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

Obama to Congress:
I’ll decide what’s constitutional

(GunReports.com) -- Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, recently wrote about President Obama ignoring constitutional restrictions on his executive power. In a Daily Caller op-ed, Cox said:

"Election season is here, and you might think President Obama would be going out of his way to show voters that he can be trusted with the powers of the presidency. But you would be wrong. Just a few days before Christmas, Obama served notice to all Americans that he will continue to abuse executive privilege by seeking new ways to vilify gun owners and further his anti-gun agenda.

"Congress placed a provision in the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill for 2012 designed to bar the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using any of its $30.7 billion taxpayer funds to 'advocate or promote gun control.'"

However, upon signing the bill into law, President Obama issued a caveat of his own: "I have advised Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient."

Cox added, "Of course, the Constitution doesn’t actually give the president this power, but Obama won’t allow a little thing like the U.S. Constitution get in his way."

Read more at the Daily Caller.

Tweet

Reader Comments

Looks like Chicago politics have festered in DC

Comment by: lorenzo | January 12, 2012

Read carefully folks. The Daily Caller 'story' is an op-ed piece. BO's statement does not pertain to the law itself, nor to the CDC, nor to gun control. He only says that He will not accept limits on his constitutional responsibility to recommend legislative measures.

One might say that signing statements are unconstitutional in and of themselves, as there is NO provision in the Constitution for the POTUS to do more than sign with his signature or to veto a law passed out of Congress. But that is immaterial here - signing statements have been increasingly used since at least Reagan, maybe longer, Bush was the signing statement king, and singling out one to fuss about is just a red herring.

Basically, the only thing to complain about is the "responsibility to recommend to the Congress" part - and presidents recommending issues to Congress for Congressional handling via legislation probably has happened as long as this Republic has been standing.

IOTW - move along, nothing to see here.

Comment by: david b | January 12, 2012

Wasn't Mr. Cox heading up the SEC when Bernie Madoff was stealing from his clients? and didn't the SEC ignore all the warnings given to them? Is he the same Chris Cox? If he is he should have been sent up the creek for not doing his job. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Comment by: playhookie | January 12, 2012

Ignorant, Arrogant Bastard. But is Romney the same? They're both kiss-arses to the big banks.

Comment by: Mister E | January 12, 2012

playhookie, Apparently not the same guy.

http://www.outdoorchannel.com/Personalities/ChrisCox.aspx

"Prior to joining the NRA, he served as a senior legislative aide for a member of Congress, managing judiciary issues, including criminal justice reforms and firearms-related matters."

That statement isn't dated, but the identical one on the NRA-ILA website is, and that date is January 1, 2005. So Chris Cox / NRA apparently preceeds the Maddow meltdown. Meaning that you must be thinking of someone else.

Comment by: david b | January 12, 2012

The arrogance of the Mr.Obama claiming the Legislative Branch of the Government is in recess. It was not in recess. He broke the law so that he could hire a number of people without vetting. This is Chicago politics at its worse. It is time that the Senate Democratic and the House Republican speakers call him to task. They are not willing to do their jobs that we sent to Washington D.C. to due. He will not even be slapped on the hand for breaking the Laws of the Land. Why haven’t our elected officials demand he appear in before Congress and explain why he can ignored the document he swore to protect and defend. Senators and House Representatives also seem to ignoring the Constitution. I am truly disappointed that we cannot trust our elected official to do the jobs they were sent Washington D.C. to do. By not defending the Constitution they are complicit with Mr. Obama. Is it now time for the people who WE sent to Washington to join the lines of those who are unemployed.

Comment by: Stephen H | January 12, 2012

I wikipediad Mr. Cox and Madoff. Cox was in charge when the allegations about Madoff began. Cox cleared them. In fact Madoff's neice married one of the inspectors under Cox's watch. Cox walked on this one. Mr. E and David B. you guys may want to take a look at this.

Comment by: playhookie | January 12, 2012

so where is the link? OR what search term did you use on Wikipedia? Does it state it's the SAME Chris Cox? I wonder, because it's not like either is an uncommon name. But it could be.

Comment by: david b | January 12, 2012

And Obama walks on all counts as well.Mr. Obama does not believe the laws of our nation apply to him.He truly believes he is above the constitutional oversight of the executive branch.

Comment by: Sharps | January 12, 2012

Hookie - it's a different Chris Cox. Just look at the photo on wiki and compare it to the one on the op-ed.

David - I agree - it's all opinion, stretched, and frankly a bit old.

Comment by: PVB | January 12, 2012

I'm maybe too suspicious, but whenever I see something written or hear something from someone whom I know has an agenda of some kind, I'm just more cautious about what they say. And people who are on a payroll to work that agenda have time to craft their words to suck us into their views, so I get doubly cautious when the person is a paid 'mouth-piece'. And on a political subject? Double down again!

