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

Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain has not yet returned GOA's questionnaire.

GOA: Where is Cain on 2nd Amendment?

(GunReports.com) -- Gun Owners of America notes that Herman Cain has soared to the top of the Republican presidential field, but the group asks where he stands on the Second Amendment.

From GOA: According to a new Zogby poll this week, Herman Cain has soared into the lead and now sits atop the Republican field. Here are the latest results:

• Herman Cain (28%)
• Rick Perry (18%)
• Mitt Romney (17%)
• Ron Paul (11%)
• Newt Gingrich (6%)
• Jon Huntsman, Jr. (5%)
• Michele Bachmann (4%)
• Rick Santorum (2%)
• Gary Johnson (1%)

Cain is one of a few Republican hopefuls who have taken a strong stand on issues that are important to political conservatives. But where does he stand on the Second Amendment?

Some of the top contenders (such as Rick Perry and Ron Paul) have pro-gun records to run on. Others (such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich) have very mixed or anti-gun records in their haunted past. But Cain has no legislative record. We have no history in public office by which to judge him -- which is why it’s so important that GOA gets an answer back from him on GOA’s Presidential Survey.

Otherwise, we only have bits and pieces of speeches and interviews that Cain has engaged in. And while those statements help somewhat, they also raise more questions than they answer.

For example, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this year, Cain expressed strong support for gun rights: “I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

But in answer to a follow-up question asking whether states or local governments should be allowed to impose gun control restrictions, Cain said, “Yes. The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.”

That’s an answer that needs further explanation, especially given the fact that almost one year earlier to the day, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that states and localities were limited with respect to interfering with a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

Now, to be fair, it could be that Cain is thinking: As President, it’s none of my business what the states do on guns or any other issue. A true constitutionalist (unlike the current President) would understand that the federal government has limited powers and is restricted to exercising the 17 or 18 powers that are spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Moreover, a true constitutionalist would understand that the states -- as James Madison said -- have “plenary powers” to try different approaches. As goes the cliché: the states are separate “laboratories” for public policy experiments.

Cain’s statement about state gun control does raise some important questions though:

• Is he aware that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to impose the Bill of Rights -- and specifically the Second Amendment -- upon the states?
• What does he think about the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald? Does he agree that states and localities -- subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment -- are constitutionally barred from banning guns?
• And what about concealed carry outside of one’s home state? As President, would Herman Cain sign or veto a bill like H.R. 2900, which provides for concealed carry recognition amongst the states?

We don’t have answers to these questions, and that’s why GOA’s Presidential Survey is so important. It asks about concealed carry recognition, the renewal of the semi-auto ban and repealing gun restrictions (like the Brady law and various import bans). Plus it gets the candidates’ views on issues such as UN gun control, undoing existing anti-gun Executive Orders and reining in the BATFE.

GOA has sent a survey to Herman Cain, but so far, he has not returned a completed questionnaire.

Tweet

Reader Comments

We MUST find out where this candidate stands on the 2nd Amendment as soon as possible. The GOP is not offering us a decent, all around candidate out of the entire lot. I can't help but wonder if the GOP leadership has become so isolated in their Washington offices that they've completely lost touch with reality. It is terrifying to think that we will have 4 more years of Obama if the Republicans can't find at least one sane candidate in this entire country to run for POTUS. I'd settle for one who isn't already labeled as a world class liar or with immoral skeletons hidden in their closet. Cain needs to get off his duff and tell us where he stands on the issues, or the American voters are just going to write him off as just another wishy-washy wanna-be and stick with Obama. If that happens, we're going to be sitting ducks for the Obama/Clinton/Holder triplets to be taking some serious pot-shots at every one of the millions of decent, honest American gun owners.

Comment by: Jammer2 | October 4, 2011

Every candidate should be subjected to hard scrutiny on any issue of importance. Otherwise, when you ask a question, they just 'do a little sidestep' and lead the people on. Cain is no different than any other in his need to provide direct answers to hard questions - and letting the states decide about restriction of gun ownership is contrary to the Second Amendment, so that is one thing he should be specifically asked about.

