View By Date

Tags

Statistics

  • 364
    Blogs
  • 44
    Active Bloggers
5 blogs
  • 06 Mar 2014
    In a dramatic move to satisfy anti-gun groups, the popular social media networks Facebook and Instagram announced today they planned to restrict content they say promotes the illegal sale of firearms. According an announcement sent to Grand View Outdoors by a Facebook spokesman, the social media network will police all posts relating to the sale of what the company calls "regulated items," which includes tobacco products, alcohol and firearms. The company specifically targets guns by warning potential sellers that they must "comply with relevant laws and regulations" and will only allow those over the age of 18 to read the posts.     "People sometimes use our free tools to discuss products that are regulated or controversial," Facebook said in its statement. "While we've recently heard specific concerns from people about offers for the private sales of firearms, this is one of many areas where we face a difficult challenge balancing individuals' desire to express themselves on our services, and recognizing that this speech may have consequences elsewhere." The move comes after efforts by gun control groups Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns pressured Facebook and Instagram to restrict gun-related content on their sites. The groups have been trying to get high-profile businesses like Staples and Starbucks to ban firearms on their premises. In a statement applauding the Facebook policy, Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts said her group's efforts to pressure companies to institute "common sense" gun policy will continue. "Moms have momentum and we&'re moving the country toward a culture of gun safety one company, one legislator, one law at a time," Watts said. "We're going to keep applying pressure to corporations and political leaders until they do more to reduce the gun violence that plagues our country." Recent crime statistics issued from the FBI show gun violence continues its 30 year decline — even as 2013 marked one of the highest rates of gun sales and concealed carry permit requests. A recent Gallup poll showed a more than 300 percent increase in the percentage of Americans who think U.S. gun laws are too strict. A Facebook spokesman said in an interview his company spoke "with all sides of the debate" in arriving at the new rules to curb firearms transactions. But while the Facebook statement said the company "worked with a number of individuals and organizations on the development of these efforts," it lists only gun control groups who helped develop the policy. "We are grateful in particular for the advice offered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action, which helped us develop an approach for the private sale of firearms," the company said. Facebook said it will institute the new rules in the coming weeks. CATEGORIES News   Christian Lowe - See more at: http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/articles/3759-facebook-vows-to-crack-down-on-gun-sale-posts#sthash.BrR6FQQd.dpuf
    1674 Posted by Chris Avena
  • In a dramatic move to satisfy anti-gun groups, the popular social media networks Facebook and Instagram announced today they planned to restrict content they say promotes the illegal sale of firearms. According an announcement sent to Grand View Outdoors by a Facebook spokesman, the social media network will police all posts relating to the sale of what the company calls "regulated items," which includes tobacco products, alcohol and firearms. The company specifically targets guns by warning potential sellers that they must "comply with relevant laws and regulations" and will only allow those over the age of 18 to read the posts.     "People sometimes use our free tools to discuss products that are regulated or controversial," Facebook said in its statement. "While we've recently heard specific concerns from people about offers for the private sales of firearms, this is one of many areas where we face a difficult challenge balancing individuals' desire to express themselves on our services, and recognizing that this speech may have consequences elsewhere." The move comes after efforts by gun control groups Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns pressured Facebook and Instagram to restrict gun-related content on their sites. The groups have been trying to get high-profile businesses like Staples and Starbucks to ban firearms on their premises. In a statement applauding the Facebook policy, Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts said her group's efforts to pressure companies to institute "common sense" gun policy will continue. "Moms have momentum and we&'re moving the country toward a culture of gun safety one company, one legislator, one law at a time," Watts said. "We're going to keep applying pressure to corporations and political leaders until they do more to reduce the gun violence that plagues our country." Recent crime statistics issued from the FBI show gun violence continues its 30 year decline — even as 2013 marked one of the highest rates of gun sales and concealed carry permit requests. A recent Gallup poll showed a more than 300 percent increase in the percentage of Americans who think U.S. gun laws are too strict. A Facebook spokesman said in an interview his company spoke "with all sides of the debate" in arriving at the new rules to curb firearms transactions. But while the Facebook statement said the company "worked with a number of individuals and organizations on the development of these efforts," it lists only gun control groups who helped develop the policy. "We are grateful in particular for the advice offered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action, which helped us develop an approach for the private sale of firearms," the company said. Facebook said it will institute the new rules in the coming weeks. CATEGORIES News   Christian Lowe - See more at: http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/articles/3759-facebook-vows-to-crack-down-on-gun-sale-posts#sthash.BrR6FQQd.dpuf
    Mar 06, 2014 1674
  • 08 Nov 2012
