Sportsman Channel Partners with Cox Communications in Oklahoma CityLincoln Tapp, 12, is wise beyond his years and is one of the youngest outdoors enthusiasts to host a prime-time hunting show on a major cable network (YoungWild, Fridays at 9:30 p.m. ET.). On February 28 and March 1 in Oklahoma City, Sportsman Channel, the leader in outdoor television for American sportsmen and women, is giving attendees a chance to meet Tapp at the Backwoods Hunting & Fishing Expo. Tapp, an Oklahoma City area resident, will sign autographs and give out hats at Sportsman Channel booth #209A on Friday, February 28 at 5 p.m. CST and Saturday, March 1 at Noon CST.

Event Details:

  • Backwoods Hunting & Fishing Expo – February 28- March 2, 2014, Travel & Transportation Building, Oklahoma State Fairgrounds. Admission: Adults: $10, Children 12-and-under: FREE.
  • Show hours: Friday, February 28, 12 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. CST., Saturday, March 1, 9 a.m. – 8:30 p.m. CST, Sunday, March 2, 10 a.m. – 5 p.m. CST.
  • Lincoln Tapp (Host, YoungWild): Sportsman Channel booth # 209A, meet and greet, Friday, February 28 at 5 p.m. CST and Saturday, March 1 at Noon CST.




By / Featured NewsFirearm News / / 0 Comments

On February 24th, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes was joined by HBO’s Jon Frankel to report that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) fight to allow “young kids to access guns.”

To make this case, Hayes opened the segment by focusing on the NRA’s failed challenge of a Texas law prohibiting “the majority of 18-to-20-year olds from carrying a handgun in public” with a concealed carry license. Hayes said this court challenge on behalf of “teenagers” shows the NRA “apparently believes everyone should be allowed to carry handguns.”

Hayes then brought in Frankel to discuss how the legal age to be in possession of a firearm varies from state to state, but they did this without differentiating between ages for legal possession for various gun types.

For example, Hayes and Frankel focused on how Virginia law allows a 13-year-old to possess a .22 rifle, without mentioning that the same 13-year-old is barred from possessing or transporting “a handgun or assault firearm.” Instead, the message was that teenagers too young to get “a pornographic magazine” or “beer” could get and/or possess a .22 rifle.

They pointed to seven states with “no minimum age for solo hunting” and criticized Illinois for allowing children as young as four to take “a gun safety course.”

Instead of noting the genius of teaching gun safety to kids early and having laws in place that allow them to possess some guns but not others–depending on age–Hayes and Frankel contend that state laws that do anything less than bar gun possession to anyone under 21 are proof the NRA and NSSF view “the children of today … [as] the consumers of tomorrow.”


Champion speed shooter Jerry Miculek may be serious about competition, but that doesn’t mean he can’t have some fun from time to time. For his latest video, Jerry puts 40 rounds on target within 3.5 seconds. His method of delivery? Two .45 ACP Kriss Vectors and two very quick trigger fingers.

Worker Marilyn MacKay assembles a rifle at the Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. gun factory in Newport, New Hampshire. (Photo credit: Reuters)

Worker Marilyn MacKay assembles a rifle at the Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. gun factory in Newport, New Hampshire. (Photo credit: Reuters)

The gun production numbers are in from 2012 and one can reasonably conclude that the Obama administration is great for the firearms industry.

According to figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives there were more than 8.57 million guns produced in the U.S in 2012, which is a 31 percent increase from the prior year and nearly triple from 2000.

The BATFE released the latest Annual Firearms Manufacturers and Export Report this month. These reports, compiled from all gun makers in the country large and small, are delayed a year due to the Trade Secrets Act. Because of this, the latest data report covers 2012.

The detail of the 68-page report (pdf) shows that the U.S. gun industry produced 8.57 million guns in 2012. This is an increase by 31 percent from the 6.54 million produced in 2011, and a 57 percent leap from the 5.45 million produced in the 2010 report.

In fact, in the first four years of the Obama administration, over 26 million guns were produced in the United States, compared with just 25.05 million guns made during the entire eight years of the Bush administration.

Compared with the eight-year Clinton administration’s production figures of 33 million, the current administration is on target to break that figure as well.

US annual gun production figures, largely static from 2000-2008, have risen dramatically in the past four years according to data from the ATF.

U.S. annual gun production figures, largely constant at 3-4 million from 2000-2008, have risen dramatically in the past four years according to data from the ATF.

This has led some gun stores to dub the President as the ‘gun salesman of the year,’ going so far as to put it on their store’s window display.

