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.

Today marks a great moment in American history. This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.

The Supreme Court said what a majority of the American public believes. The people who wrote the Second Amendment said it was an individual right, and the Court has now confirmed what our founding fathers wrote and intended. The Second Amendment - as every citizen's constitutional right -is now a real part of American Constitutional law.

But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it. An incorporated freedom has to be a real freedom.

The intent of the founding fathers - and the Supreme Court - was to provide access. Words must have meaning.

The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning. This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

I'm a practical guy. I don't want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom. The end question is, can law-abiding men and women go out and buy and own a firearm? Today the Supreme Court said yes - anywhere they live!

This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can't access it. Proof of Heller and McDonald will be law abiding citizens, one by one, purchasing and owning firearms.

The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.

What good is a right without the gun? What good is the right if you can't buy one? Or keep one in your home? Or protect your family with one?

Here's a piece of paper - protect yourself. That's no right at all!

Victory is when law abiding men and women can get up, go out, and buy and own a firearm. This is a monumental day. But NRA will not rest until every law-abiding American citizen is able to exercise the individual right to buy and own a firearm for self defense or any other lawful purpose.

"Every night we're getting beaten like a pinata at a birthday party by drug, alien smugglers ... The danger is out there, with all the weapons being found coming northbound ... someone needs to know about this!"

Mexican president Felipe Calderon has been claiming for years that our gun laws are to blame for the violence in Mexico, alleging that the vast majority of guns used by the cartels are acquired here in the United States. But this agent says that more weapons used by the cartels are being trafficked northwards into the U.S.

A quick look at news stories from Mexico shows why this is such a disturbing development. Increasingly, the cartels in Mexico are using military-grade weaponry like full-auto machine guns, grenades, anti-tank missiles and RPGs. As evidence mounts that the cartels are smuggling weapons north, will the Obama administration continue to express ideological support for new gun control laws here at home? Or will the administration finally admit that our Second Amendment rights have nothing to do with the cartels buying up military weapons on the black market?

In trying to take on the idea that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Cook and Ludwig rely on some hefty evidence: a study from the 1960s and a quote from that noted philosopher, Ozzy Osbourne. Using that weighty material, the pair suggests if we had fewer guns, we'd have fewer shootings. It's a simplistic argument. North Dakota, for instance, has a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of gun homicides. How can that be, if according to Cook and Ludwig, more guns equals more homicides? They don't explain.

The pair also suggests that gun registration and licensing schemes are actually effective at stopping violent criminals, but they don't even pretend to rely on evidence for this assertion. Instead we're told that, despite the fact that 91% of homicide offenders in Chicago had previous criminal records, police can use the state's Firearms Owner Identification Card to "potentially" link a gun used in a crime to its owner. The researchers also say that these gun restrictions "provide police with a tool to keep these high-risk people from carrying guns." Obviously Cook and Ludwig haven't paid much attention to what really happens when a criminal is caught illegally carrying a gun. Most of the time he cops a plea, and is soon back out on the street. Ask the average street cop how effective these gun control laws, like "one gun a month," are in stopping criminals from using a gun. Violent criminals laugh at laws like these.

The attempts to "bust" the other myths are just as bad. Cook and Ludwig attempt to take on the supposed myth that "when more households have guns for self-defense, crime goes down." However, the pair is forced to conclude that "such arguments can't be dismissed." The two researchers argue that Chicago's gun laws are making it more difficult for criminals to get guns, so the laws should be kept on the books. Chicago's homicide rate, which is about three times higher than the national average, indicates to me that the city's gun control laws aren't working.

Finally, the researchers say that even if Chicago's gun ban is struck down as unconstitutional, crime may not rise when more people can legally own guns. That's right, after dedicating their entire column to the idea that we need more of the same failed gun control policies, Cook and Ludwig admit that Chicago's handgun ban may not be contributing to public safety.

