Category: Paint me surprised by this
The United Nation’s Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects (PoA) is now almost 23 years old. With a lack of any meaningful measurables and reporting remaining steady at around 50%, it should come as no surprise to anyone that follows the logic of the United Nations (UN) that expansion, not compliance, remains its priority.
That drive to expand was on full display during the PoA’s Fourth Review Conference, which concluded on June 28th after two full weeks of negotiations. As the only American firearms user group attending in a sea of anti-firearm nations and Non-Governmental Associations (NGOs), the NRA fought fiercely to stem the PoA’s growth and preserve the rights of American firearms and ammunition users against increased international standards meant to destroy those very rights afforded to us by our Second Amendment.
The arguments for expansion this year mirrored many of those from the past, especially in regard to including international regulations on ammunition under the PoA’s terms, synergizing its language with that of other legally binding UN instruments such as the Arms Trade Treaty and Firearms Protocol and establishing international regulations over personally manufactured firearms, or as the UN calls them, craft-built weapons.
There were also call to expand the PoA into new areas, such as the environment, technology, and gender dominions. The most notable of these were calls for the creation of an Open-Ended Technical Expert Group to study and develop international regulations and oversight on what the UN considers “new technologies” (polymers, modular weapons, and 3D printing), as well as the inclusion of language calling for the exploration of the relationship between firearms, “masculinities” and “genders in all their diversity.”
The justification for expansion of the PoA is transparent, as the inclusion of new language and regulations not only hamper the ability of civilians to use and possess firearms, but also allow for the PoA to continue to exist. It is hard to debate against the continuation of a body that has shown no real impact on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, or that only 50% of its members even bother to report to; however, if one can show continued growth an argument can be made that life still exists. Accordingly, expanding into ammunition, creating a new technical group, and arguing that firearms have a disproportionate impact on diverse genders ultimately creates a case for increasingly tailored interventions by the UN. This in turn calls for the expenditure of funds on more regional meetings in developing countries and fundraising opportunities for NGOs to continue producing junk-based academic “studies.” It’s the financial lifeblood of many, and the circle of life in general at the UN.
Fortunately, by the end of two-weeks of negotiations, and considerable efforts working friendly delegations, most of these calls for expansion were either removed from consideration entirely or watered down with limiting language leaving them barren of any real-world implications. In particular, the multiple references to international ammunition regulations included in the initial draft of the outcome document were watered down to a single paragraph that accomplishes nothing more than recognizing the existence of the Global Framework for Through-Life Conventional Ammunition Management. In addition, any regulations pertaining to private manufacturing were edited to include limiting language pertaining only to those manufactured illegally under national laws.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group was established, and membership was limited to governments and invited “experts” only. The Group will also meet informally, which in UN parlance means that unless invited, we will be unable to attend. It is no surprise that this is the format agreed to, as it has always been the goal of the UN to exclude any real experts that could dispel their ideological views and instead fill their seats with anti-firearm academics that feed off the questionable science of their colleagues. Again, it’s the UN’s circle of life.
The next meeting of the PoA will be in the early summer of 2026, during which the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group will hold their first meeting. Until such time, we will be working to find a seat at the table so that we can continue to fight the UN from interfering with our national sovereignty.
That Sir is some serious RED HOT GOSPEL!!!
Heads need to roll on this!! The incompetence of
the Secret Service & The Local Cops is beyond
belief !!! I mean really !?! An unsecured building
that is in range & line of sight?
No Drones as a perimeter guard come on!!!
If I had been in charge of this while in the Army. I would be facing a GENERAL COURT MARTIAL & a free trip to Leavenworth !!! With Fedex sending me Daylight.
I am so pissed!
NRA Membership Fell to 3.8 Million in 2023
The National Rifle Association released its most detailed accounting of membership as part of a new filing by its outside law firm in a New York civil corruption case, and the numbers confirm the group’s significant decline.
The NRA had just 3,898,759 by the end of 2023, according to a document filed with the court by NRA outside law firm Brewer Attorneys and Counselors earlier this month. That puts the gun-rights group’s membership down another 400,000 from the year before, as The Reload exclusively reported at the time. It’s also down about 1.35 million members from the NRA’s 2018 peak.
The filing confirms the membership decline is driving the NRA’s revenue decline. It includes financials from the first three months of 2024, where membership dues continued to decline year-over-year–indicating a further membership drop even from the 2023 numbers. Dues fell to $17.2 million in March 2024, down 31 percent from the previous March and nearly 80 percent from March 2018.
The NRA’s downturn is likely to play a role in the second phase of its corruption trial. After a jury found the NRA failed to safeguard whistleblowers and former leadership, including Wayne LaPierre, diverted the non-profit’s funds toward lavish personal expenses in February, Judge Joel Cohen will begin hearing arguments on the best remedies to prevent the same problems from reoccurring. The membership collapse could influence his decision.
The NRA did not respond to a request for comment on the decline. However, the Brewer filing indicates the group wants the judge to take notice of it. The filing frames the downturn as the fault of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who called the NRA a “terrorist organization” during her 2018 campaign for office.
“The NYAG’s investigation and lawsuit have negatively impacted the NRA’s ability to fundraise,” Intensity, a firm hired by the Brewer firm, said in its report to the judge. “This observation is supported by an analysis of the NRA’s annual total revenues, members, membership dues, and contributions.”
Several NRA staffers repeat the assertion in included depositions. NRA Treasurer Sonya Rowling argued the lawsuit is primarily responsible for driving away members.
