Ryan Jerome, a former Marine Corps gunner who has his license to carry in Indiana, was in New York City recently to sell some gold. Although he had checked a website before he left to ensure he was in compliance with New York law, apparently the site gave him bad information, and Jerome thought he was legally carrying his concealed firearm.

When Jerome and his girlfriend went to the Empire State Building, he saw a "no guns allowed" sign and told a ticket seller that he was armed. Instructed to go to a security office, Jerome was arrested and spent two days behind bars before he could bail himself out. If convicted of illegal gun possession, Jerome could be sentenced to 3 ½ to 15 years in prison.

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg thinks people like Ryan Jerome and Meredith Graves, the medical student recently arrested in NYC for trying to abide by a "no guns" sign, should spend years behind bars for their heinous crimes. I don't believe that's the case, and that's why the NRA has been lobbying for HR 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would have protected both Jerome and Graves from the anti-gun zealot down at City Hall if it were law. The bill passed the House of Representatives with a bipartisan vote just a few months ago, but it still faces the Senate and President Obama's veto pen.

Still, we'll keep fighting for this legislation, because the NRA is here to fight for the rights of all law-abiding Americans to exercise their right, not just to keep, but to bear arms as well. If Mayor Bloomberg wants to throw the book at Right-to-Carry holders trying to do the right thing, then we'll throw the Bill of Rights back at him.

Anti-gun organizations like the Brady Campaign are trying to claim that these numbers mean nothing, and that there aren't many new gun owners at all. Now, we may not be able to figure out what percentage of the sales are to first-time buyers, but with training courses filling up months in advance in a lot of places, and the fact that most of us know someone who's become a new gun owner in the past year or two, it's safe to say the Brady Campaign's engaging in some pretty pathetic spin.

The NRA is helping these new gun owners every day, whether it's providing the training they receive, grants to ranges across the country so they have places to shoot, sanctioning competitive matches, or fighting for their rights from Capitol Hill to state capitols across the nation. I'm glad more Americans are exercising their Second Amendment rights, but we need them to defend their rights as well by becoming NRA members. For our firearm freedoms, 2012 is going to be a crucial year and the stronger the NRA, the more secure our Right to Keep and Bear Arms will be.

Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood had high praise for Robbins, telling the local media, "The homeowner is in great shape. We're thankful he did something the criminal justice system couldn't do. He put this guy out of business this morning."

I'm thankful that Robbins is alive and well today, and I'm glad Chief Chitwood feels the same. Daytona's criminal element should know that Robbins isn't the only armed citizen in the neighborhood. As one man told WESH-TV, "They're breaking into our cars and our garages and we have to arm ourselves and this is what happens."

Burglars beware... more and more Americans are ready and willing to defend their lives and their property, and that's a very good thing.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder once again refused to come clean about "Fast and Furious" and the ATF e-mails showing that agents wanted to use the operation to provide "anecdotal evidence" about the need for more requirements on federally licensed firearms retailers. These retailers were selling guns in many cases over their own objections, because the ATF told them they were doing the right thing and promised that the guns would be interdicted before they ended up in the hands of the cartels. Instead, the ATF wanted to portray these sellers as bad guys and use the results of the whole operation as a means to push for everything from banning private sales of firearms to going after semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

When the Justice Department was frantically trying to figure out how to respond to the whistleblowers who exposed "Fast and Furious" to the public, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona at the time, Dennis Burke, tried to claim that the operation was a good one. He even tried to peddle the smear that congressional investigators were only looking into the matter because the "gun lobby" was trying to cause trouble.

This administration has repeatedly tried to portray law-abiding gun owners, gun sellers, and the NRA as the enemy, while arming the cartels and refusing to hold Mexico accountable for the corruption in its civil society that also puts guns directly in the hands of that country's criminals. Let me tell this administration something: They can stonewall and obstruct, they can lie and deceive, but we the People are going to hold them accountable for everything they've done come November of 2012.

1. Neutralize gun owners and NRA members as a political force in the upcoming national election by pretending to be pro-gun or at least not focused on pushing a gun-control agenda;

2. With gun owners neutralized, Obama will be able to win the election. After the president is re-elected, he won't have to answer to voters because he won't have to face another re-election battle;

3. Launch a full-scale, all-out assault to rip the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights through legislation, litigation, regulation, executive orders and international treaties — in short, every lever of power at the administration's disposal.

Barack Obama spent his entire political career proudly and publicly pushing for the most radical anti-gun positions you can imagine. He endorsed a total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. He opposed right-to-carry laws. He voted to ban nearly all commonly used hunting-rifle ammunition.

During the presidential primary debates, Obama even vowed to re-impose the discredited Clinton gun ban, which banned many commonly owned firearms used for hunting and self-defense.

Obama hasn't had a sudden change of heart; rather, he's making a purely political calculation by staying quiet on the gun issue until the time is right. In the meantime, he's gearing up for his second-term assault on the Second Amendment in a number of ways.

Just consider ...

• Obama loaded his administration with anti-gun zealots bent on destroying our Second Amendment freedoms.
  
• With the help of his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama made the U.S. an active partner to the U.N. gun-ban treaty. The U.N. will unveil this unmitigated attack on our sovereignty this summer and the Obama administration has vowed to implement it.
  
• Obama appointed two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court justices and continues to flood our lower courts with dozens of anti-gun, activist judges.
  
• With the help of his attorney general, Eric Holder, Obama led a campaign to demonize law-abiding gun owners, claiming our Second Amendment rights were to blame for drug violence in Mexico. And in fact, emails recently released by the Justice Department prove that operation "Fast and Furious" was a deliberate attempt to build the case for a gun-control agenda.
  
• Obama unilaterally imposed gun registration in four border states — requiring gun dealers to register the sales of any law-abiding citizen who purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within one week.

It isn't hard to see the writing on the wall. The actions that President Obama has taken so far in his presidency clearly show his disdain for the Second Amendment and hint at his plan to gut our firearm freedoms in his second term.

But the key to President Obama's strategy is keeping gun owners complacent for now.

After all, Obama knows what happened in 1994, when the politicians who voted for Clinton's gun ban were swept out of Congress. Even Clinton admitted the NRA was the reason Democrats lost their 40-year lock on control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Obama saw what happened in 2000, when Al Gore built his campaign on a platform of gun control and then watched as the NRA and gun owners derailed Gore in the battleground states of Arkansas, West Virginia and even his home state of Tennessee — costing him the White House.

Obama administration officials know that it's good politics to avoid making gun control a public issue. They hope that they can lull gun owners into a false sense of security and then play us for fools in the 2012 election. NRA members, gun owners and liberty-minded Americans should not be fooled. Next year's presidential election will be a referendum on our freedom.

Maybe the mayor really believes that, but the officers of the NYPD take an oath to the Constitution and the laws of New York, not an oath of fealty to the power-hungry occupier of City Hall. Bloomberg should also remember that a "ruler" (which is what he seems to think he is) that denies the people of their Right to Keep and Bear Arms while maintaining a large "army" is apt to be viewed as a petty tyrant, not a benevolent and wise leader.

Bloomberg seems to think that it's all about him when it comes to the idea of Right-to-Carry holders on college campuses, as well. In that same speech to MIT students, he told them that when he was in college, he and his fellow students were too "smoked up and drunk" to responsibly carry a firearm. Maybe Bloomberg didn't realize that MIT has one of the finest collegiate rifle programs in the country, as well as an intercollegiate pistol team and a campus Rifle and Pistol Club. Clearly, the mayor should spend less time pontificating about what he thinks about the world, so he could learn something from his audience.

On July 4, 1776, our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line and declared that America would be independent and free. On June 6, 1944, American troops landed at Normandy and America took a critical step toward ending history's bloodiest war. And on September 11, 2001, we witnessed the deadliest terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil.

These events, and many others, shaped our destiny and still affect our lives today.

And as I travel the country talking to fellow National Rifle Association members, gun owners, and Americans from all walks of life, it is clear to me that the next decisive date in American history will be November 6, 2012 — the day America must decide whether President Barack Obama deserves a second term in the White House.

I say this because so many Americans genuinely, and rightly, fear that something is deeply wrong in our great nation. We fear that the America we know and love is in danger of jumping the tracks and spiraling out of control. We see a President whose values and goals are, in many ways, the exact opposite of our beliefs and what generations of Americans have fought and died for.

This is why all gun owners and freedom-loving Americans must ask this question: "If Barack Obama wins a second term in office, will my freedom, and particularly my Second Amendment freedom, become more or less secure?"

And then, we must consider the facts.

Every one of President Barack Obama's big decisions — on health care, foreign policy, and the economy — has been rooted in stripping away our freedom and replacing it with increased government control over our lives. And although Obama has held off challenging gun owners and the National Rifle Association directly, he has spent his first term in office setting the stage for a massive second term assault on our gun rights.

Already, Obama has begun to stack our federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, with anti-Second Amendment judges who will advance his gun-ban agenda. If he wins reelection, Obama could have the opportunity to tip the fragile balance of the Supreme Court to an anti-gun majority that will reverse the recent Heller and McDonald decisions that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Obama has already reversed our country's strong stance against the coming United Nations gun ban treaty. The U.N. will unveil this sovereignty-killing monster next summer, and Obama's State Department has publicly declared that achieving a "legally binding Arms Trade Treaty" is a "fundamental policy commitment." The gun-ban lobby has been working toward this treaty for nearly two decades, and now, they are closer than ever to their goal of controlling civilian firearms ownership worldwide.

Barack Obama falsely accused the United States of arming Mexican drug cartels, and even blamed our Second Amendment rights for Mexican drug crime and murder. Meanwhile, it was the Obama administration that illegally facilitated the transfer of thousands of guns to violent drug cartels in Mexico. To this day, the Obama administration continues to stonewall congressional investigators and hide the details related to its deadly "Fast and Furious" scandal.

In flagrant violation of our rule of law, Obama unilaterally imposed gun registration in four border states — requiring gun dealers to register the sales of any law-abiding citizen who purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within one week.

And just one month ago, Obama's Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer, told the U.S. Senate that all Americans should be forced to register their guns. Breuer even hinted at a possible ban on many common handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns, claiming: "Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people really need to have semiautomatic weapons or long guns."

There can be no question that the Second Amendment, as we know it, may cease to exist should Barack Obama win a second term in office.

This is why I'm asking every NRA member, every gun owner, and every patriotic American to view next year's election through the lens of freedom. If we fail to draw a line in the sand and defend the future of our Second Amendment rights, then we will lose the one freedom that gives common men and women uncommon power to protect all freedoms. And then, it's only a matter of time before every freedom in our Bill of Rights is scaled back, diluted or even destroyed.

In Houston recently, a customer at a Denny's thwarted an armed robbery with the help of his legally concealed firearm. In Memphis, a cancer patient receiving chemotherapy could still fend off a home invader because he had a gun. In Philadelphia, a man robbed just weeks earlier shot and killed two of the four home invaders who had targeted his home again.

You never know when or where a violent criminal will decide to make you their next target. It can happen in the best neighborhoods or at your local breakfast hangout, in the dark of night or in broad daylight. But the bad guys should beware, because more and more Americans are refusing to be victims these days.

Our work protecting the right to not just keep, but to bear arms in self-defense, is going to continue from California to Washington, D.C. and every state in between in the next legislative session. From the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act to "shall issue" legislation in Illinois, we're going to be pushing for laws that will ensure even more armed citizen success stories around the country.

Now the bill moves to the Senate, and it's imperative that NRA members contact their senators and urge them to support the bill. It's a simple measure that doesn't change state laws or create any sort of database of gun owners or concealed carry holders. It will allow law-abiding Americans to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense across the 49 states that have Right-to-Carry laws on the books.

Thanks to all the NRA members who called their representatives and urged them to support HR 822. It's your voice that keeps us strong, and we need your support more than ever. We are entering a crucial period, because the next election will help shape this country and our rights for decades to come. The NRA has been fighting on the front lines of freedom for decades now, but we've never been in a fight like this one. Renew your membership, upgrade, and buy memberships as presents this Christmas. Let's send millions of people with NRA membership cards to the polls one year from now, proudly voting for freedom first.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice, for instance, has promulgated rules that require a minimum of four hours of training time before a license can be issued. The National Rifle Association is the nation's leading firearms training organization, but we believe that this training shouldn't be required before exercising a constitutional right. The vast majority of those receiving their licenses are going to seek out that training voluntarily, but imagine telling a woman who has been targeted by a stalker that until she goes through a mandated course, she' going to be helpless against the predator who's threatening her. That mentality places bureaucracy before saving lives, and we'll be working with the legislature to ensure that the requirements for receiving a license are fair to all.