Too many times thru The Godfather movies I guess.

Comment by: david b | January 12, 2012

Signing statements have been around at least since Lincoln. All sorts of presidents have used/abused the recess appointment power. Pres. Obama's immediate predecessor used them -- I don't think he ever signed a bill without a signing statement. The President is directed by the Constitution (Article 2 Section 3)to advise the Congress on any and all topics he thinks should be considered (doesn't mean that Congress has to listen). So don't get sidetracked by the tactics -- you leave yourself open to the legitimate criticism that you only want "your" guy to do these things, but not "their" guy - sounds like sour grapes. Ask any and all political office holders and seekers how they stand on any issue important to you -- and point out their inconsistencies and "misrepresentations" (that is the PC term for LIES) and don't let them slide by - regardless of their party. I'm not sure that the current Republican pack are all that supportive of the 2nd amendment.

Comment by: mingpooh | January 13, 2012

Got the email just this morning. Chris Cox did head up the SEC. He was appointed by GW in 2005. Don't take my word for it just type in Madoff Cox on Wikipedia and see for yourselves. I rmembered this from when the scandal became public. I was highly disapointed in Mr.Cox as I knew him to be highly intellegent but the facts speak for themselves. He also issued a statement at the time talking of the SEC's failure. He took no responsibility for that himself of course though he was in charge.

Comment by: playhookie | January 13, 2012

Got the email just this morning. Chris Cox did head up the SEC. He was appointed by GW in 2005. Don't take my word for it just type in Madoff Cox on Wikipedia and see for yourselves. I rmembered this from when the scandal became public. I was highly disapointed in Mr.Cox as I knew him to be highly intellegent but the facts speak for themselves. He also issued a statement at the time talking of the SEC's failure. He took no responsibility for that himself of course though he was in charge.

Comment by: playhookie | January 13, 2012

Got the email just this morning. Chris Cox did head up the SEC. He was appointed by GW in 2005. Don't take my word for it just type in Madoff Cox on Wikipedia and see for yourselves. I rmembered this from when the scandal became public. I was highly disapointed in Mr.Cox as I knew him to be highly intellegent but the facts speak for themselves. He also issued a statement at the time talking of the SEC's failure. He took no responsibility for that himself of course though he was in charge.

Comment by: playhookie | January 13, 2012

Got the email just this morning. Chris Cox did head up the SEC. He was appointed by GW in 2005. Don't take my word for it just type in Madoff Cox on Wikipedia and see for yourselves. I rmembered this from when the scandal became public. I was highly disapointed in Mr.Cox as I knew him to be highly intellegent but the facts speak for themselves. He also issued a statement at the time talking of the SEC's failure. He took no responsibility for that himself of course though he was in charge.

Comment by: playhookie | January 13, 2012

Christopher Cox (NEC) and Chris Cox (NRA) are two different men. All you have to do is google them to see their pictures.Just because the names are the same does not mean they are the same.Just as you would not accuse all "John Smiths" of murder because a "John Smith" murdered someone,do not blame the NRA Chris Cox of the NEC Christopher Coxs' errors.With all the info available via the net,it is usually laziness that causes this sort of mistake.I am no big fan of NRA Chris and the SEC is full of **** in my opinion.

Comment by: fmjjn | January 13, 2012

fmjjn is absolutely correct. I checked on Google Images, and there is no way the two guys are the same. Sorry, playhookie, you're mistaken. Tricked by a common enough name I guess.

Comment by: david b | January 13, 2012

Hookie will figure it out eventually. More to point, I'm not sure I like the use of quotation marks around Cox's paraphrase of Obama. I mostly agree with the intent of the editorial, but making it look like an Obama quote is misleading. This is the type of rhetoric that contributes to a lack of respect for the NRA as an organization.

Comment by: PVB | January 13, 2012

All three branches of the federal Yankee government (executive, legislative and judicial) are supposed to be in the business of preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution--all of it. When one branch blows it, if I recall my Civics classes, the others are supposed to check and balance the offender. That's not happening now and everybody there seems intent on their own agenda. Whatever happened to those politicians we used to call "statesmen" that were more interested in the fate of this nation than in their own petty politics?

Comment by: Visigoth52 | January 13, 2012

I have a feeling there's more money than patriotism floating around D.C. It's pretty much turned into a 'feather my nest and I'll use my position to do something nice for you' situation. They'll all be lynched one day - probably the day we donate California back to Mexico, or dynamite the fault line and let it all sink into the Pacific.

Comment by: david b | January 13, 2012

More controversy.....Is anybody surprised?

