hidden from view by the lamestream media.




MEDIA APOPLECTIC:
ONE NEWSPAPER MIGHT LEAN RIGHT

The lamestream media told you:
The lamestream media told you:

"Republican benefactor and casino king Sheldon Adelson's purchase of the Las Vegas Review Journal, Nevada's largest newspaper, has fueled anxiety about partisan influence tainting coverage of the 2016 presidential race in a crucial western swing state." -Dan Nowicki, Arizona Republic, 12/20/15



The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Are they serious? With USA Today running virtual campaign ads for Hillary Clinton and calling them news, and printing supportive editorials for her right on the front page where news is supposed to go, it is stunning to see a reporter throw a fit over change in ownership of a small newspaper in a small state, and suggest this could swing the presidential election. USA Today is sold nationwide (1.7MM copies) and as an insert in Nowicki's paper. The Review Journal has a small audience (172K) in the nation's gambling state, Nevada.

Nowicki supports his angst with a quote from a professor Kahn (pronounced "con"), at the University of Southern California journalism school, certainly a bastion of neutral news education, who says with great erudition, "This just smells bad from the getgo." No concern over truly outrageous existing front-page bias in national news was in the story, for reasons that were unclear at press time. The Review Journal hasn't even published anything yet under new management.

Going to Harry Reid for additional comment, arguably the most left-wing politician in Congress, the reporter points out Reid calls it, "a dog of a newspaper," and "They have the worst editorial policy in the history of the world." He apparently doesn't read USA Today or even the Republic.

People familiar with the Nevada paper know it is home to Prometheus-award winning Vin Suprynowicz, one of the most enlightened, incisive and brilliant commentators on the political scene, bar none, author of Send In The Waco Killers, exposing the government slaughter of innocents, for which no one was prosecuted.


====






Political correctness has leaked its way into our schools, media, culture and thoughts -- sometimes unconsciously, sometimes deliberately, by people seeking to undermine our freedom and undo the advances we the people have achieved, replacing liberty with tyrannical control over the populace.

Unable to defeat us with military might, our enemies are having great success undermining our values using mere language. As George Orwell so keenly observed, control the language and you control thought. Control thought and you control everything else. It's time to re-read the book 1984, or read it for the first time if you haven't already.

As many of you know, I have now stopped using the phrase "pro gun," because this makes our opposition "anti gun." And since they think guns are bad, the proper position to take against bad guns would be anti gun -- and they win that on the words.

We are actually pro rights, casting them correctly as anti rights, putting us automatically on the moral high ground. Read the Politically Corrected Glossary to get the whole picture and fix your own verbiage.

We have reached a point where so many laws are immoral or infringements, or can no longer be legitimately obeyed by anyone dedicated to constitutional governance, the phrase "law-abiding" has become arcane and a relic. "Law-abiding gun owners" are reduced to shivering vestiges of their former selves, dependent on government travel papers, expiration dates, qualification tests, violations based on ammunition types and amounts, infringements so vast and immane it defies the average person's ability to even know them all, let alone obey them and not step into violation.

In replace of the olden standard "law-abiding gun owners" we now find ourselves in need of better and more accurate phrases such as:

good gun owners
honest gun owners
decent gun owners
honorable gun owners
righteous gun owners
innocent gun owners

These fit beautifully in all the spots where you might use that other now inaccurate phrase. It leaves no telltale blemish in its place, and reads smoothly. I have a series of articles coming soon on other recent distortions on our language, propaganda really, especially "gunman," which is a vile and offensive sexist affront, and "shooter," which demeans and assaults anyone who goes to a range, and is used by media to avoid the correct word, murderer. The "news" media loves the distorted propaganda phrases that assault our rights. Don't help them.
The Politically Corrected Glossary, https://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm
Take a quick peek.


====


The SHOT SHOW Exhausting, Exhilarating

I've written it up every time I go, the Shooting Hunting and Outdoor Trade show, 17 miles of aisles (up from 13), where the firearms and related industries meet annually in Las Vegas to meet, greet and do business for the coming year. See lots of pictures, flavor and eye candy from a prior show here:
https://www.gunlaws.com/Page9Folder100up/PageNine-108.htm

No way to see it all, so you skip the parts that don't relate directly to you, outdoor clothing, tree stands, police gear, miles of firearms, survival products, the show directory is $75 (but free to participants) and you need proven credentials just to get in. Exhibitors want to see Buyer badges, everyone else is in the way, sort of. Nikon's booth is two-stories high (and they're not alone in that), Perrazi has half-million-dollar shotguns on display, you gun guys would pass out from salivating if you could get in, dealers use wheelbarrows to gather all the literature and swag.

