Got my RINO reply on HR822

WeatherbyWeatherby Senior MemberPosts: 4,780 Senior Member
You've been informed on how I feel about the issue
I don't need to be a criminal by crossing a state line
I should have the right to self protection no matter where I may be.
drivers and marriage licenses are recognized it should be the same
I plan on forwarding your reply to as many concerned citizens and organizations as I can
I truly regret giving you my vote
Sincerely
MR. PAUL E JONES

From: "Senator Scott P. Brown" <[email protected]>
To: [email]@comcast.net[/email]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:38:30 PM
Subject: Thank you for contacting the Office of Senator Scott P. Brown

Dear Mr. Jones,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822). I value your input and strive to keep you updated on the important issues facing us today.

On February 18, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns introduced the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act. This legislation would allow any person with a valid state-issued permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

As you may know, I support the individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I also believe that individual states should be allowed to decide what constitutes safe and responsible gun ownership so long as it does not violate that basic constitutional right.

Under the proposed House legislation, a national concealed carry reciprocity amendment would obligate states like Massachusetts to recognize the concealed carry permits of other states, even if the bearer of that permit does not meet the requirements established by Massachusetts to receive such a concealed carry permit. I believe that the people of Massachusetts are best positioned to decide what is best for Massachusetts. Therefore, if H.R. 822 or similar legislation comes before the Senate, I will vote no.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator

Please visit my website and public pages:

Replies

  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    Lets just make sure we don't CONTINUE to give our votes to these fools.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • BigDanSBigDanS Senior Member Posts: 6,807 Senior Member
    He simply is towing the State of Massachusetts position, and has no party backbone. He replaced a Democrat asa moderate Republican, in a state known to be for Democrats FOREVER, including our late buddy Ted Kennedy. It would be great if he were pro 822 but in reality I am just glad that the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts is leaning a little to the right at this time. Oddly enough the State motto is: Massachusetts- Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem - Latin for: By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.

    Seems they want swords, not guns. ;)

    Seriously, I couldn't live there.

    D
    "A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
  • pbearperrypbearperry Member Posts: 91 Member
    Scott Brown has lost my vote.Massachusetts is a lost cause.I wish I was born some place else.Oh well.
  • WeatherbyWeatherby Senior Member Posts: 4,780 Senior Member
    Massachusetts is a lost cause.

    Nothing is a lost cause until it is given up on.

    He's also lost my vote but he did get elected in this state which I'm sure had Teddy turning a bit
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,429 Senior Member
    I'm hoping our RINO senator from Tennessee decides to retire this time around so we can get someone with some testicles in his place. Lamar Alexander is a former governor, and is about three days older than forever. He's been pretty ineffective for a long time, and I havent been bashful about holding his feet to the fire on a lot of issues. Not that it does much good! The other guy is pretty good, so we've only got half the representation we really need.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Well, we're all seemingly in favor of states' rights, unless it seems to conflict with something we believe in. I'm personally not too certain about whether it's really a good idea to support federal laws that meddle in the reciprocity rules.

    Sen. Brown makes a valid point but I'm not too sure whether I actually agree with him or not. Still, the point is somewhat a good one -- that one state might have regs that the other state doesn't agree with, but under a universal law, would be forced to adhere to. Remove gun carry rights from the issue and change it to, mmm, gay marriage. If state "A" allows gay marriage, should state "B" be required to recognize it? This is exactly the same principle.

    BTW the reason that all states are required to recognize drivers' licenses is via the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That supersedes state law. But... concealed carry laws and gay marriage laws aren't universal under the Constitution. At least that's my opinion as to why they don't universally apply.

    Regardless, I could not live in a liberal-dominated state like Massachusetts. C'mon down to Florida or Texas, folks. Lower taxes and better weather, too. Lots more Republicans.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • WeatherbyWeatherby Senior Member Posts: 4,780 Senior Member
    If state "A" allows gay marriage, should state "B" be required to recognize it?
    Don't they already?
    What if state A says you can be married at age 16 and you now move to state B that says you need to be 18
    are you now not considered married in that state?

    "To reciprocate a license is just offering the same liberties to out of state residents that already exists for the resident of the said state.
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    If state "A" allows gay marriage, should state "B" be required to recognize it?
    Don't they already?
    Over the last ten years, most States have amended their Constitutions to declare that they do not recognize homosexual marriage.
    What if state A says you can be married at age 16 and you now move to state B that says you need to be 18
    are you now not considered married in that state?

