Found this in The Yahoo News:

U.S. residents fight for the right to hang laundry

Reuters – By Jon Hurdle – Wed Nov 18, 11:32 am ET

PERKASIE, Pennsylvania (Reuters) – Carin Froehlich pegs her laundry to three clotheslines strung between trees outside her 18th-century farmhouse, knowing that her actions annoy local officials who have asked her to stop.

Froehlich is among the growing number of people across America fighting for the right to dry their laundry outside against a rising tide of housing associations who oppose the practice despite its energy-saving green appeal.

Although there are no formal laws in this southeast Pennsylvania town against drying laundry outside, a town official called Froehlich to ask her to stop drying clothes in the sun. And she received two anonymous notes from neighbors saying they did not want to see her underwear flapping about.

“They said it made the place look like trailer trash,” she said, in her yard across the street from a row of neat, suburban houses. “They said they didn’t want to look at my ‘unmentionables.’”

Froehlich says she hangs her underwear inside. The effervescent 54-year-old is one of a growing number of Americans demanding the right to dry laundry on clotheslines despite local rules and a culture that frowns on it.

Their interests are represented by Project Laundry List, a group that argues people can save money and reduce carbon emissions by not using their electric or gas dryers, according to the group’s executive director, Alexander Lee.

Widespread adoption of clotheslines could significantly reduce U.S. energy consumption, argued Lee, who said dryer use accounts for about 6 percent of U.S. residential electricity use.

Florida, Utah, Maine, Vermont, Colorado, and Hawaii have passed laws restricting the rights of local authorities to stop residents using clotheslines. Another five states are considering similar measures, said Lee, 35, a former lawyer who quit to run the non-profit group.

‘RIGHT TO HANG’

His principal opponents are the housing associations such as condominiums and townhouse communities that are home to an estimated 60 million Americans, or about 20 percent of the population. About half of those organizations have ‘no hanging’ rules, Lee said, and enforce them with fines.

Carl Weiner, a lawyer for about 50 homeowners associations in suburban Philadelphia, said the no-hanging rules are usually included by the communities’ developers along with regulations such as a ban on sheds or commercial vehicles.

The no-hanging rules are an aesthetic issue, Weiner said.

“The consensus in most communities is that people don’t want to see everybody else’s laundry.”

He said opposition to clotheslines may ease as more people understand it can save energy and reduce greenhouse gases.

“There is more awareness of impact on the environment,” he said. “I would not be surprised to see people questioning these restrictions.”

For Froehlich, the “right to hang” is the embodiment of the American tradition of freedom.

“If my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry,” said Froehlich, who is writing a book on the subject.

Besides, it saves money. Line-drying laundry for a family of five saves $83 a month in electric bills, she said.

Kevin Firth, who owns a two-bedroom condominium in a Dublin, Pennsylvania housing association, said he was fined $100 by the association for putting up a clothesline in a common area.

“It made me angry and upset,” said Firth, a 27-year-old carpenter. “I like having the laundry drying in the sun. It’s something I have always done since I was a little kid.”

(Editing by Mark Egan and Paul Simao)

Thank You Rueters!!!!!! I needed that!!!!
Well at least here in Maine we can still Dry our clothes the Green way!!!!!!

I am subscribed to a multitude of email services and Ezines. One of the best is The Shooting Wire. Like The Fishing Wire, it is full of Industry news and facts. The following article appeared in it back in October. I just thought I should share it with you. The link listed below will take you directly to the source quoted. ( I will always list the sources of all quoted material, so you can verify my information.)

The Shooting Wire

Rent from Within

Editor’s Note: Today’s feature by Paul Markel touches on a subject that many in the industry would prefer to ignore: the schism between hunters and modern rifle enthusiasts.

I
Paul Markel © 2009

“It’s just a piece of machinery. They all look the same. There’s no pride in craftsmanship.” remarked a noted outdoor writer and famed hunter during a recent industry event. A second like-minded individual responded, “Sure they’re fine for shooting varmints or prairie dogs, but this craze will come to an end soon.” Naturally, they were discussing the Stoner-based self-loading rifle in its many forms.

For more than a decade I have listened as shooting sports “purists” have denigrated and apologized for the “evil” black rifle. Not so long ago I was standing in a gun shop when one of the regulars remarked that “I can see banning some kinds of gun, I mean what does anyone need one of those for anyway?” He gestured in disgust at a couple of semi-automatic carbines on the shelf.