    Legislative Alert Sportsmen's Act Will Soon Face A Vote NSSF Urges Calls to Your Senators As the 112th Congress begins its post-election session, NSSF encourages all firearms owners, hunters and sportsmen to call or email their U.S. Senators and urge them to vote YES on the Sportsmen's Act (S. 3525), the most important package of measures for the benefit of sportsmen in a generation. An early vote has been cleared procedurally, so act now. This historic legislation includes the firearms industry's top legislative priority, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act (S. 838) that would clarify that ammunition is excluded from regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Anti-hunting groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity are suing the EPA to force a ban on traditional ammunition made with lead components that would devastate hunting and shooting sports participation, drive up ammunition prices by almost 200 percent on average and dry up conservation funding. No less than 46 of the nation's leading sportsmen and conservation groups including the NRA, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and the Boone and Crockett Club are championing S. 3525. This bipartisan legislation is strongly supported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The Sportsmen's Act is a package of 19 separate bills -- the majority of sportsmen's legislative priorities on Capitol Hill. (See below for an overview of the components of the bill.) A similar package of bills--the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012 (H.R. 4089)--was passed by the House in the spring by a bipartisan vote of 276 to 146. Passage of this pro-sportsmen's legislation will promote, protect and preserve our nation's hunting, shooting and conservation heritage for generations to come. Our voices must be heard! As you read this, Anti-hunting forces are working to defeat S. 3525. So act now, call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to vote YES for the bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2012. Sportsmen's Priorities in the Sportsmen's Act of 2012 The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act: Specifically excludes ammunition and fishing tackle from the Toxic Substances Control Act, preventing unnecessary regulations that could devastate hunting, shooting, conservation funding and the firearm and ammunition industries. Making Public Lands Public: Requires that the 1.5 percent of annual Land and Water Conservation Fund funding is made available to secure public access to federal public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act: Makes Pittman-Robertson funds available to states for a longer period of time for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges. The bill encourages federal land agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain shooting ranges and limits liability for these agencies.   Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to urge your senators to SUPPORT the Sportsmen's Act of 2012.   --------------------------- Visit NSSF's Government Relations site at nssf.org/GovRel.
    1624 Posted by Chris Avena
  • Legislative Alert Sportsmen's Act Will Soon Face A Vote NSSF Urges Calls to Your Senators As the 112th Congress begins its post-election session, NSSF encourages all firearms owners, hunters and sportsmen to call or email their U.S. Senators and urge them to vote YES on the Sportsmen's Act (S. 3525), the most important package of measures for the benefit of sportsmen in a generation. An early vote has been cleared procedurally, so act now. This historic legislation includes the firearms industry's top legislative priority, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act (S. 838) that would clarify that ammunition is excluded from regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Anti-hunting groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity are suing the EPA to force a ban on traditional ammunition made with lead components that would devastate hunting and shooting sports participation, drive up ammunition prices by almost 200 percent on average and dry up conservation funding. No less than 46 of the nation's leading sportsmen and conservation groups including the NRA, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and the Boone and Crockett Club are championing S. 3525. This bipartisan legislation is strongly supported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The Sportsmen's Act is a package of 19 separate bills -- the majority of sportsmen's legislative priorities on Capitol Hill. (See below for an overview of the components of the bill.) A similar package of bills--the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012 (H.R. 4089)--was passed by the House in the spring by a bipartisan vote of 276 to 146. Passage of this pro-sportsmen's legislation will promote, protect and preserve our nation's hunting, shooting and conservation heritage for generations to come. Our voices must be heard! As you read this, Anti-hunting forces are working to defeat S. 3525. So act now, call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to vote YES for the bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2012. Sportsmen's Priorities in the Sportsmen's Act of 2012 The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act: Specifically excludes ammunition and fishing tackle from the Toxic Substances Control Act, preventing unnecessary regulations that could devastate hunting, shooting, conservation funding and the firearm and ammunition industries. Making Public Lands Public: Requires that the 1.5 percent of annual Land and Water Conservation Fund funding is made available to secure public access to federal public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act: Makes Pittman-Robertson funds available to states for a longer period of time for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges. The bill encourages federal land agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain shooting ranges and limits liability for these agencies.   Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to urge your senators to SUPPORT the Sportsmen's Act of 2012.   --------------------------- Visit NSSF's Government Relations site at nssf.org/GovRel.