    Yes. It doesn't follow that Virginia must recognize homosexual marriages. Until the late 1960's black/white marriage was illegal in some States, so that might be a better example of how, historically, a marriage performed in one State isn't necessarily recognized by another.

    Regardless, HR 822 says that it only applies to handguns that have been transported in interstate commerce. I think we all know better, and that the interstate commerce power was not intended to create a federal power to regulate firearms.
    I just call it one small step in the right direction and refuse to let some ethereal sense of principle override logic and progress.
    I don't see anything ethereal about it. The interstate commerce clause is being purposely misconstrued in an attempt to justify federal involvement.
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    I'm thinking you picked up that little bullet point of wisdom somewhere without actually reading the whole bill
    I have read HR 822 ... you are referring to an older version of the bill, not the HR 822 that passed the House ... if you read HR 822, it does not have the findings you refer to, they were removed ... and the only explanation for federal involvement seems to be that the legislation only applies to handguns that have been transported in interstate commerce.

    H.R.822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Referred in Senate - RFS)
    HR 822 RFS
    112th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. R. 822
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
    November 17, 2011
    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    AN ACT
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.
    SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
    `Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
    `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--
    `(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
    `(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
    `(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
    `(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.'.
    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
    `926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.
    (c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.
    (a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--
    (1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;
    (2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and
    (3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.
    (b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
    SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.
    (a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.
    (b) Report to the Congress- Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report which contains the results of the study required by subsection (a).
    Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2011.
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Posts: 617 Senior Member
    And here I thought H R 822 was just to force states to recognize each others carry permits not to standardize the regulations...

    Now that the "truth" seems to be out one might want to figure out what those standard regulations are going to be. Every state going to become a MAY issue state? Every state going to require a class and a test both performed by state sanctioned personnel? Every state going to charge $150 for a 5 year permit? Every state going to have rules against accidentally showing your firearm?
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    And here I thought H R 822 was just to force states to recognize each others carry permits not to standardize the regulations
    It says the intent is "to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State" ... it is not a national standard for CCW, it is a national standard for CCW permit reciprocity ... it's more of an anti-discrimination provision, regarding discrimination against nonresidents of a State ... each State remains free to regulate CCW as they see fit, but if a State allows CCW for its own citizens, they must recognize the CCW permits of citizens from other State.
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Posts: 617 Senior Member
    Hugh, I know what the bill is about sir. I pointed out that my opposition to the bill is the very idea that some politician will demand that some minimal standards are part of the bill. Last thing they want is to allow "just" anyone to carry in their state when their state has much more stringent standards than say GA does.

    Oh and this comment was what made me make my comment... "I will settle for now on forcing them to recognize a license issued by another state with similar requirements as outlined in the law." Notice the similar requirements portion. I believe that every state with similar requirements already reciprocates with GA, every nearby state except SC does and they don't because their requirements are more stringent. My permit in GA costs me less than $100 per 5 years.. by the time some go thru the class and take the test and get their permits in other states I understand the cost is $250+ per 5 years.
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,768 Senior Member
    Weatherby wrote: »
    If state "A" allows gay marriage, should state "B" be required to recognize it?
    Don't they already?
    What if state A says you can be married at age 16 and you now move to state B that says you need to be 18
    are you now not considered married in that state?


    "To reciprocate a license is just offering the same liberties to out of state residents that already exists for the resident of the said state.

    No you would not be considered married, and most likely you would be considered and possibly charged as a statutory rapist and child molester, and could be likely charged with contributing, sexual assault on a child from a position of power, quite possibly kidnapping if your inlaws didn't like you and wanted to press charges for taking a minor across state lines...whole list of things.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    No you would not be considered married, and most likely you would be considered and possibly charged as a statutory rapist and child molester

    I don't know where you get this from ... every place I look, such as usmarriagelaws.com, says that a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state.
  • mkk41mkk41 Banned Posts: 1,932 Senior Member
    I gotta agree with Sam and the senator. I think states rights to make their own laws without Washington DC riding roughshod over them should be first and foremost. Wasn't there a war fought over states rights about 150yrs ago?