The 2012 total includes 8,578,610 firearms:

  • 3,487,883 pistols
  • 667,357 revolvers
  • 3,168,206 rifles
  • 949,010 shotguns
  • 306,154 ‘miscellaneous firearms’

Of this total, just over 3 percent were exported from the country.

The top pistol maker was Ruger with 861,357 made at its Prescott, Arizona, plant. The top revolver maker was also Ruger with 251,644 wheel guns (followed very closely by S&W). Remington was at the top of the list in rifle production with 738,286 guns while Mossberg/Maverick made over half of the shotguns in the country in 2012, accounting for 534,756 scatterguns of all gauges according to the data.

When asked for comment on the increase in figures from 2000 to 2012, Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary & General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation told

“The numbers reflect growing consumer demand. Wait until you see the data for 2013.  The reason for increasing demand is multi-faceted but surely is driven by concern that state and federal legislation would infringe on the Second Amendment,” said Keane.

It should prove interesting to see what the January 2015 report says about 2013′s production figures.

Last year, with empty store shelves across the country, gun makers running huge backlogs of orders,  and an all-time record number of more than 21-million FBI NICS checks, you can almost hear the chart rising already.


Meet Elaine: She’s a 72-year-old widow who is ready and able to protect her family at a moment’s notice. Her choice for self-defense: a semi-automatic rifle. “I would hope that if there’s bad guys there that they’d be laying on the floor with their hands across their head while I’m looking at them with an AR-15.”



Episode 45: “Wrong Heroes” with Natalie Foster


There is a disturbing and tragically predictable trend that occurs like clockwork after every attack, mass murder or large-scale bloodshed in our country. Another face is burned into our memory, and another name is talked about around the world.


We become so focused on the person committing these acts of violence, that I’m afraid we’re losing sight of the big picture here. Sure, we see flashes of the victims and their families, but we can’t seem to get enough of the bad guy. It’s all we hear about. It’s all the media gives us. I can name five mass murderers off the top of my head but I couldn’t list five of the victims if I tried.


What is with this macabre obsession? Some talking heads in the media have even openly acknowledged this fact. But they’re so dependent on the ratings and keeping your eyes glued to the screen, that, well they’re not changing their news coverage any time soon.


Staying informed, that’s one thing. I mean, we need to learn about these people so that we can deter further attacks, of course. But when it’s all we hear about—when it turns into glorification of these crimes and atrocities, even profiting off these criminals? Well the media becomes complicit in the next tragedy.


Now it’s revolting enough when a pop star brutally beats his girlfriend the night before the Grammys and then after waiting the obligatory punitive period, he’s accepted right back in to the Hollywood scene.  But when the surviving Boston bomber, who murdered and maimed hundreds of innocent people somehow ends up on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine … how is that OK? What are these people thinking? They know precisely how much power they have and they know exactly what they’re doing.


They paint a picture of a young man who looks more like a budding rock star than what he really is: a blood-thirsty killer. And it’s looking more and more like our societal moral compass is broken. We need to be shaming these guys not worshiping at their altars. This isn’t the movies this is real life, real evil.


And then, there’s the real question, right? With all of this coverage that borders on fanfare, are we creating more monsters? We know that the man who committed the Newton massacre obsessively studied the Norway killer and sought to duplicate that shooting. Are there other people out there taking note of all this media coverage and planning similar attacks? More people who want to be ranked on this list of the most infamous household names?


Without question, yes. And we’re fueling their desire to be bigger and bloodier than the last guy. We are rewarding these people with the attention that turns into immortality—exactly what they’re seeking.


So what are we going to be here? A society that focuses on the negative and brutal facts far beyond simply being informed? I’ll be honest; it’s a question I have to ask myself too. It’s a slippery slope. And we’ve got to reassess what we’re ingesting, and what we’re glorifying. The only way to get the media to stop celebrating these villains is to stop patronizing their product. Tell them they can keep doing this; we’re not going to watch their shows or read their magazines. They’re going to be selling their twisted product to an increasingly smaller audience. Because we are better than that.


Outdoor Writers Association of America is once again hosting the Norm Strung Youth Writing Awards contests. The 2014 contests allows promising young writers and poets to showcase their skills and win cash prizes totaling $1,700, thanks to the support and sponsorship ofSafari Club International Foundation.

The postmark deadline for entries is March 15, 2014. All entries must have an outdoor theme and must have been published or accepted for publication in a newsletter, newspaper, magazine, literary collection, etc