AR-15 Archives - Rally for our Rights

2025 CO Assault Weapons Ban Bill Introduced: Everything You Need To Know

Posted on January 9, 2025January 10, 2025 by Lesley Hollywood

The first day of the 2025 Colorado Legislative Session, Senate Democrats introduced SB25-003: Semiautomatic Firearms & Rapid-Fire Devices their latest and greatest “Assault Weapons” semi-automatic firearm ban bill.

This bill is far worse than the two Colorado AWB bills that have died in prior years, although bill sponsors are claiming SB25-003 is not a gun ban, and instead that it’s an “extension of the magazine ban”. The fight against this bill is also far different this year – and that’s important.

Understanding the bill – A list of prohibitions:

• Banning all sales and transfers (except to an heir) of “specified semi-auto firearms

• Banning of specified semiautomatic firearms per the language of the bill will include ALL semi-auto rifles and shotguns with a detachable magazine.

• It will also include ALL gas-operated semi-auto pistols with a detachable magazine. This includes ALL AR, AK, or similar pistols that use impingement, piston, or any diverted gas to cycle the action. There are a number of handguns like the S&W 5.7 pistol or HK P7 which look like a normal handgun, but they would be banned by this because gas is utilized instead of simple blowback. In contrast, a blowback 9mm AR pistol would not be banned even though it looks identical to an AR chambered in a larger caliber.

• They do include an exemption for 22 and smaller rimfire calibers, “specified semiautomatic firearms” but if the firearm has an upper and lower receiver it would still be banned in 22LR, like an AR-22.

• Overall, all manual operated actions like bolt, pump, or lever action are exempt. Basic blowback handguns are not included as long as no gas is diverted for cycling and extracting the case. Roller-delayed blowback will be banned because of the diverted gas.

• Beyond going after semi-automatic firearms, they removed the existing definition of “machine gun conversion devices” and replaced it with broad language that makes any part, kit, etc designed to “increase the rate of fire” illegal. Bumpstocks, FRTs, Binary, rubber bands, belt loops, and Jerry Miculek’s finger would all be illegal to possess under the language of this bill.

This fight is going to look different this year:

Colorado has seen the rise and fall of similar attempts to ban semi-auto firearms the past two years and both failed. In 2023 and 2024, the AWB bill originated in the State House, which is always a bit of a circus. In 2023 it died in it’s first House committee hearing but in 2024 it eventually passed the full House chamber; where it stalled was the State Senate. Not only was it iffy then if they had the votes needed in the Senate, but Sen Tom Sullivan (D) was against the bill saying although he supported a federal assault weapons ban, he didn’t support one at the state level. He told the Washington Post then that he believed “It would inflame gun-rights supporters, was unlikely to be enforced and would not curb the vast majority of shootings.” Now this year Sen Tom Sullivan is sponsoring this bill, although he is pushing the narrative that this not an assault weapons ban, but an expanded magazine ban. During an interview with the Denver Post, he reiterated his opposition to a state-level assault weapons ban and In addition, there are 18 Senate sponsors between prime and co-sponsors on it as written – and they only need 18 votes in the Senate to pass this. If it passes the senate it will sail through the House.

We know this bill was written by Bloomberg and Everytown, and handed to Sullivan. Sullivan STILL claims to be against a state level AWB, reiterating this to both the Denver Post and the Colorado Sun. Were Sullivan and his 17 co-sponsors sold a line of straight up lies by Bloomberg’s lawyers and lobbyists that this wasn’t going to ban guns. Did they really believe this was an expanded magazine ban? It’s likely Sullivan didn’t even read the bill before it was introduced, nor did his fellow co-sponsors. They’re just acting as lapdogs to lobbyists.

Here’s what you can do right now:

We need you to contact all Democrat Colorado State Senators and tell them why you oppose this bill. Use plain language. Remember the people you are messaging to most likely don’t know anything about guns, so speak to them in that way. Teach them. CLICK HERE to email all Democrat State Senators at once.

Read the bill text: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025A/bills/2025a_003_01.pdf

Read the Colorado Sun article: https://coloradosun.com/2025/01/08/colorado-semiautomatic-detachable-magazine-gun-ban

Read the Denver Post article: https://www.denverpost.com/2025/01/03/colorado-legislature-gun-control-tom-sullivan-assault-weapons-ban-strategy

Boulder CO Assault Weapon, Large Capacity Magazine Ban Overturned

Posted on March 14, 2021March 16, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

Victory in Boulder!