    Here in PA , we gun owners have it pretty good , but most of our bordering states (NY/NJ/MD/DE)are pretty draconian when it comes to gun laws. NJ even bans carrying of hollowpoints! Should they force their regs , say , registration of guns to be carried , or listing/licensing of individual handguns on the permits , on PA? Many states require some classroom sessions as well as range time and a competancy test or basic marksmanship qualification for a license to carry in public. Many , like PA do not.

    While a state issued drivers license is good in all 50 (is D/L testing standardized?) , states can't even agree on motor vehicle laws. Most states have periodic vehicle inspections by police or certified mechanics to be sure everything is in safe working order. Some do not. In NJ , you can't have , and can be ticketed for side pipes or having the exhaust pipes exiting in front of the rear wheels unless factory original and you can prove it to a judge. My Panhead chopper is perfectly legal in PA , but the 16in handlebars are illegal in every surrounding state. So is riding without a helmet. Window tinting regs also vary widely.
    "There are no victims , only volunteers!"
  • WeatherbyWeatherby Senior Member Posts: 4,780 Senior Member
    I gotta agree with Sam and the senator. I think states rights to make their own laws without Washington DC riding roughshod over them should be first and foremost. Wasn't there a war fought over states rights about 150yrs ago?

    It's not about states not being able to make up there own laws
    It IS about recognizing a second amendment right
  • mkk41mkk41 Banned Posts: 1,932 Senior Member
    Weatherby wrote: »

    It's not about states not being able to make up there own laws
    It IS about recognizing a second amendment right

    But not all states recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right. If they did , there would be no need for a license/permit or whatever ya call it. Even some cities in states that do , seem to think they can write their own laws. Philadelphia tries to do it all the time here in PA , even though PA state pre-emption laws forbid it. PA has reciprocity with other states , and recognizes out of state permits. Philly says they do not necessarily recognize or accept them. And DAs & judges have their own interpretation of the law.
    "There are no victims , only volunteers!"
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Posts: 617 Senior Member
    Weatherby wrote: »
    I gotta agree with Sam and the senator. I think states rights to make their own laws without Washington DC riding roughshod over them should be first and foremost. Wasn't there a war fought over states rights about 150yrs ago?

    It's not about states not being able to make up there own laws
    It IS about recognizing a second amendment right

    If it is a RIGHT why the need for a permit or reciprocity of such? The trouble is the govt does not recognize it as a right and as such they demand that one has a permit to carry. My issue with any such law to force states to recoginize the other states permits is that some politicians will demand what they term a reasonable standard. Now my state is a shall issue state and requires nothing except that I apply, pay for, and pass a background check before issuing a permit. The states that will not reciprocate with my state demand something more or do not allow carry of any type.

    I would much prefer that all states adopt the so called constitutional carry laws of states like Vermont where everyone can carry without a permit. Such a bill was just introduced in my state.
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,467 Senior Member
    If it is a RIGHT why the need for a permit or reciprocity of such? The trouble is the govt does not recognize it as a right and as such they demand that one has a permit to carry. My issue with any such law to force states to recoginize the other states permits is that some politicians will demand what they term a reasonable standard. Now my state is a shall issue state and requires nothing except that I apply, pay for, and pass a background check before issuing a permit. The states that will not reciprocate with my state demand something more or do not allow carry of any type.

    I would much prefer that all states adopt the so called constitutional carry laws of states like Vermont where everyone can carry without a permit. Such a bill was just introduced in my state.

    That would be the ideal, but how realistic is it to expect that things will ever be that way? Is this an "all or nothing" issue?
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    A few days ago I expressed some doubts about HR 822. I was being a bit skeptical, as always, of any Federal law overriding state law, if the states seem to be doing a good job.

    My new NRA magazine First Freedom had an excellent article on why we should support this bill, and it answered all my questions. So I'm now off the fence and in favor of the law.

    Of course it won't see the light of day in the Senate but maybe after the 2012 election?

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    It's not about states not being able to make up there own laws
    It IS about recognizing a second amendment right

    What Second Amendment right is that? If we are talking about CCW being a Second Amendment right, that is not what HR 822 is about ... quite the contrary, HR 822 recognizes that States are within their rights to prohibit CCW. Is the idea that the Second Amendment allows States to prohibit CCW but requires CCW permit reciprocity?