    Nov 08, 2012 1624
  • 18 May 2012
                                                            Is There a Price Tag on Our Right To Bare Arms?     By Chris Avena   On May 9th, I had the opportunity to speak to Kelly McMillan, the director of Operations of McMillan Firearms about his recent meeting with Bank of America in which they had told him that they no longer wanted to do business with McMillan Firearms because they are a firearms manufacturer. Should a financial institution have the right to terminate your account based solely on the industry that you choose to make a living in? Is there corporate profiling among our financial institutions? Let’s see what Kelly McMillan has to say.   SMH: Kelly, you recently had a meeting with Bank of America   KM: That is correct.  April 19th we had what was scheduled as just a standard annual account review meeting with a couple of representatives from the Bank of America. But it did surprise me when they showed up with the Sr. Vice President (Ray Fox) whom I have never met and didn’t know who he was but when you are handed a business card that says Sr. Vice President it just made me wonder what this meeting was really about. Had this been a normal account review, it would have been with the regular bankers that I deal with.   SMH: Did you make this meeting or did Bank of America make this meeting?   KM: They made the meeting. Just to give you a little background, I have been doing business with bank of America since 1998, that’s almost 14 years. In that time, we have never bounced a check, never missed a payment on our credit lines. We actually have two businesses with two different credit lines. At the time of this meeting our credit was less than 60 Percent of the maximum that is allowed on the credit lines. We have been a really good customer for them and we have had a significant amount of money that flowed through those accounts. We have also paid a significant amount of fees based on the services that they offered. So it really took me by surprise when Mr. Fox started to talk about our business and how it had changed. So I had interrupted him and said “so you are going to tell me that you did not want our business because we manufacture firearms and he said “that is correct”.   SMH: You had asked him if this decision was politically motivated.   KM: That is correct. He had made the comment that Bank of America had to be diligent in their assessment of their risk of doing business with a firearms manufacturer and how that played into their corporate reputation.   SMH: How did you interpret their Risk or their Reputational risk as they put it?   KM: I took Mr. Fox at his word that they just didn’t want to do business with me any more because I manufactured firearms which was not anything new to them. I had the account that we had opened for the rifle company under the name McMillan Firearms Manufacturering in 2007 so they have known (if they could read) they have known based on the name on the account. When they said that they had to assess the risk, that is when I asked him if this was a politically motivated decision and he said yes. From my stand point, I did not mean democrat or republican. I meant inter Bank of America political decision. I do not know what their policies are. I have never claimed to state what their policies are. Their big defense against this has been – well- that is not our policy. If you look-  we have just done a big deal with the freedom group and we have other customers that manufacture  or are in the manufacturing of firearms industry so this can not possibly be true and I do not know about any of that, I just know what happened.   SMH: Now that this has resonated with you for a week or so, do you feel that when they said political that it was B of A executives or government?   KM: I have been really firm about not speculating or giving my opinion about who or why because all of it would just be speculation and I do not want to give anybody the indication that I have any inside      information. I do know that the State president for the Bank of America from Arizona came to see me and I did not buy his explanation of why they decided that they do not want my business. He claimed that it was just a sound financial decision based on my business but the fact is (as I said before) that I have been a good customer. We are in good shape financially. There really is no reason for him to have made that comment. Now what made me even less likely to believe Mr. Almonza who is the state president (of B of A) is that when we started the meeting, I asked him if he minded if I record the meeting and he said yes I do mind. I was kind of surprised and said why would you mind? So he told me because he wanted it to be a friendly conversation between he and I. From my perspective, anyone who does not want to be held accountable for what they say (and that would be the reason why they would not want to be recorded) can not necessarily be taken at face value. So I listened to what he said and then I evaluated (the conversation). Basically what I asked Mr. Almonza was that he had told me such a different story from the conversation that Mr. Fox and I discussed that it can not be a misunderstanding so one of you is lying. Who should I believe? He responded that he does not know what Mr. Fox and I discussed because he was not in the room. Keep in mind that Mr. Fox is Mr. Almonza’s subordinate and works directly under him. If it were me, I would have had a conversation with Mr. Fox prior to coming into the meeting so I had a clear understanding.   SMH: You have seen quite a bit of support from our community since this all began –   KM: It has been incredible to see how many people really cherish their second amendment rights and will take a stand to anyone who threatens to take that away from them and that is what this has been seen as which is an affront to our second amendment rights. There have been thousands of people that I have been in communication with through our Facebook page, emails and phone calls. They have been very supportive and I really appreciate them making the effort to make this fight a national fight because it is important to all of us.   SMH: It is no secret that our Second Amendment rights have been under fire (so to speak) from the Obama Administration. With that in mind, if this was a politically pressured decision from our administration - Have they put a price tag on our Constitutional Rights?   