When Boulder, Colorado passed an “assault weapon” and large capacity magazine ban in 2018, gun owners scoffed at the ultra-liberal city’s agenda, unsurprised by the virtue signaling and visible presence of Bloomberg’s astroturf organization Moms Demand Action. Statistically, a person was more likely to be killed by baseball bat than by one of the firearms they were arbitrarily defining as “assault weapons” inside the city limits, those stats being ONE for death by baseball bat to ZERO for death by “assault weapon”. The ordinance also restricted the age of purchase for a long gun to those 21 and over, and banned open carry of their arbitrarily defined assault weapons in the city of Boulder.

What did come as a surprise was that many Boulder residents weren’t okay with these new laws, and now after nearly three years and two legal challenges against the ordinance, a Boulder County judge has overturned it.

This is a big win for those who fought against Boulder’s ban, such as Rally for our Rights who lead two large gun rights rallies in downtown Boulder and even held an AR-15 giveaway to raise money for the legal challenges.

The NRA backed lawsuit Chambers v Boulder sought injunctive relief claiming that two portions of the ordinance were preempted by Colorado state law, something that was argued repeatedly by gun owners, constitutional experts, and gun rights advocates during the heated debate leading up to the final passage of the ordinance.

Colorado’s preemption statute, CRS 29-11.7-103, states: “A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.”

The two portions of the ordinance Chambers v Boulder claimed violated the preemption law were:

Count 1 – that the portions of the Ordinance banning the sale purchase, and possession of assault weapons, and enacting the certification process are preempted by state law;

Count 2 – that the portion of the Ordinance that ban Large Capacity Magazines are preempted by state law.

On March 12, 2021 Boulder County District Judge Andrew Hartman agreed with the NRA backed plaintiffs that Boulder’s ban on possessing and transferring commonly-possessed “assault weapons” and ten-round magazines was preempted by state law. Here is what he wrote in his final order, effectively overturning the ban:

“In sum, the Court finds that State of Colorado law preempts Boulder City Ordinance 8245 and Ordinance 8259 as they relate to the prohibition of the sale, possession, and transfer of assault weapons and LCMs, specifically the inclusion of “assault weapons” and “LCMs” in the definition of “illegal weapons” pursuant to Boulder Rev. Code § 5-8-2. These provisions are invalid, and enforcement of them is enjoined. The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.”

Read the entire 22 page final order here.

Boulder still faces yet another lawsuit, backed by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF). Unlike the NRA backed suit which solely targeted preemption, the MSLF legal challenge, Caldara v Boulder, began in U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of the Boulder ordinance, citing violation of the Second Amendment as well as preemption. The U.S. District Court of Colorado chose to abstain from hearing the case until the NRA backed state case was decided. MSLF appealed that decision in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and most recently they filed a petition for Supreme Court review of the abstention issue. That was denied. A noteworthy aspect of the MSLF case is that in addition to challenging the firearm and magazine bans, it challenges the two other key points of the Boulder ordinance, both which were dismissed from the NRA one early on: 1.) the section prohibiting 18-20 year olds from purchasing long guns, and 2.) open carry of “assault weapons” in Boulder.

The city of Boulder can appeal the most recent decision, and if they do, it could eventually land in front of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado’s current Supreme Court has not been friendly to gun related issues on the grounds of preemption, primarily their most recent 2020 decision on the RMGO backed legal challenge against the states ban of magazines larger than 15 rounds. It should be noted that if it was to go to the Colorado Supreme Court and were decided in favor of Boulder, that would be the end of the NRA suit, as without a constitutional challenge, it cannot move to a higher court – but the MSLF suit could continue.

That said, the Boulder challenge is unique in that preemption law is specific to local government and does not specifically prohibit the legislature from enacting statewide laws.

The most notable time Colorado Supreme Court has heard a local government firearm preemption challenge was in 2005 after Denver sued the state of Colorado over the 2003 preemption law, saying the city should be able to enact it’s own laws under home rule. The was because Denver’s own firearm laws they had on the books since 1994 should have been nullified by the new preemption law. In the end, a Denver District Court judge agreed with the city, eventually landing the case in front of the Colorado Supreme Court. The state’s highest court deadlocked and the rare split-ruling meant Denver prevailed in the case and the city could resume enforcing its firearm laws that had not been enforced during litigation. Many familiar with the case say the ruling was not based on the preemption law itself, but because Denver had enacted their law prior to the date the preemption law was enacted.