In the meantime, Wisconsin residents not only have a Right to Carry law on the books that mandates licenses are given to those who meet the statutory requirements, but they can leave their lawfully owned firearms locked in their car while at work without fear of being fired, thanks to a "parking lot" provision in the new law. There are several other components of the law that make it one of the strongest in the nation, and I'd encourage all Wisconsin gun owners to read the law on their own in order to understand its provisions.

Congratulations to Wisconsin for becoming the 49th state with some form of carry laws on the books. And to those Illinois residents reading this ... we haven't forgotten your plight. We're going to keep working hard to ensure that your Right to Carry becomes a reality as well.

Today it's a very different story. In fact, Gallup says opposition to a ban on handguns has never been higher. Of those surveyed by Gallup for its annual "Crime Poll," 73 percent rejected the idea of a handgun ban, and only 26 percent supported such a measure. Support for other gun control measures are also at all-time lows, and Gallup reports that 45 percent of those polled report owning a gun or living in a home with a gun owner as well.

We've achieved an historic level of success over the past two decades, in both the political and the cultural arenas, but it could all be undone by nine individuals if President Barack Obama wins a second term. We know that over the next four years, it's likely that there will be new openings on the Supreme Court, and Barack Obama will pack that court with anti-gun stalwarts who could rule against your rights for decades to come.

And it won't just be the Supreme Court. Four more years of Barack Obama means four more years of appointments to the federal bench, at both the District and Court of Appeals levels. It means four years of your government arguing in court against your rights, not arguing to protect them, and four more years of an executive who tries to bypass Congress at every turn in order to impose his vision on America.

It would be an American tragedy to let that happen. We've come too far to have our rights taken from us. I know Election Day is more than a year away, but we're already working hard to ensure that in November of 2012, millions of Americans will head to the polls to vote to ensure their freedom, not vote to throw it away.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is now coming out against the millions of Americans who are legally exercising their Right to Carry. The group is advocating against HR 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, which has nearly 250 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives. This simple bill would provide a framework of national reciprocity so Right to Carry holders could exercise their Second Amendment rights no matter where they are.

Bloomberg and his cronies, however, call this legislation "dangerous," and claim that a national reciprocity standard "undermines public safety." Let me tell Mayor Bloomberg what undermines public safety even more: depriving Americans of their fundamental right to self-defense.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns says that, "When it comes to public safety, Congress has no business telling states, cities and police how to do their jobs." It's bizarre to see Mayor Bloomberg make virtually the same argument that Bull Connor used to enforce segregation laws in Birmingham 50 years ago. And just like Connor, Bloomberg's argument is undone by the Constitution. Congress, through the 14th Amendment, has not only the power but the duty to ensure that rights are not being violated by local or state governments. And as scholar Dave Kopel pointed out in his testimony to Congress, H.R. 822 is "consistent with the letter and the spirit of the 10th Amendment, and of principles of federalism. The very reason that the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution by the People was to adjust the state/federal balance, granting Congress the direct power to act against state infringements of important federal rights, such as the right to bear arms and the right to travel."

After their latest shameful attack on the individual liberties of law-abiding Americans, it's clear that "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" isn't an honest name. "Mayors Against Your Rights," on the other hand, suits them perfectly. If your mayors belong to this dishonest organization, you need to ask why they've decided that they should be the ones to determine if you get to exercise your fundamental right to self-defense.

The administration complains that the investigation into "Fast and Furious" is nothing more than a political witch hunt. If that were true, the administration would have come clean long before now. We've watched for months as the Justice Department and the White House have delayed, denied, and generally stalled the House Oversight committee's investigation. It's long past time for them to come clean. It's time to answer the questions, Mr. Holder. No more running away like you did at a recent press conference. The American people demand the truth about this disastrous plan to arm Mexican drug cartels, a plan that led to the deaths of hundreds in Mexico and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

And just like I predicted, these pundits have called me "crazy," "extremist," and other insults while ignoring the facts surrounding Obama's record and rhetoric on firearms. I've known Chris Matthews for years, and I've been on his program many times. Rather than invite me on to talk about Obama's real record this time, Matthews chose to pick out a couple of soundbites from my speech. Why? Maybe so he could avoid the words "Fast and Furious scandal" being uttered on MSNBC's broadcasts.

Jon Stewart's actually joked about Operation Fast and Furious before, but that didn't stop him from taking some shots at the "crazy" idea that a presidential candidate wants to avoid advancing a gun control agenda until he doesn't have to worry about elections any longer. If Stewart honestly presented his audience with all the information out there, I don't think they'd be laughing. But Stewart's a comedian, not a journalist. He doesn't owe his audience anything other than punchlines... not the truth.

The truth is uncomfortable for people like Matthews and Stewart. It's easier to ridicule me than it is to address the substance of my arguments. That's why I expect we'll be hearing more chuckles from the peanut gallery between now and Election Day. But on that day when we head to the polls, we're going to drown out their jeers with the sounds of millions of NRA members speaking as one. We will save this country by standing up for our freedom in every state from sea to shining sea.

Rassmussen says 39 percent of those likely voters considered that a positive description. Compare that to the 22 percent who considered the description "pro-union" to be a positive attribute. Polls like this demonstrate why Barack Obama can't run for re-election as the anti-gun politician that he really is. Going back to Al Gore in 2000, candidates who hate your Second Amendment rights realize they have to hide their intentions and offer meaningless gestures of support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Obama understands that he can't get re-elected if every American voter knows the truth about his plans for a second term. And that's why between now and Election Day we're going to make sure that the truth gets spread far and wide.

A second term for Obama means an anti-gun Supreme Court for decades to come. A second term for Obama would bring an attempt to ban commonly owned firearms, and support for a U.N. treaty designed to restrict your gun rights on a global basis. Obama may be keeping his powder dry for now, but I have no doubts that four more years of Barack Obama would mean vicious attacks on our individual rights.

Voters respect pro-gun candidates, and American gun owners deserve a candidate who truly believes in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and who will work to secure and strengthen that right ... not destroy it.

This is the biggest cover-up since Watergate and it's time to ask the Watergate question: Who authorized Fast and Furious and how high up does it go? Every Member of Congress who cares about truth and justice should stand up and demand the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor.

I'll say this. I believe Operation Fast and Furious is just one part of Barack Obama's agenda to attack gun owners and our Second Amendment rights. Between now and Election Day, I'll be laying out the cold, hard truths about his plans for your guns.

Speaking in Harlem over the weekend, Governor Cuomo said it currently costs $200,000 a year to house a juvenile offender. So he told a crowd, "We're going to take that money and provide it in community-based services so the problem doesn't happen in the first place." What would happen to the violent offenders currently behind bars if the number of prison beds drops? Cuomo doesn't say, but it's likely many would end up back on the streets before their sentences were served.

And while Cuomo is willing to spend money trying to prevent crime, rather than punishing offenders, he wants to ensure that law-abiding citizens have a tough time exercising their right to self-defense. He also told the crowd, "It has been decades where we have been fighting Washington for sensible laws controlling guns and we need those laws passed and we need them passed now. We're losing too many people out in the streets."

Of course, what he didn't say is that violent crime in this country has been decreasing, while the number of armed citizens who are legally exercising their right to carry has been increasing. Instead of pushing for more laws for the law-abiding, and fewer spaces in prison for the law-breakers, Governor Cuomo should be pushing for legislation that will allow the good people in New York State, in places like Harlem and Hempstead, to protect themselves with a gun. Instead, if he gets his way, New York's going to be a much more dangerous place.

Enough is enough. It's time for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate the ever-growing Fast and Furious scandal, because we know the Obama administration isn't going to tell us the truth. Since the beginning, the President and his Attorney General have told the American people that they want an honest accounting of what happened with Fast and Furious, but that hasn't happened. In fact, the administration has tried to stymie Rep. Darrell Issa and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee from the beginning of their investigation. Senator Charles Grassley says his efforts with the Senate Judiciary committee have been obstructed by the administration.

That obstruction has to stop. We need answers. Answers about what happened in Phoenix, Houston, Florida, Indiana, and God knows where else our government may have put guns in the hands of criminals.

If that doesn't sound like punishment, you're right. So far the Obama administration hasn't disciplined a single person connected to Fast and Furious, and it doesn't look like they have any plans to do so. According to The Washington Post, the latest moves are expected to be the last personnel changes connected to the Fast and Furious scandal. That means the Obama administration is hoping to put this quickly, and quietly, to rest.

Well, we're not going to be quiet about this. When those who allowed Fast and Furious to proceed are praised, when lateral movements and promotions are handed out to mid-management, and when the stonewalling continues at the top of the Department of Justice, we can't afford to be silent. The House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, is going to continue hearings into the scandal, and none of the members of that body should be satisfied with the actions of the Obama administration.

In fact, I think some questions should be asked about the interim ATF head, B. Todd Jones. Jones was apparently briefed on ATF's firearms trafficking investigations in October of 2009, right around the time Operation Fast and Furious was getting under way. Was he aware of the fact that his agency was allowing firearms to end up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels?

The Obama administration clearly wants this scandal to go away. The American people deserve answers, and it's long past time the president and the attorney general come clean about this dirty operation.

What if these weren't promotions, but instead an attempt to protect the BATFE and the Department of Justice by bringing these agents under the direct umbrella of their superiors at Headquarters? We've already seen attempts by Justice officials to launch a campaign of anonymous leaks designed to pressure BATFE Acting Director Ken Melson to resign. And Rep. Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley have warned the Justice Department about trying to tell agents not to cooperate with the congressional investigations into Fast and Furious.

Either way, it's another sign that Attorney General Eric Holder continues to play games with investigators and the public when it comes to Fast and Furious. All the more reason for Congress to continue hearings into the scandal when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. in September.

That's what Titus County, Texas, Sheriff Tim Ingram told the Daily Tribune newspaper after three would-be burglars were met by an armed citizen inside a business north of Mount Pleasant, Texas. The burglars were armed, as well, and fired a shotgun at the caretaker. He returned fire with his own pistol, wounding one of the attackers. Two accomplices fled the scene, but all suspects were quickly arrested by the Sheriff's Office, and that let Sheriff Ingram expound on the right to self-defense.

"One of the things I love about living in Texas is the Texas Castle Law," he told reporters. The sheriff also added, "I can guarantee you that if someone breaks into my house, I'm going to shoot him."

If only every police chief and sheriff let would-be criminals know what was in store for them. Bad guys beware in Titus County, Texas. This is one lawman who's on the side of the law-abiding and their right of self-defense.

A year later, crime in establishments that serve alcohol has dropped, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. But even cold, hard facts aren't enough to get some people to admit they were wrong. The newspaper quotes State Senator Donald McEachin, who opposed the legislation from the beginning. He said, "I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that just like drinking and driving doesn't mix, guns and drinking don't mix."

Of course, Senator McEachin didn't mention the fact that those legally carrying concealed cannot drink. And if McEachin really believes that comparison is valid, why on earth hasn't he proposed legislation banning cars from parking outside of places that serve alcohol?

This is the kind of crackpot thinking that passes for serious debate from anti-gun activists and politicians. And it's another reason why it's so important the NRA remains strong. We're going to be working coast to coast in the months ahead to strengthen and secure our Second Amendment rights, and I challenge every NRA member to get involved. Let's make sure that truth and reason prevail over the ignorance of the anti-gun crowd.

It's a good question. Some firearm retailers in the Lone Star State say they too were told by ATF officials to let suspicious sales proceed, despite the protests of the gun store owners. And some of those firearms have turned up at crime scenes in Mexico, even though the ATF assured the gun store owners that the straw purchases were being monitored by law enforcement. We also now know that Operation Fast and Furious began after Eric Holder's Justice Department told ATF officials all along the border that they needed to be more aggressive in going after higher-ups in the Mexican drug cartels. It's reasonable to wonder if there were other operations like Fast and Furious that let guns end up in the hands of criminals.

I'm not sure, however, that we can trust any answer given to Senator Cornyn by the Justice Department or Eric Holder. They've dragged their feet and obstructed the members of Congress investigating Operation Fast and Furious, and it's clear that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to lay the blame for the scandal at the feet of law-abiding American gun owners and firearm retailers. Attorney General Eric Holder needs to cooperate will ALL of Congress' questions and step down. Either way, the lying and the obstruction needs to stop.

Yep, a form. Obama wants lawful firearms dealers to fill out a form whenever someone purchases more than one long gun.

That must be some form! The administration claims it will help stop cartels from bringing drugs and mayhem to our country. Really?

Can this form also leap tall buildings in a single bound? President Obama must be kidding.

The cartels run a $40 billion enterprise. They flood our neighborhoods with drugs. They rape and torture and murder. They feed their enemies to lions.

The cartels get their machine guns, grenades, missile launchers and tanks from Russia, China and South America. State Department cables, released by WikiLeaks, prove it. But the administration wants the public to believe that it's going to disarm cartels with a form? Who is the president kidding?