Most of us have read the editorials in the outdoor sports magazines, this editor or that will belittle the black rifle “fad”. At best they will concede that some people might find a use for one, but not I. By the end of the written sermon they have firmly emplaced themselves on the moral high ground bidding others to follow in their lofty steps.

I’ve been in the industry for two decades and have present during these gatherings of purists where the Stoner design is ridiculed and belittled. I’ve sat quietly as those present responded “Hear, hear” and “Good show old boy.”

On the other hand, I have also attended innumerable training courses and events where those in attendance used their Stoner-based rifles. Not a single time during a meal break or post-shooting socializing did anyone in the group bring up the outdated and antiquated single-shot, falling block rifle. Never once did one of these folks disparage the $5000 over-under shotgun as a complete waste of money and resources. I cannot recall an instance where an AR-15 owner has told me that he resented those who stalked and killed antelope just for sport.

Nope, can’t recall a single instance of that occurring. Conversely, I have lost count of the times I have been present in a group of sportsman and outdoor types and the subject of the self-loading, gas-operated rifle has come up. It seems to be a favorite pass time for upland game and big game hunters, trap and skeet shooters, and conservationist types to bash and belittle those that would purposely own and shoot the AR platform.

No, I am not painting all hunters and birders with a broad brush. Before you get your panties in a wad be honest with yourself. How many times have you kibitzed with your buddies at the trap range and heard someone reference Stoner rifles as “assault weapons”? When was the last time you attended a benefit for the conservation of ducks, pheasant, whitetail, elk, (insert game preservation society here) and someone at your table made a snide remark about “black rifles”? Be truthful, have you heard that guy spout off about how he can understand banning some kinds of gun? Did you say anything or just nod your head?

Folks, human beings have been having this argument since the dawn of mankind. Flintlock purists saw no sporting value in those new fangled percussion cap guns. U.S. Army troops were saddled with muzzle-loading muskets when cartridge firing, repeating rifles were available. Who would ever need to shoot that fast? Many argued.

At the turn of the century soldiers and peace officers carried single-action revolvers because the semi-automatic pistols couldn’t be relied upon and were untested. While we are on the subject, how many purists who see no craftsmanship or pride of ownership in a Stoner rifle would say the same thing about the Model 1911A1 pistol and its myriad clones? That pistol started life as a mass produced, faceless piece of machinery.

Purists have a real problem with the “mad rush”, as one outdoor writer described it, of Americans to purchase 100% made in the USA black rifles. Those same folks see no problem buying a Krieghoff, Perazzi, Benelli, or Beretta and sending the profits back to the Old Country.

What these well intentioned, often very intelligent, folks are afflicted with is the “Reasonable Disease”. If we are only reasonable and meet the other side halfway then they will be reasonable too. I have a news flash for you purist, anti-Stoner folks. The other side doesn’t like you either. They will happily step over your body to get to the rest of us.

We all want to be reasonable. Just think how wonderful our world would be John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington could have been more reasonable and met the British Monarchy halfway. Being reasonable has taken us the edge of the abyss in these United States. I dare say that the founding fathers would scarcely recognize what we have become.

The bedrock foundation of the Constitution, the document that was forged after our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, is at this moment being trampled. It has been used as a doormat for incoming congressmen, senators, and yes, even the current occupant of the Oval Office.

This did not happen overnight. We, the good citizens of the United States, have handed over our freedoms under the guise of being reasonable. We have been promised if we will only give a little that the enemies of freedom will be satisfied. They will not be satisfied. Their rotten guts are never full. Consumed by greed for power they take a bit more and a bit more. Can you placate a lion by letting him eat only your foot?

My friends, and we still can be friends, the question is not about whether the “black rifle” is good for the shooting sports industry. It is not whether the Stoner design has a place on the hunting field. The question is will we stand united to protect our freedoms from an ever encroaching enemy. Will we squabble with each other over aesthetics and operating systems or will we lock arms and say “No More!”?

Though it will pain your eyes to read and your ears to hear, the United States Constitution, at the moment the supreme law of the land, does not grant you a “right” to hunt, shooting sporting clays, compete in bull’s eye matches or any sport. You hunt only as a privilege of the state. That privilege is not in any way guaranteed.