Comment by: david b | October 6, 2011

Cain MUST clarify his position. If he indeed a Constitutionalist, then he MUST support the 2nd Amendment. It is interesting that the 14th Amendment was imposed by the federal government when states infringed on voting rights, the states claiming they were within their rights under the 10th Amendment. If the voting rights intervention was lawful and the Constitution is indeed the Supreme Law of the Land, then federal intervention is as lawful and logical in defending the 2nd Amendment.

Comment by: 5thcommjarhead | October 6, 2011

The good news is that Herman Cain has very strongly voiced his support of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.ammoland.com/2011/10/04/herman-cain-on-the-second-amendment/

The bad news is that he apparently disavows the 14th Amendments proscription of State and local infringement of Citizen immunities.

I've asked his campaign to clarify.

Comment by: FRANK B | October 6, 2011

I hope he is pro-gun so I can vote for a guy with common sense......

Comment by: mariano | October 6, 2011

Who ever gets the Republican nomination will, as a matter of course, be the candidate of choice for anybody who has declared themselves to be anti-Obama. While some of the so-called front runners in the GOP are maintaining a low profile on hot-button topics like the Second Amendment, it is up to us to force the issue. I have repeatedly communicated with the campaigns of the most prominent Republican candidates, urging them to have their candidates declare support for the Second Amendment. That they haven't yet done so is not an indication that they won't.....they simply must hear from as many of us as we can muster to join in the chorus of those who demand to know where the candidates stand. In this instance, the candidates are essentially the same as our elected representatives.....They will act, if they hear enough from us to convince them that they must make their positions known. No politician will let more out of his/her strategy bag than they are forced to release. It is up to us to make them release their stands.

Comment by: canovack | October 6, 2011

Agreed Colonel, but might I point out that they should be pushed to make their positions known - while we don't make ours known - in order to get a more honest answer. If they get too much contact requesting 2A support statements, they will make one - honestly or NOT, as the case may be. But if they are just pushed to make their thoughts public, they may just do precisely that. Nothing can keep a candidate from lying, but if they don't know which side to lie for or against, we might get the truth.

Comment by: david b | October 6, 2011

Yes, david b, I fully agree. Any quest for a declaration of a candidate's position on any issue must be made from a neutral perspective. It's no wonder the SAF and GOA can't get responses to their questionnaires when the SAF and GOA letterheads are on the correspondence. This is precisely where we as ordinary citizens can request a candidate's position as we couch our requests in a neutral format.

Comment by: canovack | October 6, 2011

How can we push Cain to get that survey fill out and back to you? I for one will not vote for anyone who does not clearly state his views on my Constitutional Rights, including the 2d amendment.

Reb

Comment by: Rebl | October 6, 2011

How can we push Cain to get that survey fill out and back to you? I for one will not vote for anyone who does not clearly state his views on my Constitutional Rights, including the 2d amendment.

Reb

Comment by: Rebl | October 6, 2011

Reb, I can certainly understand your position. That said, however, it is incumbent on all of us to vote for Obama's challenger, unless, of course, we want another four years of Obama, Holder, Clinton, etc. It is up to us to force the hands of these politicians so they will reveal their stands on all of the issues, and very importantly.....the Second Amendment.

Comment by: canovack | October 6, 2011

Have followed Cain on Atlanta talk radio for years and has been very pro 2A every time the issue has come up!However, I am disturbed if he made comments about state regulation being OK? With that logic, all of the other Bill of Rights amendments would be subject to state law?

Comment by: ordnance outsellers | October 7, 2011

I'm puzzled by anyone who thinks the states should regulate firearms. First, fed law is always held to be superior to state law, and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. So, second, the states would not be permitted to make any law which 'infringes' on the right to keep and to bear weapons of any kind - the Second Amendment says "Arms", not "firearms". (We of course must for the moment disregard that the GCA68 is itself a violation of the Constitution.) Lastly, you can't make a more liberal law than 'shall not be infringed' unless you make one that that is supportive as opposed to 'not infringing' - one that says for example 'the state shall provide to each adult citizen a rifle, optical aiming device and 1,000 rounds of ammunition'. (I wish!)