The truth is, there's only one real myth surrounding gun control, and that's the myth that it works. It's a pretty simple fact: when you weaken the law-abiding, you make the law-breakers that much stronger. Right now the NRA is involved in a challenge to a gun ban in Delaware public housing. That ban isn't stopping violent gang members from arming themselves, but it prevents good people from being able to protect both their own life and the lives of their children ... and that's a fact.

The legislation the Times is touting is a "microstamping" bill that would require new handguns sold in the state to come with microscopic identifiers that supposedly will help police identify the owner of the firearm. The Times says that the microstamp, even if it is readable, can only help determine where the gun was originally sold. The paper doesn't mention the fact that this technology is easily defeated in a matter of seconds simply by using common household tools. The paper doesn't tell its readers that a criminal could replace the handgun's firing pin and render the technology useless. And the editorial staff is silent about the fact that California's microstamping law has yet to go into effect because of problems with the patent on the microstamping process.

Lawmakers who push for this bill aren't getting tough on crime, because this bill doesn't target criminals at all. The Times claims that with 1,000 unsolved homicides in New York over the past five years, microstamping would be a valuable tool for law enforcement. That argument falls apart when you consider that the vast majority of criminals don't acquire firearms through legal means, and microstamping is worthless when it comes to stolen firearms.

If lawmakers in New York want to get tough on crime, crack down on the criminals. But the Times shouldn't pretend that microstamping is anything other than a piece of anti-gun legislation dreamed up by gun control activists desperate for something they can call a victory.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. H.R. 5175 would put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threaten our members' freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also be forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings-even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If it doesn't, we will continue to strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That's easy to say unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

Of course, that's not exactly what Helmke said. His actual words were, "We will not stop our defense of common sense gun laws to protect you and your community. Please make a tax-deductible contribution to help us fight to defend your gun laws."

What "common sense" laws is Helmke talking about? The laws in Massachusetts that allow chiefs of police to require permission slips from your doctor before you can own a gun? The laws in New York that keep concealed carry permits out of the hands of the working class? The laws in California that arbitrarily ban certain firearms based on cosmetic features?

If the Supreme Court does strike down Chicago's handgun ban, one thing will be clear: our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is indeed a right, not a privilege. The gun control groups can't come out and say they're going to work as hard as they can to restrict the rights of all law-abiding Americans, but that's their game plan. They may be conceding defeat in the Chicago case, but they won't admit they've been wrong for decades, they won't admit they're wrong now, and they're not going to stop attacking your rights whenever and wherever possible.

These modern-day pirates are using fully automatic machine guns, according to press reports. Where they obtained these guns is unknown, but suffice it to say it's exceedingly unlikely they got them from anywhere in the United States. More likely, these cartel members either obtained these military-grade rifles from the illegal black market or through corrupt members of the Mexican military.

So far none of the attacks on fishermen have occurred in U.S. waters. Perhaps that's because under Texas law, it's legal for anglers to have their firearms with them. Members of the drug cartels seem unwilling, at least for now, to take the chance of facing an armed mariner who refuses to be a victim.

Keep in mind, the intruder who was killed was a repeat violent criminal released from prison before he served even half of his latest sentence. As a convicted felon, he wasn't legally allowed to touch a firearm. Not only did he have a gun, he apparently fired the first shot.

The homeowner fired back in self-defense. Not only was he protecting his own life, he was protecting his wife and his great-grandson, who lay sleeping in another room.

Does Paul Helmke support the prosecution of this man for violating Chicago's ban on handgun possession? Most importantly, what does Chicago Mayor Richard Daley have to say about the unconstitutional law he's been defending for years?

Gun control advocates are running from the idea that they ever supported blanket bans on firearms like Chicago's ban on handguns. But they'll still claim that other bans against guns that are too big, or too small, or too affordable, or just too darn "scary" are perfectly reasonable. They still support the idea of gun bans, but will they publically express their support for prosecuting this war veteran for violating one of their "common sense" laws?