For those purists in the audience, those who look upon the Stoner design with disgust and distaste, I challenge you to take a moment to reflect. Wade past the emotion and prejudice you have harbored deep down. Be intellectually honest with yourself for a moment.

At this point in history we are in a more precarious position than we ever have been. Either we will unite and demand that our elected public servants adhere to the principles of our founding fathers and the U.S. Constitution or we will fall in the abyss of never ending government intrusion, regulation, and slavery to a system we neither understand nor recognize.

You see, the Stoner designed, gas-operated, self-loading rifle is more that just a machine. There is a definite pride of ownership, the pride that comes from the realization that you are a citizen not a servant. The lawful possession of the black rifle means that you are still a free man in a world where the free man is an endangered species.

Finally, to our grand purists, look down from your moral high ground and see this. The black rifle is a living symbol. It is a symbol not of varmint hunting but of freedom. It is the black rifle that will preserve your privilege to practice the shooting sport of your choice. Embrace this self-loading, gas-operated machine. If the black rifle is lost your nation, all that you hold dear, and your freedom will surely follow.

Paul Markel © 2009

Markel is a former United State Marine and Peace Officer. He is currently a full-time Small Arms and Tactics instructor for the U.S. Miltary. Mr. Markel has been writing for the outdoor/firearms world for two decades with hundreds of articles in print.

*************************************************************

I would like to thank The Shooting Wire for the use of this article. Use the link above to subscribe to The Shooting Wire.

If I can fish on Sunday…… buy beer and wine…. and do most anything I want. Why can’t I hunt? What ever happened to seperation of church and state? Granted I am a Christian and Sunday is a Holy day to me. But religious freedom includes freedom from the forced enforcement of someones elses religion upon me. So whether or not I agree about the Sabbath. As an American I am forced to choose on the side of freedom. In these days of economic strife, Sunday hunting could pull in alot of cash for my beloved Aroostook.

The following came from the NRA-ILA site:

The Truth About Sunday Hunting: Why Hunters Shouldn`t Be Treated as Second-Class Citizens

In the early days of America, so-called blue laws restricted many activities on Sunday. In recent years, however, state governments have recognized that the people`s right to choose for themselves what they do, or don`t do, on Sunday is more consistent with America`s founding principals. Present day bans on Sunday hunting are the last holdouts of these blue laws, and hunters are questioning why they are being treated differently from their fellow citizens.

The majority of hunters will agree that the biggest obstacle to hunting, and the biggest obstacle to recruiting new hunters, is lack of access and opportunity to hunt. By restricting Sunday hunting, states are not only limiting opportunities for today`s hunters but are making it harder to recruit new hunters to carry on our proud heritage. Anti-hunting groups understand this, that`s why they oppose lifting Sunday hunting bans–they don`t want a new generation of hunters to enter the field. This opposition to Sunday hunting is in fact opposition to the future of hunting itself.

Restrictions on Sunday hunting treat hunters as second-class citizens. Other outdoor activities are allowed on Sunday, including fishing, hiking and golf. By restricting hunting and not other activities, state governments are sending a not so subtle message to hunters and non-hunters alike that there is something wrong with hunting, that it isn`t as legitimate an activity. This message ignores the fact that hunters contribute billions of dollars to the benefit of wildlife, both through license fees and excise taxes paid on firearms and ammunition.

There are compelling reasons why Sunday hunting should be allowed:

Sunday hunting has no detrimental effect on wildlife populations. The 43 states that allow some form of Sunday hunting have healthy wildlife populations in those areas that can sustain them. In fact the states with the most abundant game populations allow Sunday hunting. Those states that have recently removed prohibitions on Sunday hunting have not seen a negative impact on game populations. Allowing Sunday hunting will give state wildlife agencies more flexibility in managing populations. The extra day a week for hunting will give the agencies the ability to increase hunting in areas of overpopulation by encouraging hunters to go afield.
The most common reason that hunters stop hunting is lack of hunting opportunity. Hunting opportunities are largely decided by two factors: accessible land and available time. Since most hunters work Monday through Friday, a ban on Sunday hunting cuts their available hunting time in half.
Sunday hunting is an excellent way to recruit new hunters. Many young people have school or athletic obligations on Saturday. Allowing Sunday hunting means that parents can spend time hunting with their son or daughter, passing on a heritage that is so important to America. With the myriad of activities that compete for the attention of young people today, a restriction on Sunday hunting means many of them never take up the sport.
Sunday hunting will bring an economic benefit to many rural areas. Every day that hunters are in the field, they spend money on gas, food, lodging and the dozens of other incidentals that go along with a day`s hunt. The ripple effect of this spending can have a major impact on a rural town or county.
Out-of-state license revenue can grow as a result of Sunday hunting. Few hunters will take extended hunting trips to a state that won`t let them hunt one day of the week. These out-of-state hunters pay higher license fees that benefit the game department and also spend even more money on incidentals than in-state hunters.
Current Sunday hunting bans:

Currently seven states entirely prohibit hunting on Sunday for wild game; they are Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey and Connecticut. All of these states have considered legislation to lift the bans in recent years. Repealing the Sunday hunting bans has been actively supported by the wildlife agencies in Maine and New Jersey.

Four states allow limited Sunday hunting: Maryland allows hunting on two Sundays during deer season; South Carolina allows Sunday hunting on private land only; North Carolina allows Sunday hunting on some federal installations; in 2001 West Virginia enacted legislation that allows Sunday hunting on private land, but each county can hold a referendum to ban Sunday hunting; currently 14 counties allow it.

Recently several states have recognized the folly of Sunday hunting bans:

New York: In 1996 New York opened Sunday hunting on three Sundays during deer season. Within five years the law was changed to allow all Sunday hunting, except on specifically designated lands.

Ohio: In 1998 Ohio passed a bill allowing a test of Sunday hunting on public lands for a period of three years. In 2002 the legislature made Sunday hunting permanent without opposition from groups that had concerns when the test began. The state wildlife agency supported the change.

Michigan: Sunday hunting was banned on private land in certain counties, but in 2003, all Sunday hunting closures were repealed. The bill was supported by the state wildlife agency.

None of these states have experienced the horror stories forecast by opponents of hunting. The states continue to have healthy wildlife populations. Hunters continue to behave in a responsible and safe manner. Church attendance remains unchanged. Landowner-hunter conflicts have not increased. In sum, Sunday hunting has had nothing but a beneficial impact on these states and the future of hunting in them.

Posted: 3/14/2005 12:00:00 AM

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683

I found this today over on YahooNews!!!!!
Thought you would want to know………

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 16 mins ago

WASHINGTON – More than 15 million taxpayers could unexpectedly owe taxes when they file their federal returns next spring because the government was too generous with their new Making Work Pay tax credit.

Taxpayers are at risk if they have more than one job, are married and both spouses work, or receive Social Security benefits while also earning taxable wages, according to a report Monday by the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

The tax credit, which is supposed to pay individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800, was President Barack Obama’s signature tax break in the massive stimulus package enacted in February.

Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in April. The tax credit was made available through new withholding tables issued by the Internal Revenue Service.

The withholding tables, however do not take into account taxpayers with multiple jobs or married couples in which both people work. They also don’t take into account Social Security recipients with jobs that provided taxable income.

The Social Security Administration sent out $250 payments to more than 50 million retirees in the spring as part of the economic stimulus package. The payments were meant to provide a boost for people who didn’t’ qualify for the tax credit.

However, they went to many retirees who also received the credit. Those retirees will have the $250 payment deducted from their tax credit — but not until they file their tax returns next year, long after the money may have been spent.

“While implementing a credit through reduced withholding is an effective way to provide economic stimulus evenly throughout the year, it is difficult to account for everyone’s circumstances,” said J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. “More than 10 percent of all taxpayers who file individual tax returns for 2009 could owe additional taxes.”

The tax credit is also available for 2010. Russell said the problems will continue in 2010 if they are not resolved.

The credit pays workers 6.2 percent of their earned income, up to a maximum of $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples who file jointly. Individuals making more than $95,000 and couples making more than $190,000 are ineligible.

“Making Work Pay was designed to deliver much needed boosts to the paychecks of 95 percent of all working Americans,” said Nayyera Haq, a Treasury Department spokeswoman. “Since enactment, more than 110 million families have benefited from as much as $60 in additional take home pay each month to put toward their family budgets, serving as a steady boost to spending and consumption.”

For many, the new tax tables will simply mean smaller-than-expected tax refunds next year. The average tax refund this year was about $2,800.

The IRS, in a response to the audit, advised taxpayers to check their withholding throughout the year to make sure they don’t get hit with an unexpected tax bill.