Between meetings and time with editors and other efforts in the press office I saw less on the show floor than usual, and a lot seemed to me to be more of the same, tweaks to guns and gear, subtle distinctions, new lens coatings, more electronics in everything, the crowds were bigger. Business was so brisk thanks to the Obama attacks on our rights (isn't he supposed to defend the Constitution?) but that's not a thematic element of the show.

I do think the Outdoor Channel will be pursuing last year's effort about combating gun-free zones, using their amazing documentary on the subject to advance the issue and move the liability question forward. Police seemed even more militarized than before, a trend I don't see subsiding. Tactical firearms are becoming more mainstream at every level. The women's market is advancing rapidly, with women's programs and companies everywhere. Gun media, on the web and traditional outlets seemed more prevalent. A few items caught my eye:








Texas Open Carry Bill HB 910
Effective January 1, 2016

Texas Open Carry Overview

After 20 years (1995-2015) the familiar Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL) officially changes to a Texas License To Carry or LTC -- because it now protects both discreet and open carry of sidearms.

Bit by bit, the lost right to bear arms in Texas is being restored -- at least for those with government carry papers -- after decades of near-total infringement. Texas now has 826,000 license holders, a source of pride to many, but it means 97% of all Texans' rights remain infringed -- carry without papers remains banned in Texas. Still, it is a step in the right direction, for the pro-rights side (the left dislikes this liberty intensely).


As Texas joins the rest of the nation in varying degrees of freedom to bear arms in public, I advise caution while the kinks are worked out, authorities get used to the new standards and procedures, social norms develop, shop keepers acclimatize, the public gets used to the new normal of open carry, some bad apples test the limits of endurance and civility (not recommended), and a few of you become test cases to clarify the gray areas. Even here in Arizona where I am, with free (paperless) open carry legal since statehood in 1912, there's a little more to it than just putting on your boots.

Do your best to avoid being a test case. The anti-rights advocates out there and some authorities will be looking for the very worst examples to make into test cases, to hurt our rights, make gun owners look bad in public, and set precedents that limit exercise of the Second Amendment. They'll be seeking to "prove" the BITS myth -- blood in the streets -- like they tried in vain when CHL passed. Don't argue in public while armed.

Especially in the early days of open carry, watch out for each other and be on best behavior. We don't live in the same wild west any longer. Belligerence or anything less than calm civilized behavior while you're reasonably well dressed and carrying openly is an invitation for scrutiny and attention you would do best to avoid. I'm being nice about that (from a state that now enjoys full Constitutional Carry). Go slowly as you test the waters.

Open carry has advantages, especially the "inoculation effect" on the uninitiated, when they see reasonable people going about business politely armed. Because you can switch over as circumstance merits, your carry options grow. Criminals get the message, and things get better (despite lunatic ravings... in the "news" media).

But if I'm open, I am constantly on alert for a grab (exhausting), and I know I've given up tactical advantage, along with all the chilling glances open carry attracts like super-conducting magnetism. So I need a reason for it, like convenience on a range trip, or any of the many open carry banquets ("tasteful open carry appreciated"), political meetings and other events where it's the modern normal. Like...

Gunburger -- coordinated meals out, arranged periodically with like-minded people at gun-friendly restaurants work well, and the joints love the revenue from good people. "Safest room in town." Otherwise, discreet wins out usually. Why be a target, attract eyeballs and hostile gunfire.

It's a double-edged blade to be sure. Sure, while it's new and you try it out, what an experience. Some acceptance, some disapproval, some fearful departures from your sight, some high fives and thumbs up, a woman clutches her child, talk about a conversation starter. Trying to act natural around traffic cops even when you know you've done nothing wrong... amplified ten times when you're both wearing loaded guns... where do you put your hands... let's chat about it next time we're together.

P.S. Reporters will seek you out for a while, many are snakes who will act nice and bite. Read this, on how to handle hostile interviews: https://www.gunlaws.com/HostileInterviews.htm


DESCRIPTION OF ALL THE CHANGES

-- Delete the word "concealed" in 60 places in 50 Texas gun laws. The round numbers are a coincidence. This has the effect of changing "a license to carry a concealed handgun" to "a license to carry a handgun," a simple, elegant way to revamp all the laws. The list is in the statute itself:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB00910F.htm

-- In The Texas Gun Owner's Guide https://www.gunlaws.com/tgog.htm, change every occurrence of "CHL" to "LTC."