    The nature of HR 822, the way it leaves CCW up to each State and only regards CCW permit reciprocity, it seems to fit better with the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause ... if a State permits its citizens to CCW, but doesn't permit nonresidents to CCW, then that State's laws do not result in equal protection for nonresidents.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,917 Senior Member
    Weatherby wrote: »
    You've been informed on how I feel about the issue
    I don't need to be a criminal by crossing a state line
    I should have the right to self protection no matter where I may be.
    drivers and marriage licenses are recognized it should be the same
    I plan on forwarding your reply to as many concerned citizens and organizations as I can
    I truly regret giving you my vote
    Sincerely
    MR. PAUL E JONES

    From: "Senator Scott P. Brown" <[email protected]>
    To: [email]@comcast.net[/email]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:38:30 PM
    Subject: Thank you for contacting the Office of Senator Scott P. Brown

    Dear Mr. Jones,

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822). I value your input and strive to keep you updated on the important issues facing us today.

    On February 18, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns introduced the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act. This legislation would allow any person with a valid state-issued permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

    As you may know, I support the individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I also believe that individual states should be allowed to decide what constitutes safe and responsible gun ownership so long as it does not violate that basic constitutional right.

    Under the proposed House legislation, a national concealed carry reciprocity amendment would obligate states like Massachusetts to recognize the concealed carry permits of other states, even if the bearer of that permit does not meet the requirements established by Massachusetts to receive such a concealed carry permit. I believe that the people of Massachusetts are best positioned to decide what is best for Massachusetts. Therefore, if H.R. 822 or similar legislation comes before the Senate, I will vote no.

    Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

    Sincerely,
    Scott P. Brown
    United States Senator

    Please visit my website and public pages:

    Thank you for sharing this scumbag Rino's opinion Bro Weatherby. He is definitely lacking in education of the Constitution of this country. When he refers to the wishes or the position oif the people of Massachusetts, he has not a clue what that is. For all he knows a majority of people are in favor of this bill. Sounds like he has his mind made up and is using the people as a scape goat. I was happy when he beat out a Democrat for Kennedy's seat in the Senate, but he's not much better than those across the isle. And he's arrogant. Who says the rest of the states don't come up to Massachusetts standards? I think we all have high standards for concealed carry. I'm trying to get mine renewed right now and there's still a mile of red tape even though I've had one for four years already.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,917 Senior Member
    Sam, excuse my Brashness here, but I agree with Bro Weatherby. This is not about State's rights. It's about a right given by our Federal Constitution. Now if Concealed Carry doesn't come under the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" I don't know what does. We shouldn't even have to have a concealed carry act. It should be understood. And infact why conceal it? Ok I can go with concealing it to keep from giving little old ladies a heart attack, but we should be able to carry whether concealed or open. It is in the second amendment. That amendment doesn't say anything like "Oh yeah you guys can have your firearms as long as you keep em locked up in the house."And what's the use of having a carry act if I have to leave it at home when I cross a state line? That makes no sense. So we can't go anywhere and feel safe outside our state borders? Where's the reason in that?

    Edited to Add: Also, this isn't about anything but control. The libs and antis ( actually one and the same) finally had to give in to a concealed carry act, but they are still fighting us tooth and nail to limit our constitutional right. That is ALL this is about under the guise of states rights to judge who can carry in their state. BS, they have no right to Judge a damn thing. It's a CONSTITUTIONAL right and it should be out of their control to limit it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,917 Senior Member
    Hey Bro weatherby, you might need to get rid of some stored messages. I can't send you a PM.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Back to basics:

    Governments / States have powers.


    People have rights.

    Why is that so hard to understand ?

    Example: State Government has the power granted to it, to enact laws.

    Example: People have the right to assemble, free speech etc.....

    Pretty simple......
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,917 Senior Member
    But not everything we do is a right.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • pbearperrypbearperry Member Posts: 91 Member
    Why does everything have to be so complicated?Even gun owners can't agree on this issue,so how can our representatives in Wash. D.C.?
  • WeatherbyWeatherby Senior Member Posts: 4,780 Senior Member
    pbearperry wrote: »
    Why does everything have to be so complicated?Even gun owners can't agree on this issue,so how can our representatives in Wash. D.C.?

    Our Representatives have power in mind not rights.

    I think a good many would have been hanged or imprisoned for what they've done in colonial times

    Our Representative barney frank I'll throw out as an example.

    I think he would have been refreshing the tree of liberty
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.