Right now, the administration is embroiled in congressional investigations over its rogue gunrunning operation. Apparently, the Department of Justice spent millions of taxpayer dollars to fund operations for thousands of illegal guns to cross the border and fall into the hands of violent Mexican drug gangs. Now, the president wants to fight those gangs with a form. He hasn't called for prosecuting anyone — just fill out the form.

The president might think he's tough on crime. But according to Syracuse University, federal prosecutions of gun crimes have dropped to their lowest level since 2000.

When it comes to violent crime, NRA's 4 million members and America's 90 million gun owners stand for what works — strong interdiction, swift arrest, tough prosecution and certain incarceration to remove violent criminals from our society.

If President Obama truly wanted to crack down on violent gangs, he'd order his attorney general to increase — not decrease — federal prosecutions. He should direct his U.S. attorneys to prosecute every single violent criminal caught with a gun.

That's what works.

Anything less is just bad form.

The Washington Post, for example, which has largely ignored the scandal, ran a front page story recently, but made sure to quote anonymous Obama administration officials who praised the gunrunning strategy and claimed it was "unfair" for Congress to investigate. And the newspaper's recent editorial quoted an ATF agent who believes that we need more gun laws, but ignored Congressional testimony of other agents who said all the gun laws we need are already on the books.

The Post also continues to report on the scandal as if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was the only agency involved in Operation Fast and Furious. Instead, we now know that DEA, ICE, FBI and even the IRS had knowledge of the program. High-ranking officials at the Justice Department were aware of the program, and ATF official Bill Newell testified before the House Oversight Committee that he had also talked with a National Security Council staffer about the operation.

Thankfully, there's at least one media outlet where you can get the truth about Operation Fast and Furious: NRANews.com. From interviews with members of Congress and newsmakers to the most complete coverage of the House Oversight Committee hearings anywhere, NRANews.com is shining a light on the biggest scandal of the Obama administration, even while the media elites carry the administration's water.

I've seen this same attitude on display, most recently during my trip to the United Nations. As hard as it is to believe, given the painful lessons of history, there are still educated people who believe that evil can be vanquished, but only if good people are disarmed. This view of history requires the philosopher to ignore the countless slaughters of innocents by armed thugs and tyrants, from the killing fields of Cambodia to the mass graves of Rwanda (to name just a couple of history's more recent examples). In addition to that historical ignorance, those advocating for civilian disarmament must also somehow convince themselves that it's possible for arms to be kept only by "properly constituted, trained and controlled agencies of governments." Grayling even claims that only governments that "are themselves properly constituted and controlled by democratic means" should be allowed to possess arms. How non-democratic governments (like the Assad regime in Syria, for instance) would be disarmed is not mentioned by Grayling. Like so many philosophers, Grayling would rather imagine a world of his own creation rather than live in the real world.

In that sense, Grayling is the intellectual descendent of another highly esteemed British thinker. Bertrand Russell advocated England's disarmament, even while Nazi Germany was rapidly increasing its land, air, and sea power in the 1930s. It was a popular idea, so popular in fact that in 1935, Labor Party head Clement Atlee declared, "Our policy is not one of seeking security through rearmament, but through disarmament." Four years later, England was at war with Germany, and the British people had learned a painful lesson: Evil cannot be defeated by disarming the good. That lesson is lost on Grayling and, sadly, many others today.

The FBI isn't commenting, but ATF agent John Dodson, who was the first whistleblower to speak out publicly about Fast and Furious, told Fox News that when the National Instant Check System turned up a prohibited buyer, NICS officials would contact ATF, who would typically allow the purchase to go forward.

If this is true, it's just another piece of evidence that the Obama administration was more interested in using Fast and Furious to push for more gun control rather than going after lawbreakers. Expect the House Oversight Committee to push for answers as they continue hearings on Fast and Furious ... but don't expect the Obama administration to be too forthcoming.

According to the congressman, Fast and Furious was an operation run not by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, but by the Justice Department. Both Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley have asked for documents and emails from 12 current and former DoJ officials relating to Fast and Furious. Among those believed to be involved are Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who was just confirmed to his post in late June, and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, the head of the Criminal Division at Justice.

While most of the media elites would prefer that this story go away, congressional investigators keep digging and turning up more and more evidence of wrongdoing. The inquiry must continue until we have the unvarnished truth about who planned, ordered and executed this disastrous operation.

Congress, in the Gun Control Act of 1968, mandated the reporting of multiple sales of handguns by our nation's firearms retailers. But the Act says nothing about this new reporting requirement the Obama administration wants to impose. The new regulation is nothing more than an attempt to assert executive power where none exists. Even from a practical perspective, the new regulation simply imposes a new paperwork burden on legal gun sellers, while doing nothing to crack down on lawbreakers. It certainly won't do anything to stop the Mexican drug cartels which are daily being discovered with grenades, machine guns, and other military items not purchased in the United States.

Perversely, defenders of the Obama administration are claiming that the scandalous operation known as Fast and Furious proves the need for these new gun regulations. They're actually arguing that because the Department of Justice allowed existing gun laws to be broken, the answer is another gun law! In the course of the investigation into Fast and Furious, we've learned that many firearms retailers were reluctant to make sales in the first place, but ATF pressured them into selling firearms to suspected gun traffickers. Now, instead of cleaning up the mess, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder want to once again try to scapegoat our gun store owners.

The NRA will stand firmly behind our nation's firearms retailers, because we know the truth. And if the Obama administration ever really wants to get serious about going after the cartels, they'll start increasing their prosecutions of criminals instead of targeting America's law-abiding gun owners and sellers. We're prepared to file suit against the Obama administration for these new regulations, and we'll do the same with any other unconstitutional regulation the administration tries to enact.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern.

We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen — not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." But, proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed — with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

There is only one solution: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any treaty. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation — civilian firearms must not be part of any treaty. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

The proposals include endless demands for record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers.

Nowhere do we find any thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

The proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate — the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority.

There is extremely strong opposition to this treaty in the United States — all based on the same objection — infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to defeat any treaty that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

I meant every last word of what I said. We will fight with all of our might to protect the 2nd Amendment from any U.N. treaty that tries to attack it, and I'll keep you informed of any new developments from the anti-gunners at the United Nations.

For instance, our lawsuit challenges provisions in Chicago's gun ordinances that prohibit licensed gun owners from keeping more than one operable firearm in their home. Our lawsuit also challenges the prohibition on self-defense outside of the narrow definition of a gun owner's "home," which forbids using a gun for self-defense in places such as a garage.

Emanuel appears to be following the same twisted path as former mayor Richard Daley in choosing to pass laws that won't stand up to judicial scrutiny. It's sad to see these politicians attempt to deny as many residents as possible their constitutional rights, but the NRA will continue fighting for them in court or until Mayor Emanuel and the Chicago aldermen finally see the light.

Groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center are more than happy to help the Obama administration and its liberal allies on the Hill deflect attention from the scandal. They've been pushing these tired gun-control bills for more than a decade in some cases, so why not try to use the scandal to their advantage? After all, wasn't it former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "Never let a crisis go to waste"?

No gun control law in the world could have prevented Fast and Furious, because the government allowed existing laws to be broken. Rather than search for answers, the anti-gunners want to cling to distractions, in the pathetic hope that they can keep Americans from learning the truth about the Obama administration's shameful practices.

Now the editorial board has come to the conclusion that the real villain in Fast and Furious isn't ATF, nor the individuals who authorized allowing firearms to end up in the hands of criminals. No, the paper says that the NRA is really to blame.

Their claim is that the NRA has somehow magically weakened the ATF to the point that the agency had no choice but to engage in a program that allowed U.S. gun laws to be broken, and allowed firearms to be shipped to criminals north and south of the U.S./Mexico border. The Post's answer to this is to urge Congress to give the ATF more power, more money and more authority.

This ridiculous narrative is being pushed by media elites desperate to see their chosen candidate remain untainted by scandal. If that means they have to try and blame the law-abiding gun owners for the lawless actions of government officials, they'll do it. Even at the expense of their own credibility.

One of the reporters for the Post story is Sari Horwitz, just back from a suspension that lasted several months after she was caught plagiarizing material. Maybe her journalistic chops are a little rusty, because I can't figure out why she would quote anonymous sources to allege that Issa was briefed on "all the things [he] has been screaming about" without asking one simple question: Did the briefing discuss the fact that the ATF was letting guns end up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels? The anonymous source doesn't say, and Horwitz apparently didn't ask. But the spokesman for the House Oversight Committee, Frederick Hill, told the Post in no uncertain terms that these anonymous figures are, "incredulously trying to assert that Obama administration political appointees at the Justice Department were ignorant — yet Congress was in the know on the details of Operation Fast and Furious.''

That's how desperately the Obama administration is spinning Fast and Furious these days. It's become abundantly clear that an internal Justice Department investigation isn't likely to uncover the truth about the operation. The House Oversight Committee hearings must continue, because the American people deserve to know the truth.

But with the state Assembly's recent bipartisan vote in favor of the legislation, a Right to Carry bill is finally on its way to a governor who says he supports the measure. Governor Scott Walker is expected to sign Senate Bill 93, and Right to Carry should become law in Wisconsin sometime this fall.

This victory wouldn't have been possible without the efforts of legislators such as Senators Pam Galloway, Rich Zipperer and Neal Kedzie, as well as Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder and Representative Jeffrey Mursau. And without the tireless work and dedication of NRA members throughout the state of Wisconsin, I have no doubt that we'd still be working to try and pass a Right to Carry bill in the state.

Our efforts to enact Right to Carry laws won't stop with Governor Walker's signature. The state of Illinois has an outright ban on carrying firearms, and it's clear that the state needs to join the 21st century and pass a reasonable Right to Carry law sooner rather than later. "May issue" states also need to update their laws to ensure that their residents can exercise their Right to Carry, and we'll keep working to make that happen until residents in all 50 states see their rights secured.

ATF Agent John Dodson said in his testimony, "This was not a matter of some weapons getting away from us, or allowing a few to walk so as to follow them to a much larger or more significant target. Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals — this was the plan. It was so mandated." Other agents testified that they were told time and again to ignore guns going across the border, with nothing other than occasional attempts at surveillance, but never were they allowed to interdict the guns before they crossed over the U.S./Mexican border.

Justice Department representative Ronald Weich couldn't answer the simplest question posed to him by Committee Chairman Darrell Issa: "Who in Washington authorized the program?" Instead, Weich responded that an internal investigation is under way, and that more information would be forthcoming.

Issa wasn't satisfied with that answer, and pointedly told Weich that if he couldn't provide the information, then the Oversight Committee would be forced to bring in officials who could. While no dates for further hearings have been officially set, it's clear that there are some very important questions left to be answered.

It's time for the Justice Department to come clean on Operation Fast and Furious and reveal what it knows. Who thought up the plan? How high up did knowledge of this program go? And if the Justice Department won't provide answers, then the Washington press corps should push President Obama to compel Attorney General Eric Holder to answer these basic questions. Enough is enough. President Obama promised his administration would be the most transparent in history. It's time for him to prove it.

A press release by Senator Dianne Feinstein actually states, "70 percent of weapons recovered in Mexico originated in U.S. according to ATF", which is undeniably false. In a report released by Senators Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Sheldon Whitehouse, we learn that the 70 percent figure is actually based on firearms submitted for tracing by Mexican authorities, not the total number of firearms seized in Mexico.

The difference between the number of guns submitted for tracing and the number of guns recovered is huge. ATF says that 29,284 guns were submitted for tracing by Mexico in 2009 and 2010. But the El Universal newspaper in Mexico reported back on May 21 that in those two years, firearm seizures by the Mexican government climbed to more than 129,000, with 83,000 firearms recovered in Mexico in 2010 alone.

If those numbers are remotely accurate, then the total number of firearms recovered that were traced back to the United States isn't 70 percent, but closer to 16 percent. We saw this same statistical sleight of hand back in 2009, when U.S. and Mexico officials claimed that nearly 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico could be traced back to the U.S. In reality, the percentage was closer to 18 percent, according to an analysis by William La Jeunesse & Maxim Lott.

Part of the problem is the unreliability of figures provided by the Mexican government. For instance, a 2009 report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office states that, according to Mexico's attorney general, nearly 30,000 firearms were recovered in Mexico in 2008. But the website for Mexico's Secretariat of National Defense states that in 2008, 14,948 firearms were recovered in the country. Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the United States, even claimed in 2009 that his country was seizing 2,000 guns a day from the U.S., or 730,000 guns a year.

It seems like these figures are thrown around for purely political purposes. When confronted with the fact that their statistics don't add up, the politicians who spouted off typically respond by suggesting that the real numbers aren't important. Instead, they say, we should just take it as a matter of faith that U.S. guns are the problem in Mexico.

Well, I don't believe it. You know who's responsible for the drug cartel violence in Mexico? The individuals who are a part of the various cartels in Mexico. It's they who are engaged in the wanton killings, torture and brutality affecting Mexican society.