The actual changes, in the order they appear in the bill, HB 910:

-- Statute GC §411.188(b): The classroom portion of LTC classes, going forward, must now teach: "use of restraint holsters and methods to ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns." GC §411.190(b) gets a similar change. Those terms are not defined, and DPS will no doubt develop instructions about this for LTC trainers. Use of restraint holsters is not required, just teaching about them. People with current licenses, which become LTCs automatically, don't need to go back to class. New licensees and renewals will get the additional instruction, and the look of new licenses will change.

-- OC §1702.206(b): A personal protection officer who is not in a security officer uniform must carry concealed, and if in uniform must carry openly.


TRESPASS, AND KEEPING GUN CARRIERS OUT

-- PC §30.05(f) It remains a defense to prosecution -- not an exemption from law -- to be armed, openly or discreetly even with a license, on someone's property where they ban gun possession without consent and you fail to leave (trespass). What this means is you can be charged with trespass while armed and get to defend yourself in court. You can produce a valid license, the "defense to prosecution," to get off (or suffer consequences).

When you are carrying discreetly your risk is obviously reduced. If you are carrying openly though, your exposure is evident, and you could be charged more easily, and "tell it to the judge." An officer has no duty to resolve your case for you, just to charge you. If asked to leave be smart and do it.


THE NO-GUNS SIGNS

-- PC §30.06 is amended so armed trespass with an LTC while concealed is a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine, unless you refuse to leave when told orally, which makes it a Class A misdemeanor, up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

-- The PC §30.06 concealed-carry trespass sign is amended so the sign or card only applies to licensees carrying concealed (a new §30.07 sign covers open carry). Because statute says the sign must be precise and it is now slightly different, all existing signs are flawed (they do not give proper notice), and so will have to be replaced if they are to ban LTC entry.

-- A new section, PC §30.07, is added to introduce trespass by people carrying openly, basically similar to concealed-carry trespass. A §30.07 sign or card says:

-- "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"

-- Like the §30.06 sign, this must be posted in contrasting colors, in block letters at least 1-inch high, in English and Spanish, posted where it is clearly visible at each entrance. Places that want to keep guns out must now post both §30.06 and §30.07 signs.

-- The rules for guns in places that serve alcohol (the "51" signs) are not affected. If the place exceeds the 51% alcohol revenue rule, no guns, if less, it's their option.

-- If other states' experience is an example, you will see many signs spring up, including many total bans, some encouraging armed patrons and some welcoming concealed only. Similar to the change to discreet carry, trespass by a licensee while openly carrying is a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine, unless you refuse to leave when told orally, which makes it a Class A misdemeanor.

-- It is not a defense to prosecution that you were properly carrying in a shoulder or belt holster. The ban on carrying openly does not apply to property owned or leased by a governmental entity if it is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under §§46.03 or 46.035 (the long list of prohibited places, found on pages 31-33 in The Texas Gun Owner's Guide).

What this means is government facilities, as a general rule, are not off limits. Clarifying a confusing gray area, a state attorney general's opinion declared that, when a court proceeding is held in a government facility, only the court portion is off limits, not the rest of the facility. Do yourself a favor and get The Texas Gun Owner's Guide https://www.gunlaws.com/tgog.htm so you have all the lists and details.





"VEHICLE LEGAL"

-- PC §46.02(a-1) is amended, so the former offense of intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carrying a handgun in plain view in a motor vehicle or watercraft you own or have under your control, is eliminated -- if you have an LTC and you are carrying in a shoulder or belt holster. In plain English, a shoulder or belt holster makes fully or partially visible handguns "vehicle legal" for land and water vehicles.


WEARING IT

-- The statute does not use the word or require wearing the holster, and other parts of statute distinguish clearly between having a handgun on or about you, or having one holstered. For example, the law controlling guns in "bars" distinguishes between guns on you, about you, concealed, and holstered two ways (PC §46.035(b)), and the campus-carry ban also notes a difference: "regardless of whether the handgun is holstered, on or about the license holder's person" (PC §46.035(a-1).

The implication is strong: whether you wear the holster or not, the law affects it while you possess it "on or about you," but the point could be adjudicated and very well may be. The person whose name goes on that case will go through years of very expensive agony and get indelible history, win or lose.

Some commenters have assumed the holster is worn, and some officials appear to want it that way, a conclusion not supported by the current language. The extra freedom of having a holstered gun that isn't worn on your body proves valuable often, especially on a day when you switch back and forth from open to discreet to vehicle storage for entry into a place that denies your rights. That sort of blatant civil-rights discrimination (denying entry) causes massive screaming from the "news" media and outrageous protests from some segments of society, but not for this specific, enumerated, fundamental constitutional right to bear arms. Yet.