Calderon used his speech to blast both Arizona's new immigration law and our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He implored Congress to pass sweeping legislation banning semi-automatic rifles, contending that our gun laws are to blame for the violence inflicted by Mexico's drug cartels.

I'm used to seeing craven politicians blame law-abiding gun owners for the actions of violent criminals, but what happened after President Calderon's finger pointing did take me by surprise. Dozens of our representatives stood and gave Calderon a standing ovation. Those elected officials looked ready and willing to cast away your rights just because a foreign leader says we shouldn't have them anymore.

Calderon said that 80% of the firearms recovered in Mexico and submitted for tracing come from the United States. But what Calderon didn't say is what percentage of firearms recovered are actually submitted for tracing. Last year, ATF Deputy Director Bill McMahon told Congress that of the 100,000 firearms Mexico claims to have seized since 2006, just 20,000 were submitted for tracing. And of those 20,000, just 7,900 were traced back to a sale by a federally licensed firearms retailer here in the U.S.

While Calderon was receiving a standing ovation from the likes of Nancy Pelosi, he conveniently ignored the inescapable fact that the drug cartels are using the international black market to get their hands on military-grade firepower. An Associated Press story from May 17th covered a grenade attack on a television station in the state of Nayarit. Newsweek reported on May 19th that an internal report from Mexico's government showed the cartels "now pack explosive, armor-piercing bullets; fragmentation grenades; missile launchers; and even antiaircraft guns," none of which can be found at your local gun store.

Felipe Calderon can ignore these facts. Anti-gun politicians in Congress can ignore these facts. The Obama administration can ignore these facts. But as long as these officials try to scapegoat our Right to Keep and Bear Arms instead of dealing with reality, don't expect a lot of progress in the fight against the increasingly militarized drug cartels south of our border.

In reality, it's the anti-gun crowd that's out of touch. Not just out of touch with NRA members, but out of touch with ordinary Americans. I recently saw a headline in a New York paper that said, "Hundreds Expected for Million Mom March." If that doesn't sum up the popularity of gun control these days, I don't know what does. More than 72,000 gun owners show up in Charlotte to support their Second Amendment rights, and hundreds of gun control advocates gather in New York City to show their disdain for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And yet we're the ones who supposedly aren't in tune with the people of this country?

Gun-control advocates are losing this debate, and they know it. They may have more friends in the media, they may have their billionaire buddies to bankroll them, but they don't have the trust of the American people, and they certainly don't have 72,128 supporters willing to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to take part in a celebration of American values and freedoms.

In Philadelphia, more than 47,000 fugitives wanted on bench warrants despite warrants being issued for their arrest. One in five armed robberies ends in a conviction. Children in one neighborhood are engaged in a "game" that involves identifying homeless individuals and then assaulting and robbing them. The solution, according to Mayor Michael Nutter and his allies on the City Council? An ordinance that would turn burglary victims into criminals themselves if they fail to provide a full accounting of missing firearms to police within 48 hours.

In California, budget cuts have put thousands of inmates back on the street before their sentences have been served, and some of them have gone on to commit heinous acts of violence against innocent people. Assemblyman Mike Feuer apparently thinks legal gun owners are a bigger problem, however, and instead of dedicating his time and energy to finding ways to keep convicted criminals behind bars, he wants to require that everyone who owns a rifle or shotgun register that long gun with the state or become a criminal.

The FBI has estimated that in some of our major cities, gangs account for 80 percent of the violent crimes committed. Yet the mayors of these cities would rather team up with Mike Bloomberg and target legal gun owners than take on the gangs that are choking the life out of their most fragile and threatened neighborhoods.

Polls show fewer and fewer Americans are buying what the gun-control advocates keep peddling. But until the politicians turn their backs on the anti-gun crowd and embrace a true anti-crime and anti-gang policy that targets the perpetrators of violent crime instead of law-abiding gun owners, too many of our cities will remain dangerous places.