MSLFs case is still alive and well, although they will likely wait to see if Boulder chooses to appeal before making a decision as to what their next move will be. If their case eventually moves forward in the 10th Circuit, it could become an important Second Amendment case to watch.

Although the Chambers v Boulder decision is specific to Boulder, it will undoubtedly set a precedent as other municipalities consider pushing similar laws.

Now that this is settled, we assume gun control groups such as Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords will start tackling real issues, like skyrocketing violent crime. We won’t hold our breath though.

HAVE YOU VISITED OUR STORE LATELY?

Virginia Gun Rights Rally Brings 22,000+ People, Guns, Energy – And No Violence

Posted on January 20, 2020January 20, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

In an inspiring show of solidarity, tens of thousands of gun rights advocates from all walks of life attended a Second Amendment Rally in Richmond, Virginia today.

The rally was part of the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s annual lobby day. This year it garnered national attention after anti-gun Democrats swept all branches of the legislature last November and promised to pass some of the most egregious gun control the state had ever seen.

Just last week three gun control bills passed the State Senate including expanded background checks to include private sales, one handgun purchase per month limit, and giving local control to the municipalities to prohibit firearms in permitted events or events that should be permitted. Those bills will now move on to the House of Delegates where anti-gun lawmakers have a large majority. Governor Ralph Northam has promised to sign the bills. There are several other gun control measures that may still be introduced this session, including an assault weapons ban and a Red Flag bill.

Leading up to the event, Governor Northam banned firearms inside the capitol and Declared a State of Emergency due to what he was sure would turn to violence. Potential attendees were being painted as white supremacists and even Nazis by the mainstream media and the gun grabbing groups. There were whispers that Antifa would show up to disrupt the event and provoke violence. Then there were suggestions that Antifa was coming to join in solidarity.

You seem to be confused. The Nazi’s are the ones who want to TAKE the guns. That would you be you, your ilk, and your government pawns. #IStandWithVirginia #VirginiaSTRONG #VirginiaRally #2A #SecondAmendmnt #GunRights #Virginia2A

— Rally For Our Rights (@RallyRights) January 20, 2020

As the event started, it quickly became apparent none of that was true as over 22,000 people, many openly carrying firearms, streamed into the city, surrounding the capitol that was enclosed by a fence. If you wanted to get through the fence onto the capitol grounds, there was as long list of rules and prohibited items. In the end, those who were armed stayed outside the fence and those who were not could proceed inside onto government grounds.

Check out this exchange between attendees…”United we stand…”

The MSM told you that the #VirginiaRally pro-2A rally in Virginia was really a “white supremacist” rally that would be drought with violence. I guarantee you won’t see this man on @MSNBC or on @CNN – when a black person carries legally they ignore them!pic.twitter.com/GkUsjsIOTy

— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) January 20, 2020

And as the mainstream media tried to paint the picture of this rally being Charlottesville 2, those on the ground set the record straight. WATCH!

The hard to swallow truth for these anti-gun lawmakers in Virginia is that gun rights transcends traditional partisan politics and reaches into the hearts of millions.

The right to an armed defense is one of the most critical rights of all – regardless of sex, race, creed, class, sexual orientation, or age. Gun rights are human rights.

But the real question is what will happen next. My hopes is this fired people up and they’re ready to take it out at the ballot box come 2020 elections.

Enjoy these images from today’s event.

And we’ve got all your Virginia Second Amendment Rally 2020 merchandise! Including unisex tees and hoodies, women’s fit tees, mugs and stickers. All proceeds directly support the fight to defend your guns rights!

Check it out here: www.rallyforourrights.com/store-4/virginia-2020

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

They’re Coming For Your AR-15s and AK-47s Even Though Handguns Are Used In Nearly All Gun Crimes

Posted on October 17, 2019October 17, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

AR’s, AK’s, and assault rifles, oh my!

