Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says he would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment if he could.

NRA-ILA says thank you, Justice Stevens and Mrs. Obama

(GunReports.com) -- In case any reader of the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action's weekly Grassroots Alert has not decided how to vote in the 2012 presidential election, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and First Lady Michelle Obama have volunteered to help him make up his mind.

According to NRA-ILA:

Recently, Time magazine asked Stevens what he would fix about the American judicial system. Stevens' response: "I would make all my dissents into majority opinions." Fair enough, since he's entitled to think he is right, even when a majority of his former colleagues and a larger majority of the American citizenry disagree.

But then Time asked Stevens to single out one issue in particular, and he said, "I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment." Referring to the Court's decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases that the Second Amendment protects individuals from federal, state and local infringements on their right to possess and carry arms, he added "The court got that quite wrong."

In his dissent in Heller, Stevens claimed that "there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." And in his dissent in McDonald, he claimed that even if one assumed the Fourteenth Amendment protects a general right to self-defense, that didn't mean that a person has a right to have a handgun. As if to suggest some logic to his theory, Stevens said "while some might favor handguns, it is not clear that they are a superior weapon for lawful self-defense."

We have earlier noted the comment of another of the four justices who dissented from the majority's Hellerand McDonald opinions, Stephen Breyer, to the effect that District of Columbia residents who don't like the city's onerous gun laws should go to Maryland. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another of the Heller and McDonald dissenters, has publicly indicated her hope that a "future, wiser court" will reconsider the Heller decision.

Of course, Justice Stevens and another of the four dissenting justices in Heller, Justice David Souter, have since retired and been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented from the majority's decision inMcDonald, and Justice Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in August 2010 and who had a clear anti-gun record during her service in the Clinton White house.

Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated to the Court by President Barack Obama, of course. And not long ago, during a pre-2012 campaign event, First Lady Michelle Obama asked some of the president's most ardent supporters to remember the Court's two newest justices when they go into the voting booth next year. In the upcoming election, she said, "we're going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come . . . let's not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices . . . let's not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come."

Obama supporters will not forget, and neither should supporters of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment's margin of safety on the Court remains intact by merely one vote. Given the likelihood of at least one retirement from the Court during the next presidential term, the future of the amendment could easily hinge on Election Day 2012.

Tweet

Reader Comments

Just in case some of you are muddy on your history, this is what really caused the first shots of the Revolution. Here, from the site: http://www.nps.gov/mima/north-bridge-questions.htm is the real story behind the first shots of the Revolutionary War.This is the story: What was the reason for the British expedition to Concord? On the evening of April 18, 1775, General Thomas Gage sent approximately 700 British soldiers out to Concord (about 18 miles distant) to seize and destroy military stores and equipment known to be stockpiled in the town. His orders to Lt. Col. Smith, the British officer who was to lead the expedition, were as follows:

Sir: Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will march with the Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your command, with the utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provision, Tents, Small Arms, and all military stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants, or hurt private property.

Under great pressure from his superiors in England to bring Massachusetts back under control of the "lawful government," General Gage sent the troops to Concord in the hopes that by doing so, he could convince the colonists to back down, and thus avoid an armed rebellion. General Gage also believed that seizing stockpiles of weapons was not only a military necessity, but also his prerogative as governor of the colony. The colonists actively disagreed. ----------------------- There is a long history, going back to the founding of this Country, that we will maintain our arms, and that trying to take them from us, is, decidedly, NOT a good idea! We will always "actively disagree", and there are lots more of us now............

Comment by: Jumper | November 3, 2011

What really makes my hair on end is how someone can have so little knowledge of history and our nation's laws can rise to the Supreme court, the highest court in our land.

Comment by: Mister E | November 3, 2011

Amen to the comment by Mister E. I marvel at the interpretations of law by so many judges throughout our judiciary. It makes one wonder if those judges went to the same schools as we did, or if they came from another planet. Laws are made up of words, and words usually have a limited number of meanings, but for the life of me, I cannot understand how some people can get such totally different meanings from those same words. There's something else that is at work here, too. Justice Stevens has retired, and as such his opinion is that of a private citizen. When he comes out with some ludicrously bizarre comment, whether we like it or not, his comment still carries the weight of a Supreme Court Justice.....even if he wasn't one of our favorite justices.