Recently, two Illinois representatives called for the governor to intervene in Chicago by calling out the National Guard. There needs to be an intervention all right, but it's Mayor Daley who needs it. Someone needs to have the guts to tell him what he refuses to acknowledge: He's lost the war on gangs. He's been trying the same gun-control schemes for decades, and they don't work.

Daley's latest "achievement" is a law that supposedly makes unlawful use of a weapon a "non-probational offense" punishable by one to three years in jail. But Daley alluded to the real problem when he told reporters, "Unlawful use of a weapon is so common, [charges are] just thrown out. Whether it's juveniles or young adults, they're back right on the street ... It's treated like spitting on the sidewalk."

Unlawful use of a firearm is common in Chicago? So Daley admits that his gun ban has been a failure, and yet I don't hold out much hope for this new law doing much good. Chicago already has all the laws on the books that it needs to remove the violent criminals from the streets. They're just not using them.

Take the case of Heriberto Viramontes, who is currently behind bars in Cook County, held without bail in the brutal beating of two young women. Viramontes stands accused of using a baseball bat to attack his defenseless victims, but this is just the latest arrest for the alleged gang member. In fact, the 30-year-old has been arrested 30 times before, yet only has three convictions to his name. The mother of one of his alleged victims recently told a newspaper, "What's really upsetting is this guy has a 13-page rap sheet. He is a gang-banger. Why was he not put away a long time ago? If he had been, maybe this wouldn't have happened to my daughter."

Targeting the legal gun owners and manufacturers in this country won't do anything to stem the tide of violence on Chicago's streets. The answer is simple: Go after the violent criminals, don't let them plea bargain their crimes down to a slap on the wrist, and take them off of the streets for as long as the law allows.

The simple fact is, Chicago's violent crime problem won't be solved by going after residents who aren't criminals. Yet Mayor Daley is proposing sweeping new gun-control laws for the entire state of Illinois, presumably so that people in Quincy, Sparta, Elgin and elsewhere can be just as "safe" as Chicagoans. Bans on semi-automatic firearms, rationing residents to one handgun purchase every month and new licensing schemes for firearms retailers (who are already licensed by the federal government) will do absolutely nothing to stop the "snitches get stitches" mentality that has taken root in neighborhoods plagued by gang violence. These new laws won't prevent cold-blooded killers from waging war on innocent victims. These proposed laws will continue the failed policy of targeting legal gun owners in hopes of reducing violent crime, and all of Illinois will pay the heavy price. If these laws pass, the state better start recruiting more National Guard members, because I don't think there are enough of them to police the entire state.

Yet these outlandish attacks on gun owners don't seem to be having much of an impact. Maybe it's because Americans are smart enough to realize that the anarchy described by the gun-control activists doesn't remotely resemble the country in which we all live. Violent crime hasn't been this low in decades, while the number of legal gun owners in this country is at an all-time high. There are, according to MSNBC, some 6,000,000 Right-to-Carry holders around the country. They're our friends, our neighbors and our co-workers, and despite what Paul Helmke might say, we know they're normal, we know they're safe and we know Right-to-Carry works.

Just ask Detroit police chief Warren Evans. He recently gave a certificate of appreciation to Right-to-Carry holder Michael Farrow, who stopped a bank robber in his tracks and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. As Mr. Farrow said, "It's up to us as citizens to say ‘Hey, enough's enough. We can help out.'" I don't know about you, but I feel better, not worse, knowing there are people like Michael Farrow around.

So why are the gun-control advocates so desperate to paint the tens of millions of American gun owners as odd, abnormal or extreme? Maybe it's a simple case of projection. For decades, gun-control advocates maintained that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms at all. Yet a recent Rasmussen poll found just 14 percent of Americans agree with that position. In other words, guess who the real extremists are?

Out of step and out of touch with the majority of Americans, the gun-control groups have decided their best public relations strategy is to deny, demonize and deceive: deny they ever advocated the outright ban of firearms, demonize the right to keep and bear arms and the tens of millions of Americans who currently exercise that right, and deceive the public regarding the impact and implications of the gun-control proposals they want.