Comment by: canovack | January 13, 2012

Nope....

Comment by: PVB | January 14, 2012

Yesterday a Clinton appointed Federal Judge said that it was ok for the BATFE to make gun store owners in the states bording Mex., Cal., AZ, New Mex, and Texas, report any one that buys 2 or more simi auto's at one time to the BATFE.

This crap sounds like disgrimanation to me and a violation of privacy, because if I go and buy 2, 10-22's the same day here comes the BATFE knocking on my door to see what I got and what I am doing, and that is non of their bussiness.

God Bless America and Our Troops Past Present and Future. Keeping to My Oath Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry. Get the US Out of the UN and the UN Out of the US

Comment by: bear1 | January 14, 2012

hookie is another troll. Only see what he wants to see.

Comment by: Zippy06 | January 14, 2012

hookie is another troll. Only see what he wants to see.

Comment by: Zippy06 | January 14, 2012

Bear - not only what you said, but Congress has already said "No you can't..."

FYI - the "multiple purchases" is already in place for handguns, and the ATF probably won't come banging on your door. I believe they are looking at it as a "trip line" or whatever the "modern" LE term is for strong indicators for future crime potential. I know the FBI has used the practice to good success in some anti-terror cases since 2001, although it also makes many of us nervous as government power (and abuse thereof) increases.

Comment by: PVB | January 15, 2012

PVB, I don't know what state you live in, but what this so called judge is saying is that the gunshops in ONLY the 4 states that border Mexico have to do this, not all the states in the country, also this has never been voted on by either the states or congress, but put into affect buy an AGENTCY of the GOVERNMENT (BATFE) whitch is Disgrimanation and Abuse of power by a Government Agentcy. Inso doing this not only I have somthing to be nervous about but alot of others do also. Because this tells me that the BATFE and DOJ are Not looking for the Guns that they let straw buyers of FnF in any other state of whence the straw buyers have gone too. When you only aply this type of inforcement to only 4 states and not all it is DISCRIMANATION BIG TIME and there for ABUSE of Government POWER cut and dried. God Bless America and Our Troops Past Present and Future. Keeping to My Oath Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry. Get the US Out of the UN and the UN Out of the US.

Comment by: bear1 | January 15, 2012

One could call the application of such a rule "profiling", and that has been held to be discriminatory in general. However, you auto insurance companies profiles you by age, gender, how far you drive to work and even the neighborhood and state in which you live. Your health insurance bills come from profiling too - e.g. when I was working for one of the 'biggies' in the biz, they started charging more for Hispanics because there apparently a higher tendency toward diabetes in that population. But again, you're profiled for age, gender, race, lifestyle, job categories, etc.

Somehow, when a big company does it, it's legal. But when the cops want to catch drug mules and dealers, or illegal border jumpers, it's not. Go figure. Just one more indication that what happens in D.C. is a disease that needs to be excised from the body of the nation.

Comment by: david b | January 16, 2012

There is definitely a need for far reaching reform of our national government..... The driver of that reform will come in November, and hopefully the electorate will abide by the principle of ABI.....Anyone But Incumbents.

Comment by: canovack | January 16, 2012

Bear - I know. I don't recall the legislation, but congress specifically told the administration this would be an abuse of BATFE authority, but they did it anyway, and a judge said its okay. The judge is apparently a commie pinko bastard, and we all know about the administration already....

Singling out "the border states" is wrong beyond comprehension, though I figure it's only a matter of time before they extend it to the rest of the country.

David - I agree, although certain aspects of the way the insurance industry adjusts rates based on your "history" makes a little bit of sense. Then again, if we weren't so socially conscious, perhaps small groups of "Arab looking" flight students would not have escaped notice.

Comment by: PVB | January 19, 2012

History based adjustments would be fine, P V B, and to the degree they have that it I wouldn't much care about that. However, for a kid starting to drive, it's gender based - boys pay more than girls because OTHER kids show that gender makes a difference. But THAT is profiling as soon as you talk crime or drugs. For adults, your neighborhood makes a difference in your homeowners, and likely in the theft coverage and costs of your auto policies. THAT is profiling.

So, we all get profiled by insurance companies daily, and we're OK with that. It's because of the 'spread the risk' concept of insurance apparently. In this particular case, I'm sure there are gunshops in NYC, Jersey, and any number of big cities where they have a higher number of 'crime guns' traceable to those shops. Probably due to higher burglary rates, but maybe due to straw buyers. So ATF is 'profiling' the shops in those states, as is the judge. There are no multiple sales reporting requirements or whatever going to "Billy's Blow-'em-away Gun Store" in Norristown, nor the "Family Pocket Protector" store in Cleveland.

Comment by: david b | January 19, 2012