If you watched the last two Democratic Presidential Debates you heard how every candidate wants to get “weapons of war” off the streets in an effort to tackle what they call our country’s “gun violence” epidemic. These candidates quickly make it clear when they say weapons of war, they mean AR-15s and AK-47s . Beto O’Rourke even said he plans to have the police go door to door to confiscate these terrifying guns from those who refuse to cooperate with a mandatory buyback, backing up his “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” promise.

It’s unclear if these candidates are clueless as to how infrequently rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47s are actually used in gun crime, or if they are using these scary sounding trigger words to garner support from a populace that is being brainwashed to believe these particular firearms are responsible for a grossly inflated number of mass shootings. My guess is it’s a combination of the two.

If you haven’t yet learned how the gun grabbers are inflating these mass shooting numbers, you must read this article.

Our research team dug into the latest FBI report on gun deaths and put together some very telling charts. This first one shows exactly how insignificant rifles are in the larger picture, and in fact, up until 2015, shotguns have been used in more murders than rifles.

Look closely, there are four lines in this graph…and the rifles line is so insignificant it can barely be seen.

In addition, our research team took it one step further to look at the alleged “gun violence” epidemic and how it relates to rifles. This chart shows that even these small numbers have been declining for years, and continue to do so.

Here’s another graph that shows where the firearm murder rate sits compared to all murders via other methods. It’s clear that both have been steadily trending downward for years, and that the firearm murder rate follows an overall murder trend, again emphasizing that the problem is violence, and not the tool one wishes to be violent with.

Bottom line: “Assault Weapons” Bans or mandatory buybacks are nothing but knee-jerk, virtue signaling reactions.

Just say NO.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

17 Times Government Put Guns In The Hands Of Criminals

Posted on September 26, 2019October 1, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

The latest buzzword in the anti-gun rhetoric dictionary is “mandatory buyback“, primarily referring to semi-automatic rifles or as the gun grabbers call them “assault weapons”. Since an outright ban is not a very popular idea, especially with tens of millions of just AR-15’s owned by law abiding citizens, the anti-gun politicians need a new tactic. Enter buyback programs.

I’ve written about buybacks before, highlighting how they are often used by individuals to sell their crap guns and purchase better ones. But this latest proposal of “mandatory buybacks” is just ridiculous.

First, they aren’t buying back anything. They never owned the property in the first place. They are creating a law that would force citizens to sell their property to the government at whatever price the government deems adequate, and if the property (gun) owner refuses, they become a criminal. Reminds me of eminent domain.

Second, any responsible gun owner knows if their firearm is in their possession, it will not be used to harm anyone. That is the safest place it could possibly be. And if an individual owns a firearm with the intent of harming others, they sure as hell won’t sell it to a buyback program.

But this got me thinking about some of the stories I’ve seen where people have taken their rifles in to the police after a tragic mass shooting, saying they don’t want these guns on the streets anymore. Now, I won’t criticize their intent. It is their own property. They can do with it what they chose. But do they really know what will happen to that rifle after they turn it in? Is it really safer in the hands of the government than in the hands of a law abiding gun owner?

A little research shows that not only does the government actually run guns to criminals themselves, but they lose them all the time.

Here are a handful of examples in no particular order:

Baltimore: Members of the Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF) went rogue and eventually eight officers were convicted of stealing money, drugs and guns from the people they stopped, then reselling those same drugs and guns.

Michigan: police chief created a “reserve officer” unit, but turns out it was just a way to sell firearms, ammo, and body armor to celebrities, many who were barred from owning firearms.

California: police officer left her gun in the restroom, where it was promptly stolen. She apologized, so it’s okay.

New Mexico: police chief, along with a town trustee and the town mayor, was busted for running guns to a brutal Mexican drug cartel.

Missouri: police chief was purchasing firearms with city funds then those firearms went “missing”.

North Carolina: police chief was arrested for selling confiscated guns that should have been returned to the rightful owners after charges were dismissed.

New York City: police officer was manufacturing illegal guns and selling them to criminals.

Nationwide: law enforcement and government guns regularly found in the hands of criminals.

Washington DC: police officer sold guns to those barred from purchasing them legally; at least one was used in a murder.

California: two police officers sold more than 100 firearms to convicted felons.

California: gun control proponent, State Senator Leland Yee promised votes and guns in exchange for campaign contributions, as well as participated in a gun trafficking scheme running gun from the Philippines with known mobsters.

California: school board president busted in the same gun trafficking scheme as above.