Born in Ireland, John Agnew moved to the United States when he was five. He joined the NRA in 1938, when he was still a high school student in Pennsylvania. During the war, he fought with valor, earning three Bronze Stars. After the war, like so many citizen-soldiers, he returned home and built himself a good life. He got married, began his career with Western Electric, joined the Langhorne Rod and Gun Club, and became an NRA certified firearms instructor.

For decades, John Agnew embodied the best this country has to offer. He risked his life so that others might live. He gave his time so that others could learn what he had to teach. He joined the NRA so that his children and their children could continue to enjoy the freedom and liberty he worked so hard to protect.

John Agnew is gone, but the American spirit he embodied lives on today in a new generation of warriors. And just as the NRA was with John Agnew in the 101st Airborne during World War II, the NRA is a part of the lives of countless modern American warriors as well. We honor their service as we remember their sacrifice. And to all the warriors out there, including John Agnew, we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.

At Northern Michigan University, for instance, about 20 professors expressed "concern" about the empty holster protests, and some even wanted to cancel classes! That kind of knee-jerk reaction demonstrates exactly where so many of the opponents of Right-to-Carry are coming from. They lack the knowledge necessary to have an informed opinion, but aren't willing to learn anything about the issue.

It's sad to see so much ignorance, especially at an institution of higher learning. If these professors would open their minds, they might find that they can learn a thing or two from their students.

What does it take to get the boot from Bloomberg's anti-gun group? Domestic violence charges aren't enough, apparently. Obstruction of justice and resisting arrest? Jersey City mayor Jeremiah Healy was found guilty of those charges, yet he's still a member in good standing. Perjury, obstruction of justice and assaulting a police officer? Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was charged with those crimes, but remained a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns until he resigned his office in September of 2008. (He later pleaded guilty to two felony counts and pleaded no contest to assaulting the law enforcement officer.) Even the late mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, remained a part of Mayors Against Illegal Guns after pleading no contest to illegally carrying a firearm!

Is Bloomberg so desperate for members that he will ignore the crimes committed by his fellow mayors? Or does Bloomberg simply not care about the laundry list of charges that members of MAIG have racked up in the few short years that the organization has been in existence? If Bloomberg wants to get serious about crime, perhaps he could start by booting the convicted criminals that are a part of his anti-gun crusade.

Some of the most popular firearms in the country are still banned in the District. Prospective gun owners can be denied their constitutional rights based on physical disabilities, and onerous licensing and registration requirements (including a "one gun registration per month" law) were put in place.

Now, a D.C. judge has ruled that none of these restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights of District residents. The judge in the case allegedly used an "intermediate" standard of review of the challenged regulations, but as attorney Stephen Halbrook pointed out, the judge actually gave great deference to the council's actions. Under this standard of review, it seems virtually any gun-control law short of a ban would be upheld.

That's not what the Second Amendment means to me, and it's not what the Second Amendment means to tens of millions of Americans. The struggle for our Second Amendment rights didn't end with the Heller decision. This latest ruling in D.C., along with the legal challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, demonstrates that our work is just beginning.

But the Toledo Blade fears that these armed citizens are going to make criminals become more violent. The paper actually wrote, "Some people argue that store owners defending themselves will mean fewer robbery attempts. We fear the result might instead be that bad guys will get bigger guns and be quicker to pull the trigger."

The biggest problem with that argument is that in these cases, the bad guys already had guns. It seems like the editorial position of the Blade is that people shouldn't act in self-defense until they've been shot or stabbed by their attacker, and even then, it's better to simply be an unarmed and helpless victim. Is it any wonder the elite media loses more and more credibility every day?

The woman, who describes herself as a "stubborn old broad," said she was walking to her car with some groceries when her attacker approached her and said, "This is your day. You're too old to be alive anyway."