President Felipe Calderon has already seized on the new figures as he once again attacks firearms manufacturers in the United States. At a recent speech in San Jose, California, the Mexican politician made the outrageous claim that U.S. gun makers are responsible for "the deaths of thousands of people that are occurring in Mexico. It is for profit, for the profits that it makes for the weapons industry."

The sad reality is that Calderon is coming under increasing pressure in Mexico to give up his fight against the cartels and is casting about for a convenient scapegoat. Instead of blaming the U.S. and our gun laws, Calderon should listen to Ramon Almonte, the chief of police in the Mexican state of Guerrero. Almonte believes that one way to defeat the cartels is to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms for their protection. Shortly after cartel members killed seven people in the resort town of Acapulco, Almonte said, "Having a weapon should be a right, because the bad guys are few and we, the good guys, are many, so we can't allow ourselves to be held hostage by the few." Almonte's got the right idea. If only more politicians, both in Mexico and the United States, would listen.

Several years ago, another "special rapporteur" named Barbara Frey penned another report for the United Nations. This report didn't just call for the creation of a new right. It also called for the disappearance of one our oldest rights: the right of self-defense.

According to Ms. Frey's report, self-defense isn't a right at all. It's just a legal theory that nations can choose to acknowledge or allow in their court systems. If they don't recognize the "legal theory" of self-defense, Ms. Frey believes, there's no harm done. People who defend themselves against criminals could be locked away for their actions, but according to Barbara Frey, that wouldn't be a violation of their human rights.

Even worse, Frey's report made the bizarre claim that nations which fail to implement the most draconian of gun-control laws are actually violating the human rights of their citizens. In her mind, countries should require licenses to own firearms and be able to deny gun ownership for almost any reason.

To the U.N., there's no individual right to gun ownership, but there's some sort of collective right to gun control and the Internet. In their world, access to Facebook is more important than access to a firearm, and tyranny can always be defeated with nothing more than a Twitter feed. As both recent and past history have shown us, despots won't always be brought down by social networks, and access to an Internet connection won't ensure freedom. As Noah Webster once said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." The Founders didn't need Twitter or Facebook to win this nation's independence, but they couldn't have done without the musket and the long rifle.

Yes, these groups actually want to give MORE power to an agency accused of letting guns "walk" across the border into Mexico. The unseriousness of their position is absurd, given the gravity of the situation in Mexico.

The cartels exist in a hyper-violent world that would seem downright barbaric to most of us. Recent news stories have documented items seized by Mexican authorities, including a "narco tank," anti-tank missiles, grenades and fully automatic machine guns likely funneled through Mexico's southern border. If by some horrible turn of events our government enacted a ban on semi-automatic firearms tomorrow, the drug cartels firepower would continue unabated.

These groups overlook recent news stories highlighting the corruption within the Mexican law enforcement system, which actually allows local law enforcement in Mexico to funnel guns directly to the various cartels. There is evidence that the cartel corruption reaches far into the federal government in Mexico, with allegations leveled against one of President Calderon's security staff.

It seems to me that before these groups start trying to change the gun laws in the United States, they could clean up the corruption in Mexico that allows the cartels to inflict so much evil on the people of Mexico. In the process, maybe they could reform Mexico's gun laws, which have done nothing to prevent the cartels from arming themselves with military helicopters and grenades, but prevent most honest citizens from ever legally owning so much as a 1911.

The gun owner was at a self-service car wash in northeast Colorado Springs when he was approached by a man with a knife. According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, the knife-wielding robber got the surprise of his life when his would-be victim pulled out a gun instead of his wallet. Surprised, the bad guy turned and ran, and the gun owner called police to report the attempted robbery.

According to criminologist Gary Kleck, defensive gun uses like this likely happen millions of times every year. Sadly, there are still too many places in this country where good people still can't defend themselves with a gun. We're working to change that through a variety of means including challenging in court the concealed-carry policies in California and the ban on legally carrying a firearm in Illinois, while continuing to push for a Right-to-Carry law in Wisconsin's legislature. Every law-abiding American has the right not just to keep, but to bear arms as well.

Hoven, acting in defense of himself and his fellow employees, drew his firearm and shot at one of the armed robbers, causing both to flee. He received the thanks of his co-workers and the praise of local police, but eight days after the incident, Hoven was fired by Walgreens.

In a statement, the company says, "Compliance is safer than confrontation." In reality, compliance with these armed robbers could have led to a tragedy. News stories where pharmacists have been killed by robbers aren't hard to find. Many of these robberies seem to be conducted by individuals seeking narcotics, and companies like Walgreens that have mandatory compliance policies force employees to place their lives in the hands of strung out and violent drug addicts.

Hoven says he wants to continue working as a pharmacist, though it won't be for Walgreens. Here's hoping that Hoven finds another job soon, at a location that won't prevent him from acting in defense of self and others if need be.

The quick-thinking homeowner told the intruder that she had money in a dresser drawer, but pulled out her .22-caliber pistol instead. She fired until the intruder fled, collapsing in her front yard before being taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Police in Gwinnett County, Ga., say the suspect, Israel Puentes, may have been responsible for other crimes in the area and was likely stalking his intended victim for days.

Gun control advocates believe that every firearm owner should be required by law to have their guns locked away, where they are useless in self-defense. Of course, if this woman had followed the advice of the gun ban lobby, she'd likely be dead instead of her armed attacker.

I'm glad this woman had a firearm to protect herself, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few of her neighbors decide that the time has come for them to learn how to be a responsible gun owner too.

The tallest tale of all might have been President Obama's talk of forging a new relationship with Mexico, given the fact that the BATFE "Fast and Furious" operation has led to the departure of our ambassador to Mexico, and some Mexican lawmakers have said that U.S. officials involved in the operation should face charges in Mexico. Obama didn't bring up "Operation Fast and Furious" in his border remarks, but he did say that seizures of weapons are up. He neglected to mention, as Katie Pavlich of Townhall.com put it, "When the federal government sends thousands of guns into Mexico in the first place ... of course it becomes easier to confiscate more guns."

The president also made an odd statement that, "Despite a lot of breathless reports that have tagged places like El Paso as dangerous, violent crime in southwest border counties has dropped by a third. El Paso and other cities and towns along the border are consistently rated among the safest in the nation."

I don't know who in the media has claimed El Paso's a dangerous place, but I'm glad the president recognizes that El Paso is one of the safest cities in the United States. Located right across the Rio Grande from Juarez, which is one of the most violent cities in Mexico, El Paso and its sister city are proof that more restrictive gun laws do not make for safer societies. If that were the case, you'd have Texans streaming across the border for the safety of "gun free" Mexico.

When we meet again next year, we'll gather in St. Louis, Mo. The meetings will take place in the thick of the 2012 presidential race, and while we don't know who all the candidates will be, we do know this: If Barack Obama is re-elected to a second term, there is an overwhelming chance that he could reshape our Supreme Court in ways devastating to our Second Amendment rights.

The media will say this isn't an issue. The Washington Post is already claiming that we're trying to "keep gun issues in presidential politics," as if they wouldn't be important to millions of Americans without me giving a speech. It's nonsense. The issues important to gun owners sweep across the political landscape, from support or opposition to specific pieces of legislation, to economic policies that could grow or cripple the small businesses that help drive the firearms industry, conservation and wildlife issues, the criminal justice system and more. And underlying all of it is a simple figure: 5-4.

That was the Supreme Court vote in the Heller case, which recognized the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And it was the margin in the McDonald case, which recognized that it's a fundamental right that can't be stripped by any government entity. But that 5-4 majority could be wiped out, and with it the gains we've made, by anti-gun appointments to the Supreme Court. And President Barack Obama has already demonstrated with the selections of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan that he has no intention of nominating a candidate who believes in our individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Washington Post's editors might think they can set the agenda for the 2012 presidential election, but gun owners know the truth ... and the score. 5-4 is too close for comfort, and the only way that number changes for the better is if we're able to get a president who respects the Constitution and our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Holder said he only learned about the program that allegedly allowed suspected firearms traffickers to buy guns in the U.S. and then "walk" them across the border into the hands of Mexican drug cartel members a few weeks ago. If that's true, then it's a shocking lack of oversight for the attorney general. As I said at the NRA Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh, "If Holder didn't know, then Holder has to go."

Not only did Holder claim he was in the dark about "Fast and Furious," he still couldn't tell Rep. Darrell Issa who in the Justice Department authorized the investigation. Holder also complained about the "great deal of publicity" the story has received. While CBS News has done exceptional work on reporting the story, and several online journalists (including our own NRANews team) have pursued the story as well, major media outlets like NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, The Washington Post, and The New York Times have largely ignored the story. If Holder's unhappy with the attention the story's received so far, I hope one day he's miserable over the amount of coverage.

After all, we've seen the resignation of the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, the acting head of BATFE defy a Congressional subpoena, and a State Department employee insist that the "Fast and Furious" operation was continuing as recently as March, despite the allegations that thousands of firearms ended up in the hands of the drug cartels, and the deaths of two Border Patrol agents allegedly involved firearms sold under BATFE direction.

This won't be the last time Eric Holder will have to testify before Congress about "Fast and Furious." I don't expect his answers to change much. That's why Congressional investigations must continue, and I'll say it again: Eric Holder must resign.

His work on behalf of gun owners everywhere included 12 years on the NRA Board of Directors, and just last year he was elected to the NRA Executive Council, where he served as chairman of the Elections Committee.

His passion for the Second Amendment and his support and dedication for the NRA are well known, but unless you live in northeast Missouri, you may be unaware of the incredible civic contributions Harold made to the place he called home. From the Junior Chamber of Commerce to the Cub Scouts, Harold's life was full of efforts to instill the bedrock values and principles of this nation in younger generations.

I'm proud to have known and worked with Harold Volkmer, and I, like countless others, mourn his passing. But I am thankful to have had the opportunity to call him my friend, and eternally grateful for all that he did for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

While Daley may be terrified at the thought of law-abiding Illinois residents exercising their Right to Carry, I'm sure he's also plenty angry that law enforcement organizations in Chicago, including groups representing police sergeants and lieutenants, have publicly come out in support of the measure.

Right to Carry legislation still needs a veto-proof majority to pass the Legislature, so it's absolutely vital that every gun owner and self-defense advocate contact their state representative. The vote will be very close, but I think it can be done as long as our elected officials know where you stand.

The first deadline is April 12. That's when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been asked to turn over documents related to the BATFE operation known as "Fast and Furious" ... the investigation that allegedly allowed suspected gunrunners to purchase firearms here and transport them across the border to Mexico, over the objections of firearms retailers and BATFE agents on the ground.

Two days later, on April 14, the BATFE faces a deadline to turn over documents related to "Fast and Furious," and this isn't a simple request. Congressman Issa has subpoenaed the agency in order to get them to turn over the documents, because so far the agency hasn't responded to requests for the material.

If you haven't heard these latest developments reported, I'm not surprised. While the media elites were quick to blame gun owners for the violence of the Mexican drug cartels, with the exception of a few reporters, including CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, the media doesn't seem interested in covering the story of "Fast and Furious." Too much of the media runs from the truth these days, but the NRA is standing up for the truth and covering the latest developments almost every day on NRANews.com. We need to make sure this story continues to get the coverage it deserves, and you can help by contributing to the NRA's Voice of Freedom Fund. Your contribution will make possible a permanent communications effort, and communications are our lifeblood. It's our strength. Don't let the elite media set the agenda. Stand up for your rights and your voice.

The howls of outrage have come not only from groups like PETA, which killed 2,200 dogs and cats at its Virginia headquarters last year, but from people like actor/director Eli Roth, the man behind some of the goriest films made in recent years (some critics coined the phrase "torture porn" to describe his films like Hostel). Roth called Parsons a "rich sick ****" and said instead of shooting the elephant, Parsons should have paid to have the elephants relocated, and then bought food for the villagers instead. The Hollywood darling's comments are so ignorant of the reality in Zimbabwe that they're laughable, but that hasn't stopped them from being tweeted around the Internet by others who seem to think that life in Zimbabwe is just a slightly different version of their own life in the United States.

Let me tell Mr. Roth something about the country, its elephants and its people. Zimbabwe's elephant population has grown from some 40,000 in 1980 to estimates of more than 100,000 today. Unlike many African countries, where the elephant is endangered, Zimbabwe's elephant population is stable. When a problem elephant is taken, it's given to the tribal authority, not the hunter. And the people put it to good use. See, while the elephants are doing OK in Zimbabwe, the people aren't. The human population is suffering from a decade-long economic plunge that has resulted in a shocking march backward in terms of standards of living. The average life expectancy for a male in Zimbabwe has dropped from 60 to 44 in just the past 20 years. Life expectancy for women is even lower.

When elephants walk through the sorghum fields and trample the crops, the villagers can't stroll down to Dean and DeLuca or Whole Foods to pick up something else for dinner. They can't pop into the latest trendy restaurant in L.A. like Eli Roth can. If they can't harvest their crops, they can't eat. I don't expect the creator of the "torture porn" genre to show much empathy for his fellow human beings, but you'd think he'd have the sense to recognize his life bears little resemblance to those individuals living out their lives in an impoverished and often brutal land. And really, what has Roth ever done to help either the animals or the people in Zimbabwe?

Eli Roth once said, "Failure in my book is someone who lives in the safety of their laptop taking shots at those who actually achieved what they have been unable to do." Sounds like a pretty good definition to me.

MPR reporter Brandt Williams recently published his "reporter's notebook" related to a story about gun control he's been working on for months. Williams reveals the Joyce Foundation, working through the John Jay College Center on Media, Crime and Justice, is handing out grant money to do "investigative reporting on gun violence." The "investigative reporting" began for Williams with a free trip to a one-day seminar put on by the Center, where Williams heard from a laundry list of anti-gun advocates including Tom Diaz from the Violence Policy Center and Ben Van Houten from Legal Community Against Violence (both groups are also funded by the Joyce Foundation).

In the course of his "investigating," Williams also spoke to Police Chief Scott Knight, head of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The IACP is also funded by the Joyce Foundation. Williams also spoke with retired BATFE agent Joseph Vince, who's worked with the Brady Campaign in the past and is also on the Firearms Committee for the Joyce-funded IACP.

Based on the people Williams interviewed, it looks like the Joyce Foundation got its money's worth.

NPR's already received bad publicity because of some comments made by one of their top executives that attacked gun owners and conservatives. This shameless attempt by the Joyce Foundation to buy stories on local NPR affiliates won't do anything to rehabilitate NPR's image of an elitist institution with an agenda ... in this case, an agenda that looks a lot like the same anti-gun agenda of the Joyce Foundation.

Biela went on to rape another woman and now faces the death chamber after attacking and killing a visitor on campus. And the University of Nevada told Amanda Collins after she'd been raped that she was now free to carry her firearm, just as long as she didn't tell anyone.

I'm grateful that Amanda has chosen to tell the world her story, as difficult as it is for her. And every NRA member owes her our gratitude and support for her testimony in support of the Campus Protection Act in Nevada. Her gripping story is a horrible reminder that criminals don't care if some place has been labeled a "Gun Free Zone," and in fact they may choose to stalk their human prey where they know their victims can't fight back.

The policies of these universities don't do anything to make their staff or students safer, and the fact that Amanda was allowed to carry after she was the victim of a violent attack tells me that despite their objections, university officials know that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good person with a gun nearby.

Nevada officials have the chance to set things right this session, as do legislators in several other states. The NRA's going to keep working to ensure that every student or staff member who's a right to carry holder has the right to protect themselves on these college campuses. The experiment in "Gun Free Zones" has proven to be a failure. Now it's time to let good folks defend themselves.

We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star. However, to focus a national dialogue on guns — and not criminals or mental health issues — misses the point entirely. Americans are not afraid of gun ownership. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred.

We agree with your assertion that "Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing" in light of the shooting in Tucson. In truth, the professional corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lightning speed to exploit the tragedy. These included the Violence Policy Center ("In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly"), the Brady Campaign ("Gabrielle Giffords Shooting ‘Inevitable'") and Mayors Against Illegal Guns-MAIG ("Bloomberg, Mayors Outline Steps to Help Prevent Another Tucson Shooting"). Your article contains talking points nearly identical to the ones circulated by MAIG for weeks in pursuit of its longstanding gun control agenda. In contrast, it was the National Rifle Association that avoided "playing politics with other people's pain" with our consistent response that only thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families were appropriate in the immediate aftermath.

We also agree with your statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Your record as a public official, however, is anything but supportive of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, when Congress had an opportunity to voice its support for the basic right of lawful Americans to own firearms, you refused to join a bipartisan majority of more than 300 of your colleagues in signing the congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In addition, you previously stated (and have never retracted) your support for both Washington, D.C.'s and Chicago's handgun and self-defense bans that the Court rightfully struck down in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Further, you surrounded yourself with advisors who have advocated against the Second Amendment for years (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, to name just a few) and you nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom has already attempted to eliminate the Second Amendment right entirely. More recently, you selected Andrew Traver to head the BATFE, despite his long-standing association with groups that support onerous new restrictions on our rights.

If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to date. Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action.

The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws. The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement want to arrest bad people — not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

As for enforcing the laws on the books, we strongly suggest you enforce those that actually take violent criminals off the streets. To start, we urge you to contact every U.S. attorney and ask them to bring at least ten cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms. By prosecuting these criminals in federal court — rather than state court — strong sentencing guidelines would apply and charges would not be plea-bargained or dismissed, nor would criminals be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences. This simple directive would result in roughly 12,000 violent criminals being taken off the streets every year. Surely you agree that this would be a good first step.

Unfortunately, your Administration is currently under a cloud for allegedly encouraging violations of federal law. We suggest that you bring an immediate stop to BATFE's "Fast and Furious" operation, in which an unknown number of illegal firearm transactions were detected — and then encouraged to fruition by your BATFE, which allegedly decided to let thousands of firearms "walk" across the border and into the hands of murderous drug cartels. One federal officer has recently been killed and no one can predict what mayhem will still ensue. Despite the protests of gun dealers who wished to terminate these transactions, your Administration reportedly encouraged violations of federal firearms laws — and undermined the firearm industry's concerted efforts to deter straw purchases through the "Don't Lie for the Other Guy" program. We hope you agree with our belief that this burgeoning scandal merits a full and independent investigation.

There are additional steps you can take to prevent tragic events such as the Tucson shooting from occurring in the future. One of these is to call on the national news media to refrain from giving deranged criminals minute-by-minute coverage of their heinous acts, which only serves to encourage copycat behavior. If media outlets won't show a fan running onto the field during a baseball game because they don't want to encourage that behavior by others — surely they can listen to law enforcement experts and refuse to air the photographs, video messages, or Facebook postings of madmen and murderers.

Another step is to encourage people to report red flags when they see them. In the case of Tucson, a man clearly bent on violence was not reported to the proper authorities by those who had good reason to believe he had serious mental problems. That's not a deficiency in our gun laws, it's a deficiency in our mental health system — and should be treated as such.

In closing, we agree that gun owners in America are highly responsible. This is in large part due to the NRA's 140 years of dedication to promoting safe and responsible gun ownership, an effort on which we take a back seat to no one. We welcome any serious discussion on policies that focus on prosecuting criminals and fixing deficiencies in the mental health system. Any proposals to the contrary are not a legitimate approach to the issue.

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA

BATFE Special Agent John Dodson has gone on the record, telling CBS News that he and other agents were told to let suspected straw buyers purchase firearms, and were under orders to let the guns "walk" into Mexico, where they fell into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. All the while, the Obama administration and others were blaming law-abiding gun owners and our Second Amendment for the violence perpetrated by the cartels.

In the letters, which were sent to the chairmen and ranking members of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox wrote that the BATFE project "reportedly allowed over 2,000 firearms to be sold to individuals already linked to Mexican drug cartels. Many of those transactions were reported as suspicious by the licensed firearms dealers themselves, but BATFE reportedly encouraged them to proceed with these sales, which the dealers would otherwise have turned down."

Now it's vital that your members of Congress hear from you. Let's get to the bottom of these allegations. Call your Representative and Senator today and urge them to support these hearings. These are incredibly serious charges, and the public (as well as law enforcement) deserve answers.

These anti-gun politicians aren't calling for hearings; in fact, they want to give the BATFE even MORE authority and power on the border! I'm at a loss to explain why these representatives would ignore the testimony from BATFE Agent John Dodson, who says the agency knowingly allowed suspicious gun sales to proceed, in some cases over the objections of the federally licensed firearms retailers.

If Congress wants to pay attention to BATFE, that's great. But the efforts should be on reforming the agency, not on giving it more power at a time in which their tactics are under suspicion and scrutiny.

The mayor has angered residents with his plan to build a 6-foot security wall around the Getty House, the city-owned official residence of the mayor. Originally the plan called for an 8-foot fence, but that plan was rejected by the local neighborhood association. Now the mayor's "compromising" by wanting a 6-foot barrier around his home.

How out of touch can the mayor be? While he's demanding walls around his house to go along with his ‘round the clock security detail, the people of Los Angeles have to abide by laws that prevent them from enjoying the right of self-protection. Not everyone can take advantage of taxpayer-funded bodyguards or security fences, but good people who want to carry a firearm for their own self-defense are out of luck in Los Angeles.

I don't blame the mayor for being concerned about his safety, but it'd be nice if he'd recognize he's not the only one concerned about being the victim of violent crime. Build your wall, Mr. Mayor, but also tear down the barriers to lawful self-defense that Los Angeles has put in place.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley has been trying to get answers from the Department of Justice for weeks now, but the DoJ says they've never intentionally allowed firearms to travel from the United States into Mexico. That directly contradicts the interviews that BATFE employees have given to members of the media, including CBS News. These agents say the agency deliberately chose to approve suspicious firearm sales, over the concerns of firearms retailers, in order to "track" the guns.

One of the guns that BATFE allegedly let through ended up killing Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry more than a year after it was sold, and now the family and these whistle-blowing agents want the BATFE and DoJ to come clean about the program.

If these allegations are true, then something has gone gravely wrong with this administration's moral and legal compass. They would have been approving sales that they believed would end up in the hands of cartels, while at the same time demanding that our own law enforcement officers operating in Mexico do their jobs while disarmed. The death of ICE Agent Jaime Zapata and the wounding of his partner Victor Avila in Mexico brought home the fact that while the Obama administration has ensured increased funding and U.S. manpower to fight the cartels in Mexico, the administration has done nothing to change the 1990 agreement that forces our law enforcement officers to go unarmed south of the border.

It's time for Congress to get to the bottom of this. If the DoJ doesn't want to talk with Sen. Grassley, maybe it's time for hearings on the allegations brought forward by the BATFE employees. We the People deserve some answers.

Jamie Zapata and Victor Avila never had a chance, because they were unarmed. Unbelievably, the policy of the Obama administration is that our law enforcement officers must go unarmed while they're in Mexico. Jamie Zapata and Victor Avila were unarmed in what amounts to a war zone, tasked with helping the Mexican police and military fight the drug cartels who killed them, but unable to fight back against the cartel members who pulled them over and took their lives.

To make things even worse, according to The Associated Press, Attorney General Eric Holder won't say if the administration plans to try and change the policy that disarms our law enforcement officers south of the border. This is unconscionable. Our law enforcement officers working in Mexico are there on a dangerous job, but it shouldn't be a suicide mission. Clearly the Mexican military and police can't protect our men and women, so they should be able to protect themselves. If the Mexican government can't agree to that, then why would we continue to put our cops in harm's way?

Stand up, Mr. President. Stand up to the Calderon government and stand up for our men and women who proudly and bravely serve their country, even when called to serve in foreign lands. Not a single law enforcement officer should be asked or tasked to go to Mexico without first knowing they'll be able to defend themselves if necessary. They shouldn't be unarmed for the sake of diplomacy.

A few days ago, the Brady Campaign falsely claimed that I had promoted the idea of armed Egyptians rising up against Hosni Mubarak in a speech I gave at the Conservative Political Action Conference. If they had bothered to listen, or if the truth mattered at all to them, they would have correctly noted that I referenced a clip from CBS News where a reporter discussed "neighborhood militias" protecting their communities in Egypt after the police forces had disappeared from the streets. Rather than face facts, the Brady Campaign chose to simply lie about what I'd said. I guess they don't believe in ordinary people protecting themselves in the absence of law enforcement ... whether it's in Cairo or New Orleans.

The Campaign, desperately fighting the straw man that they created, wrote, "If instead of staging peaceful demonstrations, Egyptian protesters been armed with guns, it is highly likely that the Egyptian military equipped with billions of dollars worth of weapons supplied free of charge by our own government, would have retaliated. That would have produced massive casualties among both the armed and unarmed Egyptians."

In other words, the Brady Campaign believes that the power to self-defense should apply only to the dictators in charge, and not to the people. Since the Campaign wrote their column, the world has witnessed the sight of troops in Bahrain firing on unarmed protesters, as well as Qaddafi's henchmen slaying hundreds of Libyan protesters. Does the Brady Campaign blame the guns? Do they think at some point people being slaughtered by their government have the human right of self-defense?

I doubt it. The Brady Campaign's comments echo remarks made back in 2005 by Amnesty International employee Trish Katyoka, who disapproved of the idea of victims of genocide in Darfur being able to fight back. She said, "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation.

"Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results could be."