To suggest that states can regulate firearms is to suggest that they can also screw with due process of law, can quarter state police in your home, don't need search warrants, can limiting voting rights, control your speech, etc. We as a nation don't tolerate even that kind of TALK, so why should we tolerate it when it's about guns?

The law of the land says "shall not be infringed". It's that simple, and we need to educate citizens to the fact that if the feds or a state can violate that guaranteed right, then they can violate / regulate any guarantee they choose. Of course, that would imply ditching the Patriot Act in its entirety, the Military Commissions Act, the Pandemic Influenza Act (sets up martial law in the states by POTUS edict), and a whole host of other laws as well, but what the hell. If it's the right thing to do, it's should be done.

Comment by: david b | October 7, 2011

Ditto the comments by david b. The last thing that we want to happen is for the separate states to get involved in issues and topics that are the purview of the federal government. When the Constitution of the United States of America plainly states what is and what is not empowered to the federal government and/or what is and what is not empowered to the separate states, THAT is the law of the land. It shall not be messed with! Reality being what it is, of course we see breaches of that enumeration of powers.....on a fairly grand scale. When those breaches occur, they are dealt with in the judicial process that may well escalate to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is the way things are supposed to happen, and it is up to us to make sure that it is the way they do happen.

Comment by: canovack | October 7, 2011

I'd rather hear Cain's direct words, rather than hearsay. If Cain is pro-2nd amendment, he is pro 2nd amendment, and the states statement makes no sense. I'd like to see this question in a debate: "Do you believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right that cannot be revoked except as a penality for certain criminal convictions in a court of law?" Another great question. "Will you be a kiss-a$$ to the big banks like the previous few presidents?. That should liven the debates.

Comment by: Mister E | October 7, 2011

I don't care if he is the second coming of Jeff Cooper, after his playing the race card against Perry I scratched Herman from my list of possibles. I no longer have any respect for him. As far as I am concerned he is on the bus with Reverends Jessie and AL.

Comment by: quiet man | October 7, 2011

http://www.cain4prez.com/2011/03/herman-cain-speaks-to-the-nra-convention/

Comment by: bglaser | October 7, 2011

Gee quiet man,you could not expect him to not say anything about it! He would really look like a phoney if he denied his culture....

Comment by: mariano | October 8, 2011

Mariano, In his original comment, which he gave as soon as the "news" broke. He said in effect the he word was vile and then went on to attack Perry. Later, after it was determined that Perry had nothing to do with the words on the rock and actually had them painted out Cain changed his story. Version two was that he was only talking about the word and not Perry. In fact he mentioned Perry by name in his original remarks. Flip flopping and denying what you know you said has nothing to with culture, it has to do with character.

Comment by: quiet man | October 8, 2011

I did not know about the two separate comments quiet man;now hopefully this will be the only flipflop he says!

Comment by: mariano | October 8, 2011

Marino, sometimes I think I pay too much attention to politics. No matter who gets the nomination we have no where to go but up if he/she gets elected.

Comment by: quiet man | October 8, 2011

It is disappointing that Cain let himself get snookered by a poorly written and misleading news story. It would have been so much better had he said "It's unimaginable that anyone like Rick Perry would do such a thing. I want more facts before I comment further".

The initial news story said it was land that the Perry's owned (they only lease hunting rights) and suggested that the rock was still in place in 2008, but later stories said Perry's father first painted over it in 1983 when they started leasing the property; and then turned the rock over.

The article failed to mention that the term was commonly used to destribe an unusual outcropping of stone. Prior to 1962 there were nearly 100 locations in America bearing the same name on official maps. It is understandably offensive today but didn't necessarily bear the same level of vitriol 60 years ago as it does today.

Comment by: FRANK B | October 9, 2011

Seems few are into real vetting in either party. Had proper vetting taken place, Obama would never have gotten this far. We should rely on what the politicians DO, not what they say. Rhetoric is easy, changing the record book is much harder.Check the records B4 voting, NOT the cryptic,senseless news stories.

Comment by: Sharps | October 13, 2011