“The withholding system must approximate the tax liability of tens of millions of Americans, and therefore, cannot be tailored precisely to fit every individual situation,” Richard Byrd Jr., commissioner of the IRS’ wage and investments division, wrote in the agency’s response to the report.

(Saw this story over at Bangor Daily News site and knew that you would want to see this!!)

By Kevin Miller
BDN Staff

U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock has rejected a case filed by two animal welfare groups claiming that Maine’s recreational trapping policies could cause irreparable harm to the state’s population of Canada lynx. The ruling essentially upholds the current trapping laws in Maine.

AUGUSTA, Maine — A federal judge has rejected a case filed by two animal welfare groups claiming that Maine’s recreational trapping policies could cause irreparable harm to the state’s population of Canada lynx.

U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock essentially upheld the current trapping laws on the books in Maine after a lengthy court battle focusing on whether the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife was doing enough to protect the lynx.

Two organizations, the Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute, filed a lawsuit in August 2008 alleging that DIF&W was violating the Endangered Species Act by authorizing trapping practices that resulted in lynx being captured and sometimes killed.

The lawsuit, if successful, likely would have canceled the fur-trapping season for most larger animals throughout northern Maine. As a federally protected threatened species, lynx are prohibited from being caught, harassed, injured or killed.

But in a 28-page ruling released Tuesday evening, Woodcock wrote that the Animal Welfare Institute “has simply not proven its case” that Maine’s trapping regulations pose a threat to the welfare of the overall lynx population in the state.

“Moreover, even if the court found that some lynx suffer debilitating injuries from being captured in leghold traps, it cannot take the next step and conclude that those injuries represent a threat to the species as a whole,” Woodcock wrote.

Woodcock did, however, agree that DIF&W remains liable under the Endangered Species Act for trapped lynx. The state has applied for an “incidental take permit” from federal officials that would protect DIF&W for accidental trappings.

State officials and trappers said they were pleased with the ruling.

“Just because you accidentally trap and release a handful of lynx every year, that doesn’t justify shutting down the whole trapping season,” said Skip Trask, a trapper and lobbyist for the Maine Trappers Association.

Daryl DeJoy with the Wildlife Alliance of Maine said he and the other plaintiffs were reviewing the ruling and assessing their appeal options. But DeJoy pointed out that three lynx already have been caught in traps so far this year.

“Of course, those are just the reported takes,” DeJoy said.

DIF&W officials estimate that there are perhaps 1,000 or more lynx in Maine, which is home to the only self-sustaining population of medium-sized cats in the eastern U.S. But the plaintiffs question those figures.

The lawsuit was the latest attempt by animal rights groups angered over recurrent incidences of lynx being caught and even killed by Maine trappers. An earlier lawsuit forced the state to change its regulations, but more than a dozen lynx have subsequently been caught in traps.

Although nearly all of the trappings appeared to be accidental, the groups argued that DIF&W was at fault for allowing trapping techniques that put lynx at risk of injury or death.

Sportsmen contend that the organizations were merely using the lynx as a way to ban all trapping.

Since 1999, at least 47 lynx have been caught in traps in Maine, including three since trapping began in October. The vast majority of the cats, including two of the three this fall, were released alive.

However, state and federal agencies are investigating the case of a lynx that was caught in a trap near Rangeley and subsequently shot and killed by a bird hunter.

Expert witnesses appearing on the plaintiffs’ behalf pointed to studies suggesting the padded traps used throughout Maine could cause leg injuries that increased the likelihood of lynx starving or becoming easier prey for predators.

But in his ruling, Woodcock wrote he found the plaintiff’s “generic evidence and speculative inferences much less convincing than IF&W’s specific records.” Woodcock also put much more stock in the testimony offered by Kenneth Elowe, director resource management for DIF&W, than in the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

“I was very pleased with the process the judge used,” Elowe said Thursday. “He allowed extensive testimony … I think he did a good job of really sorting out the complexities of the case.”

Although they lost the larger case, the Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute claimed partial victories in the lawsuit. Woodcock reiterated his earlier finding that DIF&W remains legally liable for trapped lynx, although he did not agree the incidences rose to the level of shutting down Maine’s trapping season.