A holstered but carried (non-worn) gun is common when bringing a firearm to a friend, the range, for putting on later especially with clip-on holsters, or when transporting more than a few firearms. This last point seems overlooked in the heady buildup to Day One when people seem so eager and focused on trying out this new fangled freedom. Even seatbelts interfere with wearing holsters, as many Texans are about to find out, making clip-ons and paddle types on a passenger seat more common (note to stores -- stock up!).

-- PC 46.035 is amended, to provide an exception to the offense of (former CHL) intentionally letting a handgun show in public, if the person is an LTC and the firearm is in a shoulder or belt holster. Basically, you can carry openly where you could formerly carry discreetly (watch out for specified schools), but while you can carry discreetly in any manner (free of holsters), open carry requires the shoulder or belt holster.

NOTE: The uncomfortable wording here provides "an exception to the application" of the offense, instead of properly eliminating the offense altogether. It's a bald affront to the Second Amendment. Letting a gun show is not a true crime. Banning that is infringement, and the responsible parties earn punishment, not the public. Brandishing a gun intending to cause a negative reaction ought to be chargeable. But if letting a gun show inadvertently causes someone dread where none is actually warranted, remedial education, or counseling for that person is always an option. Bearing arms is not some right hidden in penumbras and emanations. Folks used to have such biased reactions when people of color ate at lunch counters. It's time for such prejudice to be recognized for what it is, and end.

-- (a-1) Also in this section, we have the new offense of intentionally letting a properly open carried firearm show at an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education, or on any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area of such a school.

This means these schools will be concealed-only zones, when SB11 takes effect for campus carry on Aug. 1, 2016 (for 4-year schools) and Aug. 1, 2017 (for 2-year schools) under school rules that are still being worked out. Concealed carry remains the rule on the ancillary areas around those schools, unless a school activity is taking place there, according to a recent attorney general opinion.

====

SIDEBAR 1:
So do you have to be actually wearing the shoulder or belt holster to legally have a sidearm with you? Or can you just holster it and make it openly legal? It's an obvious question for a test case. If I was the judge and I wanted a protective approach to Texans' precious right to arms, I would read the law precisely, and as long as that gun was in anything that could remotely pass for a shoulder or belt holster, even an ankle holster attached with a short belt, I would find it perfectly legal anywhere in a vehicle or possessed, stop bothering these good people officer. Next case. [I'm not a judge, this is not legal advice, we're just citizens discussing an issue of common interest under the protection of the First Amendment.]

On the other hand, if I hated guns, thought all you rabble are too dangerous to have guns, and I know better than you all, I would read the law precisely and know the legislature clearly intended belt and shoulder holsters to be worn as belts and on shoulders, so unless they were perfectly fitted through belt loops with the latest best retention models as I judge them, you would be in violation, bring in the next victim. This is called: "A nation of laws."


SIDEBAR 2:
The §46.02 Problem. Intentionally bearing a handgun in public is currently illegal under Texas statute. The statute goes on to provide a list of exceptions. An apparently direct violation of the U.S. Constitution (which brooks no infringement), it is so ingrained in Texas it is sometimes hardly noticed. Because your right to bear arms should be inviolate under the U.S. Constitution, state law ought to go no further than to outline and provide punishment for the crimes that can be committed or enhanced with firearms, not outlaw the basic right and then carve out exemptions. Too late.

This leads to the current problem with the LTC law. The license gives you an exception to the crime, but anyone seeing you openly armed can't tell by looking that you have the exception. By appearance you're in violation. Sacre bleu! Sorry, press 1 for English (I had this French girlfriend, it's a long story). Should LEOs routinely stop folks on the street, ask everyone, no one, spot check, profile the bubbas, look for probable cause, seek articulable suspicion... should you wear your license in a plastic convention badge holder? Nah. Maybe?

Police aren't sure how to handle this, and they are not unified on the point. It's complicated. Look it up on line. I'm waiting to see it how it comes out. Don't be the test case. But I repeat myself.

This update will be available as an easy-to-print insert for your copy of The Texas Gun Owner's Guide https://www.gunlaws.com/tgog.htm in a few days, after comments come flooding in. Just reply to this memo.

Look at the updates to the Texas gun laws for the last 15 years right here:
https://www.gunlaws.com/updates.htm

Get my 12th book, After You Shoot: Your gun's hot. The perp's not. Now what? https://www.gunlaws.com/AYS.htm, virtually as important, so you don't end up in more trouble than the crook.

ANDERSON COOPER: Which enemy that you made during your political career are you most proud of?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians; probably the Republicans.

Can you believe that Hillary is proud to call half of America her enemy? How does she expect to lead our nation if she called its citizens her political enemies?

Just go to GunLaws.com and sign up on the home page.



----:::----