Those chilling words weren't an idle threat. Grabbing her cane, the suspect began beating the elderly woman. That's when she grabbed the gun in her purse and fired, sending the suspect fleeing across the parking lot.

Sierra Vista Police Department spokesman Tracy Grady told KVOA-TV that the suspect "picked the wrong woman. She was the wrong target." Thank goodness that wrong target was exercising her rights that day.

Gun-control advocates have recently spent a lot of time attacking Right-to-Carry. When they do, they attack our right of self-defense. If the gun-control advocates had their way, this woman wouldn't have had a gun. The likely outcome of this criminal attack would have been a woman beaten to death in a parking lot, instead of a woman defending herself against a criminal who thought she was "too old to be alive."

Several papers in Indiana decided last year that it would be a good idea to publish online databases revealing details about Right to Carry holders. Under this bill, the media would still be able to access general information about Right to Carry, such as the number of licenses in any given community or county, but the privacy of individual gun owners will remain intact.

Many other states around the country have adopted similar measures after the personal information of gun owners appeared online. The media abuses of this information have been staggering; in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, South Dakota and elsewhere, the names and addresses of Right to Carry holders have been made public for all to see. Parole officers have had former parolees show up, uninvited and unannounced at their home. Domestic violence victims seeking a new life have heard from their abusers. And when information like this is published, criminals know both who might have guns and ammunition in the home... as well as who might be an unarmed victim. The release of this information puts everyone, not just gun owners, at risk. Thanks to the Indiana state legislators and Governor Mitch Daniels for making the state a safer place for all.

For instance, the Post calls the law "invaluable," but they never bother to demonstrate how it's made a bit of difference, either in the commonwealth or outside its borders. Sure, they claim that since the law went into effect, fewer guns from Virginia have turned up in New York state. But the Post neglects to tell its readers that during that same time period, the number of firearms recovered in New York from states without "one-gun-a-month" laws has also declined. South Carolina, for example, repealed its "one-gun-a-month" law back in 2004, and the number of firearms from the state that have been recovered in New York continues to drop nearly six years later. Of course, if the Post acknowledged that fact, they'd undercut their argument. Still, doesn't the Post have an obligation to report all of the important facts to its readers, and not just the statistics the editors like?

Virginia's "one-gun-a-month" law serves no purpose other than to ration a constitutional right. Despite claims to the contrary, there's no evidence that it's helped to reduce straw purchases of firearms, and in fact the law may make it more difficult for investigators to trace straw purchases. It's time for this useless law to get wiped off the books, and I urge gun owners across Virginia to tell their state senators to pass the repeal of "one-gun-a-month."

The D.A. and police chief in Milwaukee have stated publicly that they'd support some type of Right-to-Carry law (with details to be ironed out later) as long as other changes to the state's gun laws are made, including making it a felony to engage in a straw purchase, and new restrictions on gun shows in the state.

The NRA is second to no one in wanting to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, but the NRA can't support new restrictions on lawful firearms owners and retailers at gun shows across the state. Anti-gun politicians trying to save face by offering a "compromise" won't find a receptive audience among NRA members. The gun-banners were wrong to block Right-to-Carry in the legislature, and they're wrong to say their lukewarm support for Right-to-Carry is contingent on new gun-control laws being passed as well.

In a big victory for gun owners, and a big defeat for those media elites, the Supreme Court has ruled that the NRA and other organizations can't be muzzled during elections, and you can be sure that the largest and loudest voice for gun owners will not be silent this year. Elites like Michael Bloomberg and George Soros may have billions of dollars at their disposal, but NRA members have something that's even stronger: each other. Speaking together, NRA members can be heard from sea to shining sea, in every district where an anti-gun candidate threatens your Second Amendment rights, in every election where a defender of freedom is seeking office.

2010 will be a vitally important election year, and together we can make a difference. I hope you'll do your part in making our voice as loud as possible by donating what you can to the National Rifle Association.