Camilla Fox, wildlife consultant for the Animal Welfare Institute, also pointed out that Woodcock ordered DIF&W to make additional changes to its regulations involving body-gripper or killer-type traps after two lynx were killed in such traps late last year.

Fox said that the department has not taken any steps on its own to protect lynx since the species was listed on the Endangered Species List in 2000.

“Every regulatory change implemented by IF&W to protect lynx has been a direct result of litigation,” Fox said.

What the heck could this guy be thinking? Governor S. has flipped again and now the IHOP…you hop and we all hop flip flop King has sold the law abiding gun owners of California down the river. Now the small business men in California are losers yet again in this climate of legislate versus educate. The truly messed up part of all of this is the law doesn’t come into full effect and until after the stupid idiot leaves office. (Hello??) Read the following Press Release to fully inderstand the law.

To: ALL MEDIA
For immediate release

October 15, 2009
For more information contact:

Ted Novin
Office: 203-426-1320
Cell: 202-253-1860

Firearms Industry Remains Critical of
Governor Following Press
Conference on Ammunition Bill

NEWTOWN, Conn – Facing his lowest approval ratings (27 percent) in his six years as governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) today attempted to mitigate fall-out from his decision to sign into law legislation (AB 962) he vetoed just five years earlier establishing ammunition registration in the Golden State. The governor claimed his flip-flopping on the issue was based on public safety, a far cry from his veto statement in 2004 when he called such burdensome regulations “simply unworkable” and of “no public benefit.”

The California Association of Firearms Retailers (CAFR) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry – have remained highly critical of the governor’s acquiescence to the gun-control lobby, using his own statistics against him.

NSSF has estimated that AB 962 would cost California at least $2.92 million annually in lost sales taxes and $629,000 in increased operating costs for state agencies. Lost retail sales in California were estimated at $35.7 million. These estimates followed the recent release of a study by the Governor’s Office of Small Business Advocate that show over-regulation of small businesses in California costing the state an estimated $492 billion, almost five times the state’s general fund budget and almost a third of the state’s gross product. The Small Business Advocate study also found that California’s regulatory burdens costs an average of $134,122 per California business, $13,801 per household and $4,685 per resident each year. Small businesses are 98 percent of the state’s enterprises and provide 52 percent of the jobs.

“Despite the excuses given this morning by the governor, nothing will change the fact that this legislation will drive many small, independent retailers already struggling in a poor economy out of business or force them to flee California’s burdensome and hostile regulatory environment for greener economic pastures elsewhere– taking with them their jobs and tax revenue,” said CAFR President Marc Halcon.

Criticism over ammunition registration has been mounting as details of the legislation have come to light. “As small business owners are beginning to understand the full ramifications of this legislation, including the stringent storage requirements for ammunition, our phones have been ringing off the hook,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane.

The retail-storage requirements associated with AB 962 will go into effect this January (2010), giving small businesses only two months to come into compliance, while the rest of the bill, including the capturing and storage of personal consumer data, goes into effect in 2011, well after the governor is out of office and able to escape criticism from law-abiding consumers.

Commenting on how an ammunition registry will ultimately affect law-abiding citizens, Halcon noted, “Those retailers who can afford to stay in California will be forced to substantially raise prices on law-abiding consumers who, under AB 962, will now be fingerprinted like common criminals simply for exercising their Second Amendment rights.”

Halcon concluded, “Like the layers of gun control California already has on the books, ammunition registration will do nothing to curb crime. It is silly, at best, to think criminals will stand in line to be fingerprinted to buy ammunition from licensed retailers. Governor Schwarzenegger has just created an underground black market for ammunition.”

About NSSF

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 4,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

copyright 2009 National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved
11 Mile Hill Road • Newtown, CT 06470 • 203.426.1320

By now you know Gay marriage is no more in Maine!!!! In all 31 states that had gay marriage, repealed it by popular vote. The many won over the special interests of the few!!!

I have long believed we are what we eat, and we are who or what we believe we are!!!!!!!

Here’s a man that understands the truth of true!!

Ted Nugent

Want to effect change in 20012!!!! Write him in as your “Independant Choice for President”.

I’M NOT KIDDING!!!!!!!! That’s how I will vote in 2012!!

Read it here:(copy and paste link)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090823/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_lockerbie

THE CONQUERING HERO!!!!!

The SCOTTS SHOULD BE ASHAMED……..

…..NOW HOW MANY WILL DIE????