Of course, we know what the results were in Darfur. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed by their government. If the gun control advocates weren't in favor of self-defense for those people, I'm sure they're not bothered by a few hundred Libyan and Bahraini victims of government oppression.

The Brady Campaign tells us all the time that they're just in favor of a few "common sense" regulations. And yet ... they can never seem to tell us when it might be common sense to fight to save your life. A carjacker? Better to give them your keys. An armed robber? Better to do what they say. A madman killing as many people as possible? Better not fight back or the police might not know who the bad guy is. A government that abandons legitimacy in favor of brutal oppression? Better to be killed in cold blood than risk the "uncertainty" that comes with the ability to fight back.

It's a simple question. When, if ever, do you believe people should defend themselves against those who would do them harm?

The Swiss went to the polls recently and cast their votes on the referendum, which sought to ban the possession of firearms in the home and establish a nationwide registry of privately owned firearms. Many media outlets promoted polls that showed the ban passing by a large margin, so the gun control advocates were bitterly disappointed when the actual votes were counted. Fifty-seven percent of the voters rejected the referendum, and the gun ban failed in more than half of the Swiss cantons.

I'm sure the Swiss gun control movement isn't going to go away. Those who want to strip us of our rights aren't usually put off by a single vote of the people. But this vote was vitally important to the Swiss, and to gun owners everywhere. You can be sure that if the gun ban referendum had succeeded, we would have heard the news proclaimed throughout our land. We would have been lectured and harangued, told that we were now the most unenlightened country in the world. But because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms won out, the media was silent.

Well, that means it's up to us to spread the good news. It's an inspiring story, and I hope that it spurs some inactive gun owners to get more involved politically in protecting their own Right to Keep and Bear Arms here at home. Make sure your friends and fellow shooters know that even in the heart of Europe, where so many millions have lost their lives to tyrants, freedom can and did prevail!

Six people were murdered that day in Tucson. I wonder-can you remember their names?

Tragically, a Member of Congress and others were seriously wounded. We continue to pray for them, and we wish them well.

But the national media wasted no time in making celebrities out of both the victims AND the deranged monster. They showed HIS photograph as much, or more, than hers.

Predictably, the political opportunists rushed to advance their legislative agendas as well, advocating for a new onslaught of gun control laws.

It's time for some frank talk. Those involved in that tragedy, and the forgotten victims of past crimes, deserve nothing less than a serious, honest conversation about what we're facing in America.

It's a discussion you won't hear on MSNBC or read in The New York Times, because they don't want to admit the truth. The media and political elites want us to believe that if we just pass another law or two, we can stop a madman bent on violence.

That's dishonest.

If we could legislate evil out of the hearts of bad people, we would have passed that law a long time ago. And when they tell you that a Government ban on certain firearms or magazines will somehow make you safer, don't you buy it, not for one second. It's a lie, just like the lies they've told before.

A few years ago, they told us that the Government's so-called "Gun-Free Zones" would keep us safe from the violence of bad people. But that Tucson Safeway was within 1,000 feet of a school, right across the street. The tragedy occurred in the middle of one their "Gun-Free Zones."

Their laws don't work, their lies don't ring true, and if Tucson tells us anything at all, it tells us this: Government failed.

Government has failed us with our money and our financial institutions. It has failed in running our post offices and trains. It has failed in enforcing our immigration laws, our drug laws and our laws against violent criminals with guns.

Even worse, by its lies and laws and lack of enforcement, Government is getting us killed and imprisoning us in a society of terrifying violence. No matter how hard they try, the elitists in the media and in Government are never going to convince us that disarming good people makes us safer.

Government has failed, and more Government is not the answer. In fact, that's just more failure.

What we need is more Freedom!

Throughout history, one simple truth rings as loud and clear as a bell-the presence of a gun in the hand of a good person makes us all safer.

Government can't protect us from every act of evil or violence. But it can, and has, endangered us by restricting our freedom to protect ourselves. The Founding Fathers had it right from the beginning. Our security is in our own hands and is guaranteed by the bearing of arms in the hands of good people all across this country.

The presence of a firearm makes us all safer. It's just that simple ... and that true.

We see it every day, and even the Government elitists know it to be true.

We care about our president, so we surround him with armed protection.

We care about our money, so we surround our banks and armored cars with armed guards.

We care about our airports, office buildings, power plants and courthouses, so we surround them with armed security.

Even celebrities and corporate CEOs are protected by armed guards.

Do we care less about our homes, our kids, our schools, our gas stations and shopping malls? Are they less worthy of armed protection?

Government cannot muster the means to provide for our full protection. Are we then, as a society, willing to live with a very certain level of death and despair, rather than empower an armed citizenry to protect us?

Good guys carrying guns can and do make a difference ... and make us safer.

I say, it's time for a change ... and I mean a real change.

It's time to acknowledge what we know in our hearts to be true-that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Just knowing there's a good guy with a gun around-a cop, a guard, a soldier ... and, yes, a law-abiding citizen with a gun-makes us feel safer ... because we are safer.

That's why we need more freedom ... and a lot less Government.

That's why our Second Amendment rights should be expanded ... not diminished.

That's why today I call on Congress to empower the American people to ensure their own security by enacting legislation to grant all law-abiding Americans the Right to Carry a firearm for personal protection.

National Right to Carry is a concept long overdue in the face of Government's failure to provide for the security of its citizens. More good people carrying firearms not only gives the law-abiding a fighting chance against violent criminals; it helps protect everyone.

Recent history proves it. Right now, nearly 7 million law-abiding Americans legally carry a concealed firearm, in almost every state in the country. And across the board, violent crime in jurisdictions that allow the Right to Carry is lower than in areas that prevent it. The whole flock is safer when the wolves can't tell the difference between the lions and the lambs.

The Right to Carry proves that empowering Americans-giving them the freedom to protect themselves-protects us all. So to those who would attempt to score political points on the heels of tragic violence, I say this:

No more! No more lies and laws and Government failure.

At the scene of the crime, there's only the criminal and victim. The police come later, and the victim is always forgotten. And it's time the victims got the fighting chance they deserve.

Obama has also re-submitted the nomination of Andrew Traver to run the ATF, after his nomination expired with the end of the 111th Congress. The NRA has been educating senators about Traver's long-standing hostility towards gun owners and the Second Amendment, including his part in a dishonest story aired by the NBC affiliate in Chicago that attempted to confuse viewers about the differences between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic machine gun. This kind of journalistic malpractice may be par for the course in the media, but those who aid and abet it shouldn't be handed the reins to the agency in charge of regulating the firearms industry.

We're going to keep educating lawmakers and our members about the problems at ATF, and we'll continue working in the new session of Congress to pass meaningful reform of the troubled agency. The ATF Modernization and Reform Act has enjoyed widespread bipartisan support in Congress over the past few years, but because of gun control advocates like Nancy Pelosi, the bill hasn't received a fair hearing. With the new session of Congress underway, it's my hope that an up or down vote can finally take place in both the House and Senate.

Now that gun ban is going away, thanks to many of the new, Second Amendment-friendly legislators. There are high hopes that Castle Doctrine legislation may be able to pass out of the legislature with a veto proof majority this year as well, and the NRA is going to be working hard to strengthen and expand the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the "Live Free or Die" state this year.

None of this would be possible if it weren't for the work of NRA members who got involved (and in some cases even ran for office) in the last election cycle. Your hard work isn't over, but it's good to be able to celebrate the new year with the restoration of an old right.

Cleveland filed its suit against the State of Ohio back in 2007, challenging Ohio's firearms preemption law, which ended the practice of municipalities passing ordinances regulating the possession, registration and carrying of firearms. Cleveland's lawsuit, prompted by Mayor Frank Jackson's insistence that he and the City Council had the power and authority to impose additional regulations on gun owners, threatened to undo the protections offered by the pre-emption law.

The NRA, along with Ohioans for Concealed Carry, filed an amicus brief with the Ohio State Supreme Court in this case, supporting the Ohio legislature's ability to make firearm laws of general concern. Other preemption laws are under attack by gun control groups, including the actions of Mayors Against Illegal Guns in Pennsylvania. Our work isn't over, and we'll continue to defend against these attempts to restrict our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but the Ohio Supreme Court decision is an important victory in the fight to protect our gun rights.

This so-called emergency has been going on in Mexico for four years, and has nothing to do with our gun laws. El Paso, Texas is the safest city in the nation. Just across the Rio Grande, in Ciudad Juarez, 3,000 people have been killed this year. This is just a shallow excuse to engage in a sweeping firearms registration scheme, and the NRA will do everything in its power to stop these "emergency requirements" from taking effect.

According to an internal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) memo obtained by The Washington Post, almost 8,500 firearms retailers would be required to submit a report, with the names of purchasers, whenever the store sells more than two rifles within a five-day period that meet the following criteria: a caliber greater than .22, semi-automatic, with the ability to accept a detachable magazine. In other words, the Obama administration wants to know who's buying the most popular and common rifles sold in America today.

The Obama administration is trying to block an Arizona law that would help police identify those who are in this country illegally, including those connected to cartels, but it wants to know the names of law-abiding gun owners? Let me make it crystal clear. The NRA won't sit idly by while our constitutional rights are whittled away for political or ideological purposes.

The mainstream media has long carried water for the gun control movement, even as more Americans come to the conclusion that we don't need any additional gun control laws. Support for new restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are at historically low levels among the American public according to the Gallup Poll, but it's clear that in newsrooms, the desire for new laws attacking the Second Amendment remains high.

This type of biased coverage is one of the reasons why the NRA doesn't wait for the media to tell our side of the story. With magazines like America's 1st Freedom and online broadcasting at NRAnews.com, we're committed to getting the truth out there, as well as telling gun owners and the public the stories that most media aren't interested in covering. The elite media's biased coverage is nothing new, but thanks to the support of NRA members, we're able to fight back with our own voice.

Dowd, for instance, doubted whether working-class families in Ohio could really afford to fly to Alaska and hunt caribou. Apparently she's never heard of deer hunting. I guarantee Maureen Dowd that there are working-class families feeding themselves on venison harvested by Mom, Dad and the kids this winter. Food pantries across the state are dishing up nutritious meals made possible by working-class hunters who may not be able to afford a $10,000-a-plate fundraiser, but who can donate a deer through the Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry organization.

Sorkin wasn't just angry about Palin's hunt, he was furious over the idea that people could actually enjoy hunting. Despite the fact that Sorkin eats meat, wears leather, and says he'll never be a PETA spokesman, "I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart."

What a pathetic rant, but that's not surprising. Apparently Sorkin doesn't just hold hunters in contempt, but the farmers, ranchers, processors, butchers and anyone else who comes in contact with an animal before it ends up on his plate. Thankfully, I doubt Sorkin's screed caused anybody to change their mind about hunting.

Sarah Palin's caribou expedition, on the other hand, exposed millions of people to hunting, and hopefully inspired more than a few to take to the field. You don't have to travel to Sarah Palin's Alaska to have a great hunt, and the NRA can help prospective hunters no matter where you live. Check out www.nrahuntersrights.org for more information on hunting resources near you.

But because DeMarie made a mistake, she may lose all of those accolades and achievements that she's earned at school. Marie forgot that after she returned from hunting with her family, she left her hunting rifle, unloaded and encased, in the trunk of her car. A few days later, when she heard that a "contraband dog" would be visiting the school's parking lot, she remembered the rifle locked away in her trunk. She went to the school office and immediately alerted officials. In other words, she may have made a mistake, but she also did the right thing.

Hopefully that will be the way the school board sees it, because next week DeMarie faces a hearing in which she could be expelled from school for a year. Montana law states that officials can consider the expulsion on a "case by case" basis. Those officials need to ask themselves if justice will be served by taking not just a good student, but a student leader, out of school for a year.

I'd like to think that there are still school districts in this country that would praise this young woman for doing the right thing, rather than punish her for a mistake she already regrets. Does the punishment of a year-long expulsion fit the "crime" of forgetting to take her cased rifle out of the trunk of her car? Will justice be served by denying DeMarie DeReu entry through the schoolhouse door for the next twelve months? Only those who insist that common sense has no place in our policies and procedures could answer "yes." Keep DeMarie DeReu where she belongs — in class and in school.

Is it common sense to put a man behind bars for most of a decade, simply because a judge decided he didn't meet the definition of "moving"? Is it common sense that every New Jersey gun owner faces the same sentence if they dare commit the heinous crime of stopping to get gas or a cup of coffee on their way to and from the range?

Governor Chris Christie can't do anything by himself to change New Jersey's unjust gun laws, but he can do something to ensure justice for Brian Aitken. A petition for clemency has been presented to the governor, and it's my fervent hope that he will act on it. The NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund is helping to pay for Brian Aitken's appeal, and we will continue to support legal efforts to free Aitken from his sentence, but the governor can act much more quickly than the courts. Every day that Mr. Aitken wakes up in a prison cell instead of his own home is another day that justice is delayed and denied.