The NYPD's licensing bureau is more concerned with liability issues than the safety of one of its former officers, at least according to Cowen's attorney. See, Cowen was in an on-duty car accident that left him with a shunt in his head, and the NYPD bureaucrats say that if Cowen receives a blow to the head, he could lose consciousness and control over his pistol.

The 52-year-old Cowen says he could still be a target of the mobsters he infiltrated, and recently sued to get off New York City's "no-carry" list. Unfortunately, he lost in the Manhattan Supreme Court, so for now this former cop has been disarmed by the city he protected for 25 years.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he's not anti-gun. Talk is cheap, and the fact that this cop is defenseless in Bloomberg's Big Apple shows the mayor's true agenda for firearms: denying the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to as many people as possible ... even heroes.

Maybe the Sacramento Seven should sit down and talk with the 81-year-old man who defended his life with a gun. Perhaps they could explain why they think they should have the power or authority to leave him defenseless the next time a couple of crooks decide to invade his home. And perhaps he could explain to them that his right to keep and bear arms trumps their desire for power over their constituents.

The Sacramento Seven should be ashamed of the vote they cast, and residents of Sacramento should cast a proud vote in support of the Second Amendment (and the entire Bill of Rights) when these clowns are up for re-election.

It happened not too long ago, in his home in Ridley Township, Pa. A woman came to his door one evening, asking to use his phone. Once inside the home, she sprayed Kaighn in the face with a can of starter fluid, and then hit him over the head. Kaighn stumbled to his kitchen to get a pistol he had purchased for his late wife. The homeowner and the home invader exchanged shots, but neither were hit. However, once the home invader realized that her victim wasn't the helpless old man she thought he was, she fled.

Mr. Kaighn says he's not a hero. With all due respect, Mr. Kaighn, I know plenty of NRA members who would disagree.

Since 2003, there's not been one single incident involving a Right-to-Carry holder. Since 2003, when campus carry began, crime has gone down on the campus (according to the school's former chief of security). Since 2003, campus carry has worked at Colorado State, and not long ago the student government at Colorado State voted to keep campus carry in place. So why are the rules changing?

Apparently the Faculty Council asked for the rule change, and the Board of Governors were more than happy to oblige. You would think the decision makers at a large public university would base their decision on the best available evidence instead of abject fear, but I have a feeling that when it comes to campus carry, too many colleges are institutions of pure emotion instead of higher learning.

The lawmakers in the Garden State, particularly Governor Corzine, seem unaware of or simply indifferent to the fact that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right. Maybe they think gun owners don't vote on Election Day. I think come November they'll find out how wrong they are.

In the meantime, the NRA is pursuing litigation that could lead to laws like New Jersey's "one-gun-a-month" law ruled unconstitutional. We won't stop until the Second Amendment is recognized, and protected, in every state across this nation.

You can read that amicus brief here. From Alaska to Georgia, Maine to Texas, and dozens of states in between, these attorneys general agree: "The right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is not just a ‘fundamental' liberty interest. In the Anglo-American tradition, it is among the most fundamental of rights because it is essential to securing all our other liberties."

It's expected that sometime in the fall, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear NRA v. Chicago. In the meantime, please write your attorney general and say "thanks" for signing on to this important brief. If your attorney general didn't sign on to the brief, I'd send a polite letter or email asking him or her why.

Judge Sotomayor has shown an appalling lack of knowledge on Second Amendment issues, but this takes the cake. The Heller decision is full of comments about the right of self-defense, including these quotes:

"The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."

Self-defense is not only a right, it's an inherent right. If you don't get that, you don't deserve a spot on the Supreme Court.

In the Maloney v. Cuomo decision, a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel that included Sotomayor said, "It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." The court cited the 19^th-century case Presser v. Illinois as evidence of that "settled law," but ignored a clear avenue to incorporation that wouldn't require overturning any previous Supreme Court decision.