KM: It has been mentioned many times in the press and around the internet that they have not been successful in drafting legislation that will outright take our guns away from us so they are back dooring us by attempting to get ammunition registered and each round accountable to an individual, it is just a way to make it more difficult, more expensive and more likely that we will not go through the trouble that they are trying to create in order for us to keep our guns. If we can not get ammunition it doesn’t matter if we can get guns or not and I believe that is part of the process.   SMH: Do you feel that with the events that are happening if this is in fact a political move, can the industry indirectly be affected with the ancillary products to guns such as ammunition, clips, scopes etc. anything that is gun related. Can a bank pick or choose who they want to do business with?   KM: I do understand as a business owner that banks need to be able to choose who they do business with but I also feel that they should be accountable and there needs to be a sound business logic to that and if they say that there is too much risk in the firearms industry, meaning that they have a few companies (that they do business with) and they want to balance their portfolio so we want to pick and choose which companies we would like to keep. I would understand that if they would man up, say it and let the world know that this is their position on this. They shouldn’t say that it (the conversation) never happened or that it was not their policy and try to brush it under the rug. I have always maintained that they (B of A) have always looked at me as a small business with little consequence and probably if they had told me to go away, I would just go away but they have found out how significant, each individual, when it comes to second amendment rights can be and how we (as a group) have stood up for our constitutional rights.   SMH: I know of several individuals that I have spoken to that have closed their accounts at Bank of America and they have taken it a step further by canceling their Bass Pro credit card because it was issued through Bank of America. It seems that Bass Pro’s positions is that Bank of America said that this situation did not happen the way you are saying so they are taking the three monkey approach (See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Talk No Evil) . For a company like BassPro to change banks, it would be a logistical nightmare for them.   KM: I understand that but please keep in mind that through this whole thing, I have never once asked anyone to close their accounts, cut up their credit cards and change banks. I have never said that. That is an individual choice for each of us who are fighting this battle against the encroachment of our second amendment rights. Everyone has to choose for them selves how they are going to fight this. If changing banks or changing mortgage companies or changing credit cards is not something that would be easily done or to would have negative repercussions on the individual or their business – I do not expect them to do that because they need to take care of themselves. As far as BassPro is concerned, what I am most disappointed about is that they have not contacted me. No one from BassPro has called me and said Lets hear your side of the story. I honestly think that they (BassPro) looked at this situation and said that it would be a nightmare if we had to stand on the side of the second amendment rights people. So we are just going to say that it is “he said, they said” and we can not take a position. Same as the NRA has done. The NRA has said that we do not have a position in this because it is his word against theirs. I understand that. That makes sense to me.   SMH: Do you feel it is a danger, if this is indeed the case, (and this is innuendo on both our parts) for government to put political pressure on a banking institution to stop financing gun manufacturing companies and possibly negating U.S. citizens of their second amendment rights.   KM: If in fact that is what’s happening, then I think that this is far more dangerous than anyone has given credit to it. Because if there is political pressure from the administration or anybody in the national political arena and the Bank of America or any other company is succumbing to that pressure, then we do not have much of a chance in our fight against them because that holds a different weight with people. The next time that someone becomes expendable as far as a company to Bank of America and political that is created that situation, you know that Bank of America will say (sure) whatever you want because of the position that they are in as far as being indebted to the administration for keeping them in business. Small business owners and even significant business owners really do not stand a chance to fight against that. Unless they are going to try to do something covertly and we just make sure that we let everyone know what is going on.   SMH: Do you mean something like the Fast and the Furious, selling guns to Mexico when they are supposed to be taken off the street altogether.   KM: Yes, that did hit real close to home. Of course we were not involved in that. They didn’t approach us during that time because of the type of firearms that we manufacture did not seem to fit what their profile was but even that is ridiculous. I have no idea what the fore thought to that was and whose decisions those were but it is crazy. We are law abiding citizens, we follow all of the ATF rules, we actually have to deal with the state department with every gun that we sell outside of this country and we Do that because we love this business and we want to stay in it so we follow the rules and we are law abiding company. Then when you hear about stuff like this that was created and perpetrated by the government I am wondering who is in control.   SMH: Have you found a Second Amendment Friendly Bank?   