The outrageous statement is followed by a bizarre argument: Even though Andrew Traver, Obama's nominee, took part in an anti-gun hit piece that used fully automatic machine guns to demonize commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, it shouldn't really matter because there's not much difference between a full-auto and a semi-auto. The difference is just a "finger twitch," according to Paul Helmke. Of course, getting your gun facts from the Brady Campaign is kind of like going to Charlie Rangel for advice on ethical behavior. Both will be happy to offer their opinions, but you'd be better off disregarding it.

This is just another excuse for the Brady Campaign to demonize a particular class of firearm. In this case, they've decided to try to demonize guns that have been sold for more than 100 years in this country, and are now commonly owned by millions of Americans. It wasn't too long ago that the Brady Campaign tried to present itself as the voice of reason, assuring Americans that it wasn't an anti-gun group, but was simply in favor of "common sense regulations." Now it seems the organization has decided to become the PETA of the anti-gun movement, the Clown Princes of gun control, willing to say or do anything in their quest for headlines.

No matter how irrational or contrived their arguments are to those of us who know better, we have to remember that the Brady Campaign isn't talking to us. Their audience is the non-gun owner, those Americans who really don't know the difference between their great-grandfather's Winchester Model 1903 and a full-auto belt-fed machine gun. The NRA reaches out to non-gun owners as well, of course, but where the Brady Campaign tries to scare those folks with fear and lies, the NRA seeks to inform with education and training. Frankly, at the end of the day, the NRA just has a higher opinion of Americans than the Brady Campaign. It's why one of us wants to help Americans exercise their rights while the other wants to take our rights away.

For gun owners, there's much to be thankful for this year. The Supreme Court decision in McDonald that recognized an individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms across the nation, the midterm elections that saw more pro-gun candidates gain elected office, the defeat of bad bills in places like California and New York, and the legislative victories in places like Arizona and Pennsylvania are just a few of the things that we can appreciate this Thanksgiving.

I'm thankful for all that, but the most important thing I'm thankful for as a gun owner, however, is the increased activism of my fellow NRA members. Without them, none of our victories would be possible, and our Second Amendment rights would be far weaker. In the year ahead, we will have more challenges that will test our resolve and our solidarity.

As we confront each challenge, as others have learned, we will not bend or break. We will stand strong in defense of our liberty, our freedom, and our God-given rights. We are the NRA, and I'm thankful that there are millions of us around the country standing up and fighting for what we believe in.

Andrew Traver, until now the ATF's special agent in charge of the Chicago field office, has a long history of blaming guns instead of criminals when it comes to violence. Just over a year ago, Traver appeared in a hit piece produced by Chicago's NBC affiliate that misled viewers into thinking the modern semi-automatic rifle is the same long gun used by our soldiers on the battlefield. The reporter even hip-fired what appears to be a fully automatic rifle at a range, in order to demonstrate how "difficult to control" these rifles can be. This kind of shameless manipulation of public opinion isn't anything new, but the head of the BATFE shouldn't be a part of it.

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Traver's anti-Second Amendment activity. A few years ago, Traver was on an advisory committee for the International Association of Chiefs of Police that looked at the issue of "gun violence reduction." The committee itself was a "Who's Who" of gun control, with the Violence Policy Center's Tom Diaz, the Illinois anti-gunner Thom Mannard and gun control researcher David Hemengway working alongside Traver to come up with a list of recommendations. The list itself reads like the Christmas list for the Brady Campaign: one-gun-a-month laws, a ban on semi-automatic firearms, bans on .50-caliber rifles, restrictions on gun shows, "education campaigns" geared toward gun owners, and more.

This type of hostility toward the Second Amendment is unacceptable for the head of BATFE. The evidence suggests that Andrew Traver would focus on additional restrictions on law-abiding Americans, instead of using BATFE to enforce existing laws aimed at straw purchasers, felons in possession of firearms and the illegal trafficking of firearms. Americans deserve someone heading BATFE who will respect their Right to Keep and Bear Arms, not someone who will use the resources of the agency to attack it.

In Texas, a campus carry bill has already been pre-filed. In the last session of the legislature, a similar bill enjoyed the support of the majority of the Texas House, but political maneuvering kept the bill bottled up in committee. Supporters are hoping that the addition of even more Second Amendment supporters in the House will allow the bill to get the fair hearing it deserves.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma are also expected to consider campus carry, and students at Oklahoma State University are doing their part to raise awareness of the issue. The local chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus recently held an information awareness campaign in front of the university library, and received a lot of support from their fellow students. The campaign's message is sure to resonate in Stillwater, since a student was shot and robbed just a few feet away from the edge of campus a few hours after the SCCC campaign ended. You don't have to be on the Dean's List to see that Oklahoma State's "no guns allowed" policy didn't help the victim, and it didn't stop his attacker.

Our firearm freedoms are threatened by elitist politicians, a biased so-called mainstream media, and a U.N. determined to eliminate Second Amendment freedom in the U.S.A. They're protected by the slimmest of margins at the Supreme Court. The votes we cast on Election Day, whether for local races like mayor or state representative, to statewide or federal races like U.S. senator, governor, or U.S. representative, are vital to safeguard and secure our rights from overreaching anti-gunners intent on stripping us of our rights.

In some races this year, NRA members will have an opportunity to replace an "F"-rated incumbent with an "A"-rated challenger. In other races, gun owners will be voting between two candidates who each promise to protect and promote our Second Amendment rights. Around the country, there are few races that don't offer NRA members at least one candidate who supports their Second Amendment rights, and that's no accident. It's because of the NRA and its members, working hard not just in one election cycle, but for decades, letting politicians know that if they cast a vote against the Second Amendment, we'll be casting a vote against them.

It's a good position to be in on Election Day, and I know that when the dust settles and the votes are counted, NRA members will have voted Freedom First and elected pro-gun politicians from coast to coast.

Those Virginia voters might be surprised to learn that the mayor of New York City is the man behind the mailers. Dave Kopel, a longtime Second Amendment scholar, recently noted that "Americans United for Safer Streets" received $500,000 of its $502,000 budget from just one man: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Now the mayor's personal Astroturf group is misleading voters and bashing candidates who solidly support our Second Amendment rights.

How misleading is this group? On its website, Americans United for Safer Streets claims that after a drop in crime in the '90s, violent crime is once again on the upswing, and "combating illegal guns" must be a higher priority. But violent crime is declining in this country, not rising, and there are more legal gun owners than ever before. When it comes to targeting "illegal guns," rather than illegal possession or illegal use of firearms, Bloomberg relies on the same tired gun control ideas we've been battling for years.

It's been clear for some time that Bloomberg views his elected position as the mayor of one city as a means to a much bigger end; the restricting of the constitutional rights of ALL Americans. His latest venture into Astroturf confirms that his ambition and arrogance know no bounds, but I believe on Election Day, Bloomberg's going to realize that a billionaire's Astroturf group can't compete with the real grassroots support of 4,000,000 NRA members and an American public dedicated to protecting their Second Amendment freedoms.

It's not true. In fact, what Engle reported isn't even close to reality.

I've got a challenge for Richard Engle and NBC News. Do a report from the gun store that's selling the same rifles our soldiers are using in Afghanistan. Show me the .50-caliber machine gun for sale, no questions asked. Don't show me a semi-automatic firearm and call it an "assault rifle." Don't show me a bolt-action and claim it's a machine gun. Prove what you said is right, or admit what you reported is wrong.

And in case any viewers missed the exchange, when Holmes appeared live on camera a few moments later, he reinforced Kendall's message. He said, "... to a person in Chicago, whether it's the people who are running the mentoring programs, the people in charge of the schools, or the young people themselves, they say guns are not the problem."

He went on to say, "They say if you took every single gun away in Chicago, one mentoring program leader said it this way. The kids would brick each other to death. They would find other ways to lash out, to channel that anger. They would kill each other in other ways. So the problem really is the violence itself and the lack of opportunity for young people."

I'm glad T.J. Holmes reported this, and I hope his bosses didn't give him too much trouble for failing to advance the anti-gun narrative that we see all too often these days.

Even though the Castle Doctrine legislation passed both the House and Senate with few dissenting votes, the gun control group feels that law-abiding Pennsylvanians shouldn't be able to protect themselves in their homes or where they have a legal right to be.

More surprisingly, Gov. Rendell's office says the governor hasn't decided what he'll do with the bill once it gets to his desk. I urge every Pennsylvanian to call and write the governor and ask that he sign this simple piece of legislation into law. It's taken us three years to get this far, and with the support of gun owners and NRA members, I believe we can turn the Castle Doctrine from legislation into law this year.

In Illinois, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady has stated on the record that he'd sign a Right-to-Carry bill if it got to his desk. In Wisconsin, Republican Scott Walker has sponsored Right-to-Carry bills as a legislator, and says he continues to support Right to Carry as a candidate for governor.

Electing pro-gun governors in Illinois and Wisconsin could have far-reaching impacts on the future of Right to Carry nationwide. Not only would citizens of these states finally possess the rights that have been denied to them for so long, but gun-banners across the country would be dealt another crippling blow in their drive to make the Right to Carry a burdensome and restrictive process that relies on the arbitrary rulings of the elitists in charge of an arbitrary and capricious "may issue" system.

This can happen, but gun owners must get out and vote on November 2. Cast your ballot, Vote Freedom First, and let's push hard to win a sweeping victory in our Right-to-Carry revolution!

The Castle Doctrine is a simple piece of legislation that enjoys broad bi-partisan support. In fact, it recently passed the Pennsylvania House by a vote of 159-38. It's not surprising that in Pennsylvania, the vast majority of legislators would support a self-defense bill. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of the people in Pennsylvania who are opposed to the Castle Doctrine work in the editorial offices of some of the state's newspapers.

Self-defense is a natural right. It's not controversial to most people, despite what media elites might say. In fact, even young kids understand that people have a right to protect themselves. Last month, 74-year-old Stanley Tabaj was injured by two men in their 20s who tried to rob him at his place of business. Mr. Tabaj fought back, wounding one of his attackers with his shotgun and sending both fleeing. While Mr. Tabaj was recovering from his injuries, the students at Southmoreland Elementary wrote him get-well cards, and the 74-year-old paid them a visit just a few days ago. As Tabaj entered the school, kids lined the hallways of the school to cheer him as he arrived.

These kids get it. Let's hope the governor of Pennsylvania gets it, too.

Responding to an article in the journal "Nature" discussing the possibility of eradicating mosquitos around the world, Vlasak responded by saying the problem wasn't bugs, it was people.

"One of the problems," Vlasak said, "is they send 1 million pounds of food to Somalia and all they do is reproduce and pretty soon there's going to be more people suffering there."

The animal rights extremist went on to say, "China is sort of an example where they were able to stabilize the population with governmental standards."

Statements like that make you wonder just how seriously Dr. Vlasak takes his job, which after all requires him to save human lives when he believes there are already too many of us on the planet already.

These animal rights extremists may say that a "rat is a cat is a dog is a boy," but I don't think they really believe it. I think they believe that the rats, the cats and the dogs are all more important than the boys and girls, more important than our sons and daughters. They may disguise their intentions with cartoonish displays like PETA or "respectable" organizations like HSUS, but in the end, their goal is the same: equal rights for animals, but not for humans.

Could lower-income residents in Newark, Jersey City, Trenton or Camden afford to pay $500 a year in order to get their concealed-carry license? I doubt it. So why is the proposed fee so high, given that the bill's author, State Senator Jeff Van Drew, says the current "may issue" system isn't working? It's a simple revenue producer. Under this legislation, 80 percent of the $500 fee would go straight into New Jersey's General Fund!

I understand that New Jersey has some serious budgetary issues, but you don't solve them by taxing people who want to be able to defend themselves. I'm glad Senator Van Drew recognizes that changes need to be made to the state's concealed-carry laws, but it's important that those changes make it easier for all law-abiding residents to exercise their Right to Carry. Self-defense is a right, not a revenue enhancer.

This driver works for Pizza Hut, and the company seems to have a problem with their drivers legally exercising their Right to Carry. Around the country, employees who have defended themselves with their legally owned and carried firearms have lost their jobs for their actions. The driver in Charlotte (whose name has not been publicly released) could be the next.

It was late in the evening of September 27 when three armed men entered the Pizza Hut store on Charlotte's east side. The would-be robbers began demanding money and pistol-whipping the driver. When the driver became afraid for his life, he pulled his legally concealed firearm and shot and killed two of the robbers, causing a third to flee.

Both of the robbers killed in self-defense were convicted felons. One was out on parole, another faced trial in November. The delivery driver is a former sheriff's deputy who's now working two jobs to make ends meet. Without question, the employee of Pizza Hut acted in self-defense, but he could be looking for a new job soon.