Nationwide: ATF can’t find “substantial number” of guns stolen from a government disposal facility.

Nationwide: DEA agents keep losing guns and no one cares.

Worldwide: 2000 guns were sold by the government to Mexican drug cartels in hopes of tracking the sellers. They lost track of the guns, some turned up in murders, most are still on the streets. This is known as Fast and Furious.

Worldwide: Pentagon lost weapons given to Yemen. This includes: 1,250,000 rounds of ammunition, 200 Glock 9 mm pistols, 200 M-4 rifles, 250 suits of body armor, 300 sets of night-vision goggles, among other things.

This list was compiled after a 20 minute Google search. You can only imagine how much more is out there as well as what hasn’t been discovered. It also begs the question of what will happen with all the guns confiscated through “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders ERPOs.

So yeah, don’t sell your guns to the government. You never know where they’ll actually end up.

Have other stories of government corruption or incompetence regarding firearms? Drop them in the comments.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a “Come & Find It” sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(OTHER DESIGNS ALSO AVAILABLE)

CO Mom Tells Beto “Hell NO You’re Not Taking My Guns!” At Aurora Town Hall

Posted on September 20, 2019September 20, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

CO Mom Tells Beto "Hell NO You're Not Taking My Guns!" At Aurora Town Hall

Lauren Boebert drove three hours from Rifle to Aurora, Colorado for one reason and one reason only – to tell Democrat Presidential Beto O’Rourke “Hell NO, you’re not taking my guns” and she did.

The town hall was held Thursday, September 19th on the lawn of the Aurora Municipal Center to a small crowd of a few dozen people, many who attended in opposition of Beto’s proposed gun control. During the last democratic presidential debate Beto made headlines when he stated “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15!” and immediately released a line of campaign t-shirts with the new slogan on them.

Lauren is a mother of four and owner of Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado, a restaurant where you will regularly see staff open carrying and patrons are welcome to carry – open or concealed. She took Beto to task on everything from his desire to disarm the law abiding to his criminal past.

“We all know that you, sir, have a criminal history and I understand that burglars do not like armed defense. Burglars do not like armed defense yet that is a right that we have that shall not be infringed in America,” Boebert said.

She also brought up why her and staff began open carrying in their restaurant – a man was beaten to death in the alley nearby.

“He lost his life that night, and it kinda shook me up. I was there alone a lot and I thought, ‘what am I gonna do, what am I gonna do if something happens, what if somebody comes in here, my husband isn’t here to protect me, I’m all alone,’ and really, that’s what got me to open-carry,” she said.

MUST WATCH!

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Beto Sells “Hell Yes We’re Going To Take Your AR-15” Campaign Shirts, RFOR Says “Hell No” On New Merchandise

Posted on September 15, 2019September 15, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

Democratic presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, released a new line of merchandise to support his campaign. His official web store is now selling a shirt with red, white, and blue letters with the threat to physically take firearms away from millions of law abiding gun owners.

“Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15” the shirt says, available in unisex tee and a women’s cut.

This was following his now infamous line during Thursday’s presidential debate where he promised widespread gun confiscation. Here are his words: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.” This was followed by thunderous applause. Never mind it already illegal to use those gun against our “fellow Americans” unless in self defense.

WATCH:

The fact that he is now gloating this on merchandise that he expects unarmed citizens to wear in public is not just distasteful, but disturbing.

Rally for our Rights immediately launched a “Hell No, You’re Not Going To Take My Guns” line of merchandise as a counter campaign. Products include unisex tees, tank tops, women’s cut, hoodies, coffee cups and stickers. All proceeds directly support the fight to defend your gun rights. Get your gear here.

Why “Red Flag” ERPO Laws Are Not The Solution To Mass Shootings

Posted on August 5, 2019September 12, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

After every public mass shooting, the call for gun control reaches a new pitch. Those on the anti-gun left have gone so far as suggesting banning nearly every modern day semi-automatic firearm and having police go door to door confiscating them. And those on the right are calling for “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Order laws in every state.

But is this really the answer? The suggestion of a door to door gun confiscation would be laughable if these people were joking- but they aren’t. How any politician believes using what they refer to as “weapons of war” to confiscate “weapons of war” will not turn into a war, is beyond me. Even the anti-gun, Bloomberg funded website “The Trace” admits there are at bare minimum 20 million civilian owned, modern day sporting rifles in the US, and nearly all of them have never been used to commit a crime.