KM: We have actually started doing the interviewing process. We have three interviews over the next few days and I hope to have a choice by next week. One of the situations that we have found ourselves in is now that we have a responsibility to the thousands of people that are going to be looking to see who we choose, we must be diligent in picking a second amendment friendly bank, not just tolerant ( because there are tolerant banks out there). For example, there is one of the major banks that does not allow legal concealed carry in their bank or even in their drive through and obviously, I could not choose that bank because that is not really supporting our legal rights to own and carry guns. So we have to do a good job because a lot of people are watching.   SMH: So they will tolerate it, they will not allow it (guns) in their bank, but I am sure that their security guards are carrying guns.   KM: I am sure that they are.   SMH: I really appreciate you taking the time to speak to us today. I know how much everyone wants to be kept up to speed on the progress of this situation.   KM: I will keep in touch with everyone through Facebook and our website when we do choose a new bank. Our website is www.McMillanUSA.com and our website has a link to our Facebook page. There is also a lot of information on our facebook page with regards to other people who have had similar experiences and people who have told their stories with relation to what has happened with Bank of America so if anybody is interested, they can just find us on facebook (McMillan Group International).   SMH: I have actually read quite a few stories on your facebook page and it does not seem like this is an isolated incident that is happening with you.   KM: No, it doesn’t and one of the things that has come to light is that they have done the same thing with farmers. I have heard several stories about people who have had family farms for years and years and about two or three years ago Bank of America started telling them that they will not be renewing their line of credit, which farms have to have in order to function. They (farms) can not function with out loans because of how the industry is. So when they are told that they can not have a credit line, it is real devastating to them. Asking us (McMillan) to change banks from Bank of America, we have not slowed down our production at all. It has not been a financial burden for us. Bank of America did tell us that they would give us 6 months or until September 1st (to find a new bank) so it has not been a financial Hardship for us. But those in the farming community who have had this happen to them, it was a real traumatic experience and for some of them, they never survived.   SMH: So the banking industry is actually picking and choosing the industries that are to their advantage to deal with.   KM: Apparently & for whatever reason. Well, I appreciate you calling me and giving me the chance to talk a little bit about what happened. I hope that your viewers find it enlightening. We will just have to see how this all plays out.   SMH: What does McMillan have in store for us this year as far as new product lines?   KM: We actually débuted a couple of new products at the Shot Show this year. They will probably be out by late summer. The CS-5 is a terrific new covert short barreled  mac-pack type gun for military and law enforcement. We also have a civilian version of it that has a 19 inch barrel so that you don’t have to get a tax stamp to own it.   SMH: I did not have the opportunity to stop by your booth at Shot this year but I will defently make it a point to come by and see you in January,   KM: Perfect- I look forward to it.   “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” ~ Thomas Jefferson~    
    1771 Posted by Chris Avena
  •                                                         Is There a Price Tag on Our Right To Bare Arms?     By Chris Avena   On May 9th, I had the opportunity to speak to Kelly McMillan, the director of Operations of McMillan Firearms about his recent meeting with Bank of America in which they had told him that they no longer wanted to do business with McMillan Firearms because they are a firearms manufacturer. Should a financial institution have the right to terminate your account based solely on the industry that you choose to make a living in? Is there corporate profiling among our financial institutions? Let’s see what Kelly McMillan has to say.   SMH: Kelly, you recently had a meeting with Bank of America   KM: That is correct.  April 19th we had what was scheduled as just a standard annual account review meeting with a couple of representatives from the Bank of America. But it did surprise me when they showed up with the Sr. Vice President (Ray Fox) whom I have never met and didn’t know who he was but when you are handed a business card that says Sr. Vice President it just made me wonder what this meeting was really about. Had this been a normal account review, it would have been with the regular bankers that I deal with.   SMH: Did you make this meeting or did Bank of America make this meeting?   KM: They made the meeting. Just to give you a little background, I have been doing business with bank of America since 1998, that’s almost 14 years. In that time, we have never bounced a check, never missed a payment on our credit lines. We actually have two businesses with two different credit lines. At the time of this meeting our credit was less than 60 Percent of the maximum that is allowed on the credit lines. We have been a really good customer for them and we have had a significant amount of money that flowed through those accounts. We have also paid a significant amount of fees based on the services that they offered. So it really took me by surprise when Mr. Fox started to talk about our business and how it had changed. So I had interrupted him and said “so you are going to tell me that you did not want our business because we manufacture firearms and he said “that is correct”.   SMH: You had asked him if this decision was politically motivated.   KM: That is correct. He had made the comment that Bank of America had to be diligent in their assessment of their risk of doing business with a firearms manufacturer and how that played into their corporate reputation.   SMH: How did you interpret their Risk or their Reputational risk as they put it?   