The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case Nordyke v. King, recently determined that the Second Amendment is indeed a fundamental right, and one that must be incorporated against state and local governmental abuse. They reached this conclusion by conducting a modern selective incorporation analysis. That analysis concluded the Second Amendment passes the "fundamental rights test"; it is a right "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition."

Judge Sotomayor and the rest of the 2nd Circuit panel in Maloney v. Cuomo did not engage in selective incorporation analysis. They decided, in an ultimately incomplete and incorrect decision, that the Second Amendment cannot be incorporated to the states because a 19^th-century law told them so. Judge Sotomayor has not adequately explained why the 2nd Circuit ignored 20^th-century selective incorporation, and has shown no evidence that she understands how a right is determined to be deemed "fundamental." 

ABC News political commentator George Stephanopoulos was asked why President Obama was in such a rush to force a vote on his health care reform bill before Congress adjourned for its August recess. NRA hasn't been involved in this issue, but George's comment said a lot about politics on Capitol Hill and, ultimately, about NRA members and their vigilance in guarding the Second Amendment.

Why is the Obama administration trying to rush a bill through before the August recess?

"They fear that if Congress goes home and gets an earful from constituents, they won't have the support in September," George said.

They'd rather pass whatever bill they want, without input from the people back home.

That happens a lot in Washington. Capitol Hill is full of political operators who don't trust or value the opinions of Americans, and they won't go out of their way to ask for the opinions of their constituents.

But NRA members don't care much for that, and don't wait to be asked. We pay attention to the issues, we write and call our representatives, and we speak our minds and make sure we're heard. And that's what democracy is all about.

The screenwriter Aaron Sorkin penned the line, "Decisions are made by those who show up."

That's the NRA. We show up. Because we know that complacency is freedom's greatest enemy, a sure path toward losing our rights.

Today, more Americans own more firearms and ammunition than ever before in history. And millions of those Americans have also joined the NRA ... to protect the rights they enjoy and preserve their freedom for the future.

At a time when so many politicians would rather not hear from us or most other Americans, we'll keep doing what NRA members have been doing for decades to protect our freedom.

The San Diego Public School Board voted 3-2 to kill the air rifle program after a handful of activists complained that the presence of a competitive shooting team sent a "wrong message" in a community overwhelmed by gang activity.

Never mind the fact that these cadets weren't even troublemakers, much less violent criminals. Never mind that many of them said the team taught them discipline and responsibility, and perhaps even kept them out of trouble. Never mind the honors and achievements these students earned, or the chance to go on to college on a scholarship. The guns had to go.

This school board became convinced that banning responsible and supervised air gun use on campus would somehow reduce gang activity. Elizabeth Avalos, Monica Cedano, Jamison Clafin-Cave, and Maria Mendoza were going to have to find another sport, and another way to spend their time.

I hope that all of them will continue shooting competitively, even if it can't be with the JROTC. If they need help in finding a team, or a club, or a coach, I'll be happy to help. The school board should be embarrassed for equating gang activity with an air rifle team, and if they had any sense they'd reinstate the program immediately. Instead, good kids are going to be punished for the absolute foolishness of just three adults.

Those civilians are disarmed, because the ruling oligarchs didn't trust the people of Iran to own firearms. There is no provision in the Iranian constitution protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and as a result, the people of Iran have been largely disarmed. Now, as they fight for their right of self-government, they are doing so at a great disadvantage, and at great personal peril.

I've seen a few bloggers say that they're glad the Iranian people are disarmed, because otherwise, "the violence would have escalated on both sides and the death toll would have been much higher." I don't know about you, but I think there's something wrong with a person who prefers to see a massacre instead of people exercising self-defense.

The gun-control advocates can turn a blind eye to current events. They can ignore thousands of years of human history. Still, they can't ignore two simple truths: Our right to keep and bear arms is the great bulwark of liberty, and the best way to stop the bad guys with guns is to make sure the good guys have them, too. Millions of Americans know it, they thank God for it, and they are working every day to make sure that this generation, and every one that will come after, will have that same protection against tyranny, despotism and abuse.