So what about “Red Flag” laws? Let’s take a quick look at Red Flag laws and what they do…

“Red Flag” laws are also called ERPO’s or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, a term coined by the anti-gun movement to deter from the negative reputation that came with “Red Flag” legislation. Don’t be fooled though, they are the exact same thing. Red Flag laws have actually been around since 1999, although they are quickly rising in popularity. In fact, Connecticut had a Red Flag law in place when the Sandy Hook shooting happened and California had one in place at the time of the San Bernardino attack, the Thousands Oaks shooting, and the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting.

The proponents and mainstream media will tell you Red Flag ERPO laws allow family or law enforcement to petition the court to have the firearms removed from someone who is proven to be a danger to themselves or others.

To the general public, this sounds pretty benign, and polling reflects that when the law is presented this way.

But what if I phrased it this way: It’s a law that allows an abusive ex to petition the court, over the phone, for $0, to have the firearms confiscated from an individual they wish to disarm. The petition is granted based on the lowest evidentiary threshold used in court, a preponderance of evidence (meaning there is a 51% chance that the accusation is true) and when the temporary order is issued by the court, it is coupled with a search warrant. This means the first time the accused even finds out these proceedings are taking place is when the police are at their door ready to raid their home prepared to take away their means of self defense against the same abusive ex who requested the ERPO – and possibly the means of defense for their children.

Because that is exactly what these laws do. It is legalized swatting that can be done by a laundry list of family members, former and current roommates, and anyone you have ever been intimate with. Don’t believe me? Read through the 30+ pages of HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders that was just signed by the governor here in Colorado.

There is a big difference between supporting the concept of a Red Flag law, and supporting the actual legislation that is being passed. The devil is always in the details.

But do they work?

Well, we already pointed out above three mass shooting in California with one of the broadest Red Flag laws (right behind Colorado’s), as well as Sandy Hook in Connecticut. So, no, they didn’t work to stop killers in those instances and there is zero evidence they have thwarted any attacks elsewhere.

But what about suicide? Proponents will of course tell you yes, they work. States like Indiana pointed to stats showing suicide by firearm was decreasing. Well, turns out it wasn’t. It was still increasing but not at the projected rate, so they consider that a win. In addition, suicide by other methods has skyrocketed and Indiana has dropped from 19th in the country for mental health in 2011, to 45th in 2015, and in both 2016 and 2017 suicide was the tenth leading cause of death for all residents over all demographics, and the leading cause for certain demographics. Their Red Flag law was enacted in 2005.

Why are we seeing these results? Because these laws have nothing to do with mental health, and everything to do with taking away the guns. The bill sponsors here in Colorado even admitted that during the month long debate before the bill passed by ONE SINGLE vote with every Republican and three Democrats voting against it. Watch the video here:

These laws are widely opposed by law enforcement, as they realize the danger they will put their officers and citizens in, as well as the unconstitutionality of the law. In Colorado, more than 50 of the 64 sheriffs opposed the legislation, as did the Denver and Aurora police unions. The ACLU has opposed legislation in other states such as Rhode Island. And people have been killed having these Red Flag orders served, such as happened in Maryland when a woman ERPO’d her brother after a family dispute. She later admitted she did not believe he would have hurt a fly, but he was killed when he refused to turn over his guns. Trading death for death is never the answer. The lives of gun owners do not matter less than the lives of anyone else.

We should also always remember in the “do something” era, passing feel good, knee jerk, virtue signaling legislation is a waste of valuable time and resources that could be used to actually DO SOMETHING, for example Maine passed a completely different proper adjudication law to address the same issue. You can learn about that by listening to this podcast here.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Parkland One Year Later: The Government Has Blood On Their Hands

Posted on February 14, 2019February 14, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

Parkland One Year Later: The Government Has Blood On Their Hands Rally for our Rights Colorado
Today marks one year since the United States saw a school massacre that broke the hearts of a nation, ignited a fire in new activists, and if you’re paying attention – shattered your trust in government. That massacre being the Parkland, Florida school shooting where 19 year old Nikolas Cruz took the lives of 14 classmates and three teachers.