KM: I took Mr. Fox at his word that they just didn’t want to do business with me any more because I manufactured firearms which was not anything new to them. I had the account that we had opened for the rifle company under the name McMillan Firearms Manufacturering in 2007 so they have known (if they could read) they have known based on the name on the account. When they said that they had to assess the risk, that is when I asked him if this was a politically motivated decision and he said yes. From my stand point, I did not mean democrat or republican. I meant inter Bank of America political decision. I do not know what their policies are. I have never claimed to state what their policies are. Their big defense against this has been – well- that is not our policy. If you look-  we have just done a big deal with the freedom group and we have other customers that manufacture  or are in the manufacturing of firearms industry so this can not possibly be true and I do not know about any of that, I just know what happened.   SMH: Now that this has resonated with you for a week or so, do you feel that when they said political that it was B of A executives or government?   KM: I have been really firm about not speculating or giving my opinion about who or why because all of it would just be speculation and I do not want to give anybody the indication that I have any inside      information. I do know that the State president for the Bank of America from Arizona came to see me and I did not buy his explanation of why they decided that they do not want my business. He claimed that it was just a sound financial decision based on my business but the fact is (as I said before) that I have been a good customer. We are in good shape financially. There really is no reason for him to have made that comment. Now what made me even less likely to believe Mr. Almonza who is the state president (of B of A) is that when we started the meeting, I asked him if he minded if I record the meeting and he said yes I do mind. I was kind of surprised and said why would you mind? So he told me because he wanted it to be a friendly conversation between he and I. From my perspective, anyone who does not want to be held accountable for what they say (and that would be the reason why they would not want to be recorded) can not necessarily be taken at face value. So I listened to what he said and then I evaluated (the conversation). Basically what I asked Mr. Almonza was that he had told me such a different story from the conversation that Mr. Fox and I discussed that it can not be a misunderstanding so one of you is lying. Who should I believe? He responded that he does not know what Mr. Fox and I discussed because he was not in the room. Keep in mind that Mr. Fox is Mr. Almonza’s subordinate and works directly under him. If it were me, I would have had a conversation with Mr. Fox prior to coming into the meeting so I had a clear understanding.   SMH: You have seen quite a bit of support from our community since this all began –   KM: It has been incredible to see how many people really cherish their second amendment rights and will take a stand to anyone who threatens to take that away from them and that is what this has been seen as which is an affront to our second amendment rights. There have been thousands of people that I have been in communication with through our Facebook page, emails and phone calls. They have been very supportive and I really appreciate them making the effort to make this fight a national fight because it is important to all of us.   SMH: It is no secret that our Second Amendment rights have been under fire (so to speak) from the Obama Administration. With that in mind, if this was a politically pressured decision from our administration - Have they put a price tag on our Constitutional Rights?   KM: It has been mentioned many times in the press and around the internet that they have not been successful in drafting legislation that will outright take our guns away from us so they are back dooring us by attempting to get ammunition registered and each round accountable to an individual, it is just a way to make it more difficult, more expensive and more likely that we will not go through the trouble that they are trying to create in order for us to keep our guns. If we can not get ammunition it doesn’t matter if we can get guns or not and I believe that is part of the process.   SMH: Do you feel that with the events that are happening if this is in fact a political move, can the industry indirectly be affected with the ancillary products to guns such as ammunition, clips, scopes etc. anything that is gun related. Can a bank pick or choose who they want to do business with?   KM: I do understand as a business owner that banks need to be able to choose who they do business with but I also feel that they should be accountable and there needs to be a sound business logic to that and if they say that there is too much risk in the firearms industry, meaning that they have a few companies (that they do business with) and they want to balance their portfolio so we want to pick and choose which companies we would like to keep. I would understand that if they would man up, say it and let the world know that this is their position on this. They shouldn’t say that it (the conversation) never happened or that it was not their policy and try to brush it under the rug. I have always maintained that they (B of A) have always looked at me as a small business with little consequence and probably if they had told me to go away, I would just go away but they have found out how significant, each individual, when it comes to second amendment rights can be and how we (as a group) have stood up for our constitutional rights.   SMH: I know of several individuals that I have spoken to that have closed their accounts at Bank of America and they have taken it a step further by canceling their Bass Pro credit card because it was issued through Bank of America. It seems that Bass Pro’s positions is that Bank of America said that this situation did not happen the way you are saying so they are taking the three monkey approach (See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Talk No Evil) . For a company like BassPro to change banks, it would be a logistical nightmare for them.   