“Well, there’s a multitude of reasons, many being related to negative press associated with this New York AG litigation,” she said. “There is obviously economic factors, meaning inflation is high, people can’t afford — when you cut expenditures, you are going to cut something like membership dues. I mean, there’s — you can’t just look at one piece. But a big driver is this, you know, this weaponization of government against this organization.”
John Commerford, Chief of Operations for the NRA’s Institute of Legislative Action, echoed that assessment. He claimed the NRA’s success in boosting the landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen Supreme Court ruling and passage of permitless gun-carry in most states should have driven membership up but hasn’t because of the suit.
“So with that level of success that has been unprecedented essentially in our organization’s history for representing our members, we still continue to decline,” he argued. “The only common thread that occurs during that period is the action from New York State which started with a campaign and became real when Attorney General James went into office, and then the legacy media continues to harp on that negative. So it’s very hard to overcome that level of adversity against our actions.”
Commerford acknowledged that the jury found the NRA had failed to safeguard its assets and former executives had diverted millions toward things like private jet and helicopter travel. But he said members were more upset and deterred by the lawsuit than what brought it on. He further argued the prospect of a court-appointed monitor would lead to a greater decline in membership.
“So in regards to the jury, yes, there’s a verdict,” he said. “However, I operate outside of New York State, in the U.S. Capitol, in state capitals, and with our membership, and the common theme we hear is New York and the adverse action against the NRA has been motivated to have a chilling effect on our membership, and circling back to potential adverse action or some type of monitor, that would compound that effect exponentially on our ability to recruit and retain members.”
When asked if it was the NRA’s position that “any injunctive relief of any kind that the court orders in response to the jury verdict” would create “a chilling effect on membership,” Commerford said “yes.” That sums up much of the NRA’s defense in the trial. The filing argues, as the Brewer firm has since the beginning, that the NRA self-corrected before James brought her suit, and no further action is necessary or warranted.
Judge Cohen will decide whether that’s true when the second phase of the trial begins on July 15th.
👀WATCH: @DeptVetAffairs bureaucrat Kevin Friel told @RepRosendale that HE WOULD NOT COMPLY with GOA-backed legislation to restore a quarter of a million veterans gun rights—EVEN IF CONGRESS PASSED THE LAW.🤯🤯 https://t.co/0SCG8HtKia pic.twitter.com/eKAdzYh9jH
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) July 10, 2024
However, his design caught the attention of the White House, prompting President Dwight D. Eisenhower to select it as the official flag of the United States in 1960.
China, Russia Trying to Infiltrate US Military Bases: Navy Admiral
A high-ranking US Navy official has warned that China and Russia have intensified attempts to infiltrate American military bases.
In Yemen, Muslim community honors one of last remaining Jews with respectful burial
Yahya Ben Youssef, one of last 6 Jews living in Yemen, passed away at over 100 years old in village north of Sanaa; his Muslim neighbors volunteer to ensure he received honorable Jewish sendoff
FILE – State Sen. Dave Min, D-Irvine, listens as lawmakers discuss a bill before the Senate at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., July 10, 2023. A federal appeals court on Tuesday, June 11, 2024, upheld California's ban on gun shows at county fairs and other public properties, deciding the laws do not violate the rights of firearm sellers or buyers. The two measures were both written by Min. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)
SOURCE: Rich Pedroncelli
SAN FRANCISCO —
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld California’s ban on gun shows at county fairs and other public properties, deciding the laws do not violate the rights of firearm sellers or buyers.
The 3-0 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a federal judge’s ruling in October that blocked the laws.
The two measures were both written by Democratic state Sen. Dave Min. The first, which went into effect in January 2022, barred gun shows at the Orange County Fair, and the other, which took effect last year, extended the ban to county fairgrounds on state-owned land.
In his decision last fall, U.S. District Judge Mark Holcomb wrote that the state was violating the rights of sellers and would-be buyers by prohibiting transactions for firearms that can be bought at any gun shop. He said lawful gun sales involve commercial speech protected by the First Amendment.
But the appeals court decided the laws prohibit only sales agreements on public property — not discussions, advertisements or other speech about firearms. The bans “do not directly or inevitably restrict any expressive activity,” Judge Richard Clifton wrote in Tuesday’s ruling.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who defended the laws in court, hailed the decision.
“Guns should not be sold on property owned by the state, it is that simple,” Bonta said in a statement. “This is another victory in the battle against gun violence in our state and country.”
Gun shows attract thousands of prospective buyers to local fairgrounds. Under a separate state law, not challenged in the case, actual purchase of a firearm at a gun show is completed at a licensed gun store after a 10-day waiting period and a background check, Clifton noted.
Gun-control groups have maintained the shows pose dangers, making the weapons attractive to children and enabling “straw purchases” for people ineligible to possess firearms.
The suit was filed by a gun show company, B&L Productions, which also argued that the ban on fairgrounds sales violated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The appeals court disagreed, noting that there were six licensed firearms dealers in the same ZIP code as the Orange County Fairgrounds, the subject of Min’s 2022 law.
Min said the restoration of the laws will make Californians safer.
“I hope that in my lifetime, we will return to being a society where people’s lives are valued more than guns, and where gun violence incidents are rare and shocking rather than commonplace as they are today,” Min said in a statement Tuesday.
The ruling will be appealed, said attorney Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association.
“CRPA will continue to protect the despised gun culture and fight back against an overreaching government that seeks to limit disfavored fundamental rights and discriminate against certain groups of people on state property,” Michel said in a statement provided to the San Francisco Chronicle.