On February 14th, 2018 Nikolas Cruz took an Uber with a backpack equipped with an AR-15, grenades, and ammo to his old school. He walked past the school security monitor, Andrew Medina, who knew he wasn’t allowed on school grounds and found his presence “suspicious”, although did nothing. Cruz walked past the building where school resource officer, Scot Peterson, was talking with another student. Peterson was employed as a sheriff’s deputy with the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, but his charge was to protect the students at Parkland High School. It should also be noted that Peterson was the only armed person permitted to be on school grounds. Cruz walked through the unsecured school doors into his former high school from which he’d been expelled. In this gun free zone not one person attempted to stop him, nor was there any security measures in place. At 2:21 pm he opened fire. It was a rampage that would last at least 20 minutes before Cruz simply walked out of the school and into a nearby neighborhood, where he was eventually captured and confessed.

Heartbreaking. How can this kind of tragedy happen? It shouldn’t have. And it wouldn’t have if the government had done their job.

The Parkland High School Shooting spurred a gun control movement this country hasn’t seen in decades. March for our Lives formed under umbrella groups Moms Demand Action and Everytown For Gun Safety, all which are funded by Michael Bloomberg, have taken to the streets and the halls of congress. Frantic and misguided students, parents, teachers and individuals have exploited the Parkland tragedy calling for massive gun control across the nation – from city ordinances to federal laws. What they should be acknowledging instead is the complete and utter government failure that allowed Parkland to happen in the first place. More laws were not needed. The current laws simply needed to be enforced.

The government has blood on their hands, and as a mother I say that unapologetically.

• Nikolas Cruz was not a stranger to Broward County law enforcement. In fact, police had been called to his home at least 37 times over the course of only a few years. 37 TIMES! The reasons ranged from harming animals (shooting chickens with a pellet gun), assault on his mother, assault on his siblings, harming himself, threatening to harm himself, threatening to harm others, and more. Not once was he charged. Not once did the police take any action, even though action on almost all of these would have required his name to be entered into the NICS database preventing him from legally being able to purchase a firearm.

• In addition to the 37 reports law enforcement did follow up on (although ultimately ignored in the end), in February 2016 a tipster called Broward Sheriff’s Office to say Cruz ‘could be a school shooter in the making’ and had been making threats on Instagram, but deputies did not write up a report on that warning, instead they forwarded it to School Resource Officer Scot Peterson. That report came just weeks after a relative called urging Broward Sheriff’s Office to investigate if he should have the weapons he had, and possibly seize them. In the end, both reports were ignored.

• Late in 2016 a “peer counselor” reported to School Resource Officer Scot Peterson that Cruz had possibly ingested gasoline in a suicide attempt, was cutting himself and wanted to buy a gun. A mental health counselor advised against involuntarily committing Cruz. In Florida, such action can be done under the Baker Act, which allows the state to involuntarily commit individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. People committed under the Baker Act are legally barred from obtaining firearms. This event was followed up on by Florida Department of Children and Families, and even though he had fresh cuts from “cutting” and his mother shared her fear that he constantly talked of wanting to buy a firearm, he was deemed stable and, once again, ignored.

• In September 2017 a YouTube user named “nikolas cruz” postsed a comment stating he wanted to become a “professional school shooter.” The comment was reported to the FBI in Mississippi, but was not followed up on.

• In November 2017 a family member called Broward County Sheriff’s Office to report that Nikolas Cruz was dangerous, had made legitimate threats, and had weapons. Her concerns were ignored when Cruz told them he’d give the weapons to a family friend. This again would have been a legitimate use of the Baker Act.

• Also in November 2017, after Cruz’ mother died, he was taken in by a Palm Beach County family. They contacted the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office to report a fight between Cruz and their 22 year old son. A member of the family said that Cruz had threatened to “get his gun and come back” and that he had “put the gun to others’ heads in the past.” The family did not want him arrested, so the report was ignored.

• And again in November 2017 a caller from Massachusetts reported that Cruz is collecting guns and knives and was threatening to be a “school shooter in the making.” A Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy advised the caller to contact the Palm Beach sheriff. If the caller ever did contact Palm Beach, it’s not on record.

• In January 5, 2018 a report came in to the FBI’s tip line claiming that Cruz has “a desire to kill people” and could potentially conduct a school shooting. The information was never passed on to the FBI’s office in Miami. The FBI has even publicly acknowledged their failure.