KM: I understand that but please keep in mind that through this whole thing, I have never once asked anyone to close their accounts, cut up their credit cards and change banks. I have never said that. That is an individual choice for each of us who are fighting this battle against the encroachment of our second amendment rights. Everyone has to choose for them selves how they are going to fight this. If changing banks or changing mortgage companies or changing credit cards is not something that would be easily done or to would have negative repercussions on the individual or their business – I do not expect them to do that because they need to take care of themselves. As far as BassPro is concerned, what I am most disappointed about is that they have not contacted me. No one from BassPro has called me and said Lets hear your side of the story. I honestly think that they (BassPro) looked at this situation and said that it would be a nightmare if we had to stand on the side of the second amendment rights people. So we are just going to say that it is “he said, they said” and we can not take a position. Same as the NRA has done. The NRA has said that we do not have a position in this because it is his word against theirs. I understand that. That makes sense to me.   SMH: Do you feel it is a danger, if this is indeed the case, (and this is innuendo on both our parts) for government to put political pressure on a banking institution to stop financing gun manufacturing companies and possibly negating U.S. citizens of their second amendment rights.   KM: If in fact that is what’s happening, then I think that this is far more dangerous than anyone has given credit to it. Because if there is political pressure from the administration or anybody in the national political arena and the Bank of America or any other company is succumbing to that pressure, then we do not have much of a chance in our fight against them because that holds a different weight with people. The next time that someone becomes expendable as far as a company to Bank of America and political that is created that situation, you know that Bank of America will say (sure) whatever you want because of the position that they are in as far as being indebted to the administration for keeping them in business. Small business owners and even significant business owners really do not stand a chance to fight against that. Unless they are going to try to do something covertly and we just make sure that we let everyone know what is going on.   SMH: Do you mean something like the Fast and the Furious, selling guns to Mexico when they are supposed to be taken off the street altogether.   KM: Yes, that did hit real close to home. Of course we were not involved in that. They didn’t approach us during that time because of the type of firearms that we manufacture did not seem to fit what their profile was but even that is ridiculous. I have no idea what the fore thought to that was and whose decisions those were but it is crazy. We are law abiding citizens, we follow all of the ATF rules, we actually have to deal with the state department with every gun that we sell outside of this country and we Do that because we love this business and we want to stay in it so we follow the rules and we are law abiding company. Then when you hear about stuff like this that was created and perpetrated by the government I am wondering who is in control.   SMH: Have you found a Second Amendment Friendly Bank?   KM: We have actually started doing the interviewing process. We have three interviews over the next few days and I hope to have a choice by next week. One of the situations that we have found ourselves in is now that we have a responsibility to the thousands of people that are going to be looking to see who we choose, we must be diligent in picking a second amendment friendly bank, not just tolerant ( because there are tolerant banks out there). For example, there is one of the major banks that does not allow legal concealed carry in their bank or even in their drive through and obviously, I could not choose that bank because that is not really supporting our legal rights to own and carry guns. So we have to do a good job because a lot of people are watching.   SMH: So they will tolerate it, they will not allow it (guns) in their bank, but I am sure that their security guards are carrying guns.   KM: I am sure that they are.   SMH: I really appreciate you taking the time to speak to us today. I know how much everyone wants to be kept up to speed on the progress of this situation.   KM: I will keep in touch with everyone through Facebook and our website when we do choose a new bank. Our website is www.McMillanUSA.com and our website has a link to our Facebook page. There is also a lot of information on our facebook page with regards to other people who have had similar experiences and people who have told their stories with relation to what has happened with Bank of America so if anybody is interested, they can just find us on facebook (McMillan Group International).   SMH: I have actually read quite a few stories on your facebook page and it does not seem like this is an isolated incident that is happening with you.   KM: No, it doesn’t and one of the things that has come to light is that they have done the same thing with farmers. I have heard several stories about people who have had family farms for years and years and about two or three years ago Bank of America started telling them that they will not be renewing their line of credit, which farms have to have in order to function. They (farms) can not function with out loans because of how the industry is. So when they are told that they can not have a credit line, it is real devastating to them. Asking us (McMillan) to change banks from Bank of America, we have not slowed down our production at all. It has not been a financial burden for us. Bank of America did tell us that they would give us 6 months or until September 1st (to find a new bank) so it has not been a financial Hardship for us. But those in the farming community who have had this happen to them, it was a real traumatic experience and for some of them, they never survived.   SMH: So the banking industry is actually picking and choosing the industries that are to their advantage to deal with.   KM: Apparently & for whatever reason. Well, I appreciate you calling me and giving me the chance to talk a little bit about what happened. I hope that your viewers find it enlightening. We will just have to see how this all plays out.   SMH: What does McMillan have in store for us this year as far as new product lines?   KM: We actually débuted a couple of new products at the Shot Show this year. They will probably be out by late summer. The CS-5 is a terrific new covert short barreled  mac-pack type gun for military and law enforcement. We also have a civilian version of it that has a 19 inch barrel so that you don’t have to get a tax stamp to own it.   SMH: I did not have the opportunity to stop by your booth at Shot this year but I will defently make it a point to come by and see you in January,   KM: Perfect- I look forward to it.   “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” ~ Thomas Jefferson~    