Comment by: canovack | November 3, 2011

I have said before and will say it again "O' Bama is the most dangerous man in America today." If he gets reelected in 2012, he will be able to appoint more left wing, totalitarian justices to the Supreme Court.What will that mean for the 2nd amendment-death. Underneath their fake " we love everyone" facade, the left wingers are true hard core Nazis.

Comment by: DEAN O | November 3, 2011

As long as we have human beings on the Supreme and inferior Courts, judges will inject their own belief structures into their opinions. Where Scalia and the current majority (bless 'em)see a need to get to the original intent of the Constitutional Framers, that mandate is nowhere in the Constitution itself. Neither, of course, is the countervailing view that the Constitution should be read "modernly."

As to the Second Amendment, it would have been a whole lot easier if the Framers had simply written that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Then the courts wouldn't be having any debate as to whether the "well regulated militia" clause makes the "People's right" clause a state rather than personal right.

In other words, there is always going to be judges who favor denigrating personal rights to those of the government and those who view the rights of the individual as paramount. Which is in the majority depends on the POTUS who appoints them and who runs the Senate which advises and consents (or doesn't).

Comment by: Visigoth52 | November 3, 2011

Yeah, the framers really did give us a puzzle when they put that little preamble on the Second Amendment. Of course we gunners are agreed that it simply lays the rational groundwork for the later phraseology, since we recognize that the militia includes all able bodied men. Perhaps Charley Reese put it best in one of his columns when he said that the little preamble was sort of like saying "Carrots being known for improving visual acuity, the right of the people to maintain vegetable gardens shall not be infringed". Simple.....huh?

Comment by: canovack | November 3, 2011

Let's not forget that Justice Stevens retired at a time when a facist liberal was in the White House to assure that his seat would be taken by another facist liberal. If a single reasonable justice is replaced by the current administration, we lose the majority. Until the current resident of the White House is replaced, the secdond amendment hangs by every heartbeat of every reasonable justice on the supreme court. We should do everything possible to reduce the duration of that risk. NOBAMA 2012 is the war cry.

Comment by: MadDawg51 | November 3, 2011

Actually, Visigoth, When read with 17th or 18th century definitions the words are quite correct. Militia was anyone capable of bearing arms and well regulated meant that said militia was proficient with their weapons (as in a well regulated watch keeps time accurately ) The BILL OF RIGHTS designates personal GOD given rights of the citizens of the Republic (and IMO all people) as well as LIMITING the reach of the central government.

Comment by: Robert Hahn | November 3, 2011

Robert, that is precisely the point I was making. Prior to and at the time this nation was being forged, most of the population lived in a more rural setting. Every able-bodied man was compelled to be a member of the local militia in order to help stave off attacks by various marauders. But modernly we do not have such a militia (despite the self-appointed ones), we have police and National Guard instead. But just because the agencies have changed does that mean that our rights have changed? Some judges and politicians would say yes. Those of of us in this forum and others, including a slim majority on the Supreme Court, resoundingly say no.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | November 4, 2011

I don't believe they were compelled, I believe it was (and is) a natural state for a man to defend himself and his neighbors from unwarranted aggression (to the best of their ability). Unfortunately, many people, today, believe since they pay military, police and fire to watch over our community, they are relieved of their responsibility to one another. As a Sheep Dog I see the preface of the 2nd Ammd as merely a foundation or explanation for the main thought. Not really a puzzle and rather straight forward.

Comment by: Robert Hahn | November 4, 2011

Actually, yes, many militia members of that time had a choice of serving, paying a hefty fine or serving time in the stocks. I call that compulsion.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | November 6, 2011

An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers: Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others. While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion. --Tim Cole Publisher, GunReports.Com To post a comment you must be a registered user of gunreports.com and be logged in. Use one of the forms below to login or register for FREE to gunreports.com Login to gunreports.com E-mail Address: Password: Forgot your password? Register and Post Comment *Fields marked with an asterisk are required. * First Name: * Last Name: * E-mail Address: * Password: * Retype Password: * Blog Username: * Comments: E-mail me when new comments are posted in this thread?