And these are only the failures BEFORE the incident. Since the incident it has come to light that:

• The only other armed person on school grounds, resource officer Scot Peterson, hid behind a concrete wall during the rampage.

• School Security Monitor, Andrew Medina, had a long history of sexually harassing female students, all which was swept under the rug.

• Broward County Sheriff took 26 minutes to enter to the school.

• Nikolas Cruz was easily able to walk out of the school, blending in with other students and walked into a nearby neighborhood, where he was later arrested.

• After a lawsuit against the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, the school district, and Parkland High, a judge determined that NONE of these entities had a responsibility to protect the students.

You would think after all of this, those closest to the tragedy would be asking why – and how – this kind of failure is possible. You would think that in the change they wish to see, the government would be the last place they’d be seeking it. I mean, what makes them think anything will change? History shows it won’t and it doesn’t, and, in fact, nearly every mass shooting the US has seen government failure like this exist behind it.

Even last summer during a counter protest Rally for our Rights held while March for our Lives was staging a “March on the NRA”, a conversation afterward between myself and the organizers of the other event resulted in agreement that these failures exist, and that before we discuss new laws, we should be discussing why our current laws are failing.

What is the solution? We need to acknowledge our society has a violence problem and a suicide problem, but to call it a gun problem is disingenuous. To create gun control laws that disarm and effect only the law abiding is a false sense of security. Mental health is a strong component of this issue. Any individual who will walk into a school and execute students is mentally ill, even if not previously diagnosed.

We have soft targets in schools such as Parkland, where someone like Cruz can simply wander in with nothing in his way, and not one person inside the school is legally given the ability to defend the students they care for as their own. Programs such as FASTER Colorado provides no cost or low cost intensive training to school staff who voluntarily choose to be armed and is approved by their school board. They are also provided with deep concealment training, trauma training, and psychological training.

In the end, we will never eradicate evil, but we can defend ourselves from it.

Gun Owners Across US Woke Up Criminals In The New Year – And They Did Nothing Wrong

Posted on January 1, 2019January 1, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

While the masses across the United States were out ringing in the New Year – some of whom were undoubtedly engaging in illegal activity such as drunk driving and illicit drug use – gun owners in multiple cities and states simply stayed home, watched the ball drop on their TV, and went to bed without incident. Yet this morning, they are the ones who woke up as criminals.

2018 was a year that put the anti-gun community and gun rights advocates toe to toe. There is something both sides agree on though – they agree that tragedies like we saw in Parkland, FL are devastating and we don’t want them to happen. What we disagree on are the solutions.

The gun grabbers have chosen to ignore research that highlights two things: 1.) gun control doesn’t work and 2.) current laws are being ignored. In nearly every instance of a tragic shooting, a little research into the perpetrators background shows failure and incompetence on the part of government. So what do the gun grabbers do with this information? They demand more laws be created that do nothing to curb crime, but instead create a false sense of security and criminalize the law abiding.

Many of those laws went into effect at 12:00am today, January 1st, 2019. Here are a few of them:

Boulder, CO: If you own a so-called “assault weapon” that you didn’t register with the police department between June 15th and December 31st, 2018, today you are a criminal. Never mind Boulder has never seen a murder committed with one of the banned firearms, but it has with a baseball bat.

Washington: If you’re under 21 and are in possession of a long gun outside your home, the government has deemed you a criminal before you’re even old enough to drink. Welcome to a life of crime.

Illinois: If you purchase a rifle but you don’t wait 72 hours after the purchase to take possession of it, you are breaking the law. But who abides by a waiting period? That’s right, the law abiding.

California: Similarly to Washington, it is also now illegal to be under the age of 21 and own a shotgun or rifle. That will certainly deter a violent, evil person from obtaining one. <insert heavy sarcasm>

In addition, several states enacted draconian “Red Flag Laws“, which allow someone’s firearms to be confiscated by law enforcement with little evidence and no due process. Other states have adopted “Mental Health Laws” which will prevent those who have had certain types of mental health treatment from possessing firearms (with the unintended consequence of making those who own firearms not seek mental health treatment).

Undoubtedly, with anti-gun candidates winning elections across the nation this past November, we’re in a for a doozy of year. Make sure you’re paying attention.

You can help us continue to fight back with boots on the ground. Get connected on social media here and/or make a donation here.

Category: AR-15