I'd like to challenge David Novak, the CEO of Yum Brands Inc. I think he should be the one to explain to this driver why saving his life is costing him his job. I think he should fly down to Charlotte, look this driver in the eye, and tell him the truth-that his employer would have preferred he was helpless when his life was threatened. Novak should be the one to tell this driver that he's losing his livelihood because he defended himself and his store manager from harm. Of course, Novak could always do the right thing instead and commend this driver for his actions. I don't think that's going to happen, but I'm more than willing for David Novak to prove me wrong.

If they'd talk to any firearms retailer or NRA-certified firearms instructor, I'm sure they'd be heartbroken to hear about the large number of Americans who are buying firearms for the very first time. Even worse for the gun control advocates, these aren't just new gun owners ... they're new shooters. They're getting training so they can legally carry their firearm, they're going to the range and they're getting politically active to ensure that their rights won't be trampled by those who want to see them disarmed.

All across this nation, Americans are becoming empowered. They're casting votes and getting involved in politics, they're standing up for their rights, and they're refusing to be victims of the criminal class or the elites who view the Second Amendment as outdated words on a faded piece of paper. We won't go back to the dark days when they tried to ban our guns because they were too big, too small, too affordable, or too "scary looking." Americans today are interested in restoring their rights, not restricting them ... and the NRA, as it has for decades, stands at the forefront of that restoration revolution.

Our nation's cops are dealing with budget shortfalls and layoffs, and many departments are woefully understaffed. That puts an added stress on the officers on the street, who are constantly told to do more with less. Sadly, in many jurisdictions, these men and women put their lives on the line to bust bad guys, only to see them out on the street in a matter of days or weeks. These cops don't just see the revolving door of our criminal justice system first-hand, they're put at risk by the number of violent criminals sent back to the streets without ever facing justice.

In Chicago, for instance, 90 percent of non-fatal shootings go unpunished. In Philadelphia, criminals are routinely arrested, only to have their cases kept in a legal limbo. Their charges aren't dropped, but neither are they prosecuted, and the end result is that violent criminals who should be behind bars get off scot-free ... until they commit a crime heinous enough to make the front page of the local paper. In both cities, we've seen officers killed in the line of duty by men who had no business being out on the street. And in both cities, local politicians seem paralyzed by lethargy or indifference. Oh sure, when an officer pays the ultimate price these politicians will hold a news conference to show how angry they are. They'll say they're going to get tough on these criminals. And then nothing changes.

Our cops deserve better. We have to fight for those who protect us in the line of duty, because they can't fight these battles alone.

After all, 2009 was the "Year of the Gun," according to some of these media outlets. Firearm sales surged last year, and as any gun control advocate will tell you, more guns in the hands of private citizens are sure to lead to mayhem from coast to coast. Yet that didn't happen. Instead, homicide rates fell 7 percent, and violent crime overall dropped for the third straight year.

More Americans own a firearm for self-defense, are signing up for concealed-carry classes and taking their Second Amendment rights seriously. Are those the only reasons why crime is dropping? Of course not. But one thing is crystal clear: more guns do NOT equal more crime. It's time the gun control advocates and their elite media allies recognize that simple fact.

Just a few weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition by the CBD to ban lead ammunition, saying the agency didn't have the authority to act. The Center for Biological Diversity is appealing that decision, and even if the EPA says no once again, it's clear that the anti-hunters and animal rights extremists aren't going to go away.

The CBD started this fight at the state level, and I have a feeling that's where they'll turn once again if they're shut down at the federal level. One thing is clear: the threat to our ammunition is still real, and gun owners can't rest while our rights are being threatened. Gun owners responded to the EPA's public comment period on the proposed lead ban in huge numbers, and I know that wherever the CBD aims next, gun owners will once again respond loud enough to be heard from sea to shining sea.

In addition, the front-runner to replace Daley appears to be Rahm Emanuel, who's been a staunch anti-gun advocate his entire career. He's spoken to the Brady Campaign about the need for more gun control laws, and he was a reliable vote to restrict the Second Amendment rights of Americans while in Congress.

The good news is that the race to replace Daley is sure to attract a lot of candidates. Hopefully, voters in Chicago will have a chance to start to change the anti-gun culture entrenched for too long in City Hall.

Phil Bronstein of the San Francisco Examiner reports that members of the Northwest Bernal Alliance "are urging authorities to deny a permit to High Bridge Arms gun store on Mission Street after a brief closure because its members don't want such a place ‘near our homes and/or schools.' "

The store's been there for fifty years, and somehow the neighborhood hasn't fallen apart. Store manager Steve Alcairo says he wants to know where the fear is coming from. Perhaps the Northwest Bernal Alliance and its members should talk to Steve, rather than simply trying to run him and his store out of town. After all, I thought San Francisco prided itself on its tolerance and open-mindedness.

Just a few days after the EPA had opened its public comment period on the proposed ban, the agency released a statement that read in part, "EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-nor is the agency seeking such authority."

This is great news for gun owners. Not only did the EPA reject the petition, but the agency said it doesn't have the authority to regulate ammunition! This is a huge victory for gun owners and a shocking defeat for the anti-hunting, anti-gun crowd. Thanks again to all NRA members who contacted the EPA about this dangerous petition. Your efforts made all the difference, and demonstrated that together we can fight back against those who want to take away our rights through a regulatory scheme.

The gun control group recently held an event in New York City that was supposed to feature rappers Fat Joe and Maino. Fat Joe's next project, according to an interview he did with MTV earlier this month, is a tape called, "I Wanna Kill People, Vol. 1." And Maino is the guy behind the song "Getaway Driver", featuring lyrics like, "f--- the police, I'll show them where the heavy is/You shoot ‘em up I'm the getaway driver."

Unfortunately (or not, depending on your point of view) for the Brady Campaign, the rappers were a no-show at the anti-gun event. But the fact remains that the NYC chapter of the Million Mom March (officially a part of the Brady Campaign) thought it would be a great idea to stand side by side with the promoters of violent crime.

I remember when Charlton Heston stood up to thugs like these, reading the lyrics from Ice-T's "Cop Killer" to a room full of shocked Time Warner shareholders. Two decades later, Heston's ideological opposites in the Brady Campaign are sucking up to the next generation of gangster rappers. The difference couldn't be clearer, and the Brady Campaign couldn't be more shameless. If they were serious about stopping "gun violence," they wouldn't try to align themselves with people who glorify it.

The executive director of the WHA says he still thinks a gun ban would be good, but after reviewing the recent Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, he believed he had no choice but to scrap the ban. Still, he says he wants to "be able to put some controls in place to keep residents as safe as possible."

Restrictions on the rights of law-abiding residents won't keep them safe ... it will only put them at a disadvantage. Does anybody at the WHA really believe that criminals and gang members will respect the prohibition on firearms in common places? If not, then why demand that tenants be disarmed in those places?

The Wilmington Housing Authority may have hoped that by ending the ban on gun possession in the home, they could make the NRA's lawsuit go away. That's not going to happen. If the WHA really wants the litigation to end, all they have to do is put policies in place that respect the constitutional rights of their law-abiding residents. As long as they continue to tell tenants that they're second-class citizens, we're going to keep fighting for their Second Amendment rights.

After the Supreme Court ruled against the city of Chicago in the McDonald decision, Mayor Daley immediately launched a drive for new restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

"Gun violence is not just a Chicago problem, it is an American problem," said Daley. "And, it will continue until we understand that there are reasonable and responsible steps we can take as a nation to help end the needless gun violence that irresponsible people bring on our friends and family."

Mayor Daley believes further restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are "reasonable and responsible steps" to keep the city safe. I think there's something much more important to do: prosecute the perpetrators of violent crime.

It would be laughable if the human cost of Daley's incompetence wasn't so tragically high: A city under siege by gangs, where criminals operate with impunity and victims are afraid to speak up, and the mayor seems to be stuck on stupid. Next year, the voters in Chicago will have a chance to elect a new mayor. Let's hope that there's a candidate out there who gets the simple fact that if you want to crack down on crime, you start by prosecuting the bad guys ... not by targeting the law-abiding.

Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to the highest Court in the land. To NRA members and gun owners nationwide, Ms. Kagan presents a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms. Her political record reveals that she does not believe the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and, in her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense. That is why, more than a month ago, the NRA announced its strong opposition to Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Court. In that announcement, it was made very clear that this vote matters and will be considered in the NRA's candidate evaluations.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans. Nonetheless, during the hearings Ms. Kagan refused to state her support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was "settled law." When asked about the Heller decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the phrase "settled law" repeatedly during her confirmation hearings to win support. Justice Sotomayor then worked to destroy the Second Amendment in the McDonald case. We have no doubt that Ms. Kagan shares the same view of the Second Amendment.

Since she has no judicial record, we have only her political record to examine. And that political record demonstrates a clear hostility to our right to keep and bear arms. As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Ms. Kagan said she was "not sympathetic" to a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as "immersed" in Clinton's aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. As U.S. Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

The expansive support that self-defense laws, the decisions in the historic Heller and McDonald cases, and the Second Amendment enjoy from the American public is a clear indication that Elena Kagan's radical views are out of the mainstream. Any nominee, that far out-of-step with the American people, should not be on the Supreme Court.

The nomination and confirmation of two justices with an inherent bias against the Second Amendment is a direct assault on our treasured freedom. The fate of our Second Amendment hangs perilously — by one vote. The need for eternal vigilance on the part of every American has never been greater.

There will be interim meetings at the United Nations leading up to the big summit scheduled for 2012.

I promise you, NRA will be there each and every step of the way to stop all this in defense of America's freedoms!

Former police supervisor Phil Cline has a different take. Cline says that Mayor Daley and his cronies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars that could be going towards public safety, but instead went to "deals for the guys who know guys," in the words of Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass.

Kass paints a grim picture for the city; officers retiring without being replaced, police academies woefully understaffed, and a criminal class that is becoming increasingly fearless. Add to that a mayor and city council that believes residents should be disarmed and defenseless, and the picture gets even worse.

Chicago's known for its section of the city called The Loop, but the city may soon be better known for The Spiral, because guys like Daley and his city hall sycophants are putting the city into a tailspin that will be hard to recover from. The NRA will keep fighting for the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Chicago ... even if city leaders think it's more important to fight the NRA.

Among the new laws are prohibitions on carrying your legally owned firearm in your garage or on your porch, having more than one firearm available for self-defense, a ban on gun stores and public ranges (although training is required to own a gun), and the banning of handguns not on an "approved" list.

How did these new ordinances pass the Council without a dissenting vote? Apparently many council members would rather thumb their nose at the Supreme Court than try to protect the constitutional rights of residents. Just one day after the proposed ordinances were first introduced, the Council passed them all on a vote of 45-0. After the vote in favor of the new gun laws was passed, Alderman Tom Allen said, "Yeah, it was rushed through, but that's nothing new. The details don't really matter. It's not like we're selling off the parking meters this time."

Parking meters matter more than people, it seems. What a pathetic response to the Supreme Court's ruling that the city and its elected leaders have been depriving residents of a fundamental right for nearly three decades. Contrary to Tom Allen's opinion, the devil is in the details, and we're going to fight like hell to get these unconstitutional laws off the books.

It happened in Macon just the other night. A 26-year-old woman was working at a cell phone store when 31-year-old Rashan Jordan walked in. Local police say he wasn't looking for a new wireless plan, but easy cash. And apparently Jordan didn't mind killing someone to get it. He fired at the store clerk, but that's when Jordan learned his victim wasn't going to give up without a fight.

The 26-year-old female pulled out her own gun and fired back, hitting Jordan in the chest. He staggered out of the wireless store and was found by first responders a few minutes later. He's now facing charges, while the clerk is safe and sound. Media elites would prefer this woman's story go untold, while gun control advocates would prefer this woman go unarmed. And when the media elites and the gun control advocates are one and the same, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is sure to be either demonized or ignored by the nation's papers of record.

Sure, Daley says his city's gun ban will soon go away, but he must be dreaming if he thinks his proposed replacement ordinances will stand up to constitutional scrutiny. For instance, the city's corporation counsel recently said that the city is considering a "one gun per person" ordinance. Can you imagine a law that limited individuals to owning one book or magazine, or subscribing to only one newspaper? How about a law that said you could attend one church, or one political rally?

Mayor Daley needs to understand something, and this goes for every other anti-gun politician in this country. Anything less than a full recognition of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is unacceptable. Any ordinance or law that seeks to hinder, rather than aid, the exercising of our constitutional right is unconscionable. And any attempt to alienate Americans from their inalienable rights to protect their life and liberty will be met with a fierce response from the National Rifle Association.

The Second Amendment is a right. Mayor Daley may not like it, he may not agree with it, but he better respect it. If he doesn't, the NRA will be there to make sure his unconstitutional laws are once again struck down.