    May 18, 2012 1771
  • 15 May 2012
    Court affirms illegal immigrants can't have guns     A federal appeals court has rejected an illegal immigrant's claim that the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to bear firearms.   DENVER (AP) —A federal appeals court has rejected an illegal immigrant's claim that the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to bear firearms. Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar of Gillette, Wyo., had argued that illegal aliens are guaranteed certain other rights by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to due process. The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,'' and Huitron-Guizar argued he was part of “the people.'' But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that Huitron-Guizar fell under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which forbids gun possession by nine classes of individuals, including illegal aliens. It conceded there is some argument about the meaning of “the people'' and U.S. citizens _ but found that Congress had lawfully exercised its power to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. “That Congress saw fit to exclude illegal aliens from carrying guns may indicate its belief, entitled to our respect, that such aliens, as a class, possess no such constitutional right,'' the court said. Huitron-Guizar, 24, was born in Mexico, brought to Wyoming at the age of 3, and never obtained U.S. citizenship. In March 2011, officers served a search warrant at his home and found a rifle, a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun and a semi-automatic pistol. He entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession of firearms transported or shipped in interstate commerce. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and is to be deported thereafter. Huitron-Guizar's attorney, Ronald Pretty, said Tuesday he believed such cases involving constitutional definitions of “people'' as opposed to “citizens'' could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. The circuit court of appeals did find the Constitution did not clearly define U.S. citizenship. “We know, for instance, that the founders' notion of citizenship was less rigid than ours, largely tied to the franchise, which itself was often based on little more than a brief period of residence and being a male with some capital,'' the panel noted. ___ Online: Appeals Court Ruling: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-8051.pdf
    4070 Posted by admin
  • By admin
    Court affirms illegal immigrants can't have guns     A federal appeals court has rejected an illegal immigrant's claim that the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to bear firearms.   DENVER (AP) —A federal appeals court has rejected an illegal immigrant's claim that the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to bear firearms. Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar of Gillette, Wyo., had argued that illegal aliens are guaranteed certain other rights by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to due process. The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,'' and Huitron-Guizar argued he was part of “the people.'' But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that Huitron-Guizar fell under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which forbids gun possession by nine classes of individuals, including illegal aliens. It conceded there is some argument about the meaning of “the people'' and U.S. citizens _ but found that Congress had lawfully exercised its power to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. “That Congress saw fit to exclude illegal aliens from carrying guns may indicate its belief, entitled to our respect, that such aliens, as a class, possess no such constitutional right,'' the court said. Huitron-Guizar, 24, was born in Mexico, brought to Wyoming at the age of 3, and never obtained U.S. citizenship. In March 2011, officers served a search warrant at his home and found a rifle, a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun and a semi-automatic pistol. He entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession of firearms transported or shipped in interstate commerce. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and is to be deported thereafter. Huitron-Guizar's attorney, Ronald Pretty, said Tuesday he believed such cases involving constitutional definitions of “people'' as opposed to “citizens'' could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. The circuit court of appeals did find the Constitution did not clearly define U.S. citizenship. “We know, for instance, that the founders' notion of citizenship was less rigid than ours, largely tied to the franchise, which itself was often based on little more than a brief period of residence and being a male with some capital,'' the panel noted. ___ Online: Appeals Court Ruling: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-8051.pdf
    May 15, 2012 4070
  • 01 Apr 2012
    An interview with My Gun Culture by Mia Anstine Any of you who follow me know I have been happy and proud to mentor other women and children in the outdoors as well as shooting. Recently I was approached by Tom of My Gun Culture with a few questions about little ole me. Intro: How To Stare A Bull Elk Into Your Freezer: Our Interview [...] Read more of this post
    709 Posted by Mia Anstine
  • An interview with My Gun Culture by Mia Anstine Any of you who follow me know I have been happy and proud to mentor other women and children in the outdoors as well as shooting. Recently I was approached by Tom of My Gun Culture with a few questions about little ole me. Intro: How To Stare A Bull Elk Into Your Freezer: Our Interview [...] Read more of this post
    Apr 01, 2012 709
test