Have A Blessed Christmas….

Of all of the gifts you could receive today, eternal life through Jesus the Christ is the one you need the most.

Boo Hoo, Kroger Told Me To Take A Hike!

Boo hoo, Kroger won't give me the time of day. That's the essence of an op-ed Shannon Watts, head of Moms Demand Gunsense for America, wrote for HuffPo:

For months, Moms have called on Kroger to make a safer and more family-friendly shopping environment by prohibiting the open carry of firearms in its stores, just as brands including Target, Starbucks, and Panera have done. 

Instead of meeting with us and reconsidering an irresponsible policy, Kroger's leadership has refused to listen. They have pressured radio stations to reject our ads and relocated their annual investor meeting to avoid interacting with customers. Just imagine how much easier it would have been if they would talk with us.

This week, Kroger executives and investors met in Cincinnati and I was there, along with dozens of Moms Demand Action volunteers from neighboring states, to make it as easy as possible for Kroger leadership to meet with us on an issue that women and mothers care about more than anything: the safety of our families. Rather than agree to a meeting, Kroger bullied radio stations into pulling our ads highlighting the absurdity of their gun policy (you can listen to the ads here and here). And this week, Kroger bussed its investors out of the hotel where they were planning to meet and to an alternate location -- probably to avoid the rally of mothers and customers we had organized to spark a conversation with them.

Evidently Kroger is growing uncomfortable with their gun policy, and frankly, they should be. Kroger is siding with gun extremists, rather than mothers, gun violence survivors, and the majority of Kroger shoppers, who support ending open carry in Kroger stores. 

Moms refuse to be silenced. The ads that made Kroger so nervous are nothing more than recordings of Kroger employees reiterating Kroger's policy, which is to prohibit children's toys and household pets in the name of customer safety, but to allow anyone to openly carry loaded firearms, even though no permit, training, or background check is required to do so in most states.

Instead of working with us to make stores safer, Kroger has cited politicians' inaction to regulate open carry to justify their own stubborn refusal to institute a policy that does more than force employees and customers into a position where they must guess whether the armed individual in the frozen food aisle poses a threat to customers.

How are moms shopping with children expected to know the difference between an activist and a threat to our families? In a majority of states, it is completely legal to open carry a loaded gun in public without any training, permitting, or a background check. In some states, there isn't even an age requirement to open carry a loaded firearm.

That's why open carry poses a unique risk to the public. That's why we want Kroger to act, just as so many other major companies have done. And 83% of Kroger shoppers agree - Kroger is well within their rights to stop open carry.

When I founded Moms Demand Action the day after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, I knew that it would be a long road towards gun safety. Since then, millions of Americans have joined this fight and we will continue to be relentless whenever we feel the safety of our children is threatened.

Kroger's customers deserve to be heard and Moms won't stop until we get the change we need.

No, Kroger isn't "growing uncomfortable with their gun policy," Watts just can't get it through her head that, just as Kroger has the "right" to DISCONTINUE a practice, it well within their RIGHT to do what they have said already said they are GOING to do - CONTINUE THEIR POLICY TO ALLOW FIREARMS CARRY. She needs to get that through her head! Watts only recognizes the rights of Kroger as they comport with her agenda, and she can't handle it that Kroger has the temerity to defy her and her sugar daddy, Bloomberg. She certainly can't reconcile the FACT that, since Kroger announced their intent to continue their policy, their sales have increased 21% with her supposed poll results indicating that 83% of Kroger customers agree with her point of view. She also ignores the fact that Starbucks has actually backtracked on their so-called "ban" on firearms carry, taking a more publicly neutral position on the subject - which is all they ever wanted to do in the first place.  In fact, if you actually read the statements issued by Target, Starbucks, and Panera, none of them actually "ban" firearms carry, they respectfully requested that firearms carriers not take them onto their premises, but all stopped short of actually banning them.  Watts still considers them to be victories.

Reality stinks, doesn't it Shannon!

Michigan H.B. 5500, Enforcement of Michigan's Pre-emption Law….

Michigan is a pre-emption state with regard to firearms ownership, carry, etc. State law pre-empts any local ordinance. The problem is, up until now there has been absolutely no way to enforce that law, which is why mayors like George Heartwell in Grand Rapids are still trying to enact gun control in any way they can and face no consequences for doing so. Here is the text of the bill, and it will be readily apparent why all those who support the Second Amendment should take the time to contact their representatives in Lansing to get this bill out of committee and onto the floor of the House for a vote.  All bolded text is proposed language:

HOUSE BILL No. 5500

April 30, 2014, Introduced by Reps. McMillin, Lyons, Shirkey, Genetski, Crawford, Hooker, Rogers, Johnson, VerHeulen, Yonker, Dianda, LaFontaine, MacMaster, Callton, Goike, Kesto and McBroom and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1990 PA 319, entitled

"An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase, sale,
transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms," (MCL 123.1101 to 123.1105) by amending the title and by adding sections 4a, 4b, and 4c.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing
certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase,
sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other
firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components
of pistols or other firearms; AND TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES.

SEC. 4A. NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT HAS AN EXISTING ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT SHALL BRING THAT ORDINANCE OR REGULATION INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ACT.

SEC. 4B. BEGINNING 91 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THAT INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION MAY BRING AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THAT LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IS LOCATED.

SEC. 4C. (1) BEGINNING 91 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION BRINGS AN ACTION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4B AND THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT

OF GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THE COURT SHALL DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) DECLARE THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.

(B) ISSUE AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT FROM ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(C) ORDER THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TO AMEND OR REPEAL THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(D) AWARD COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION  CHALLENGING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(2) IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SUBSECTION (1), IF THE COURT DETERMINES AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION 1 OF THIS ACT, THEN THE COURT SHALL ASSESS A CIVIL FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00 AGAINST THAT ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL, WHICH IS IN ADDITION TO ANY PENALTY THAT MAY BE ASSESSED UNDER 1966 PA 158, MCL 752.11 TO 752.12.

(3) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL NOT BE USED TO DEFEND OR REIMBURSE AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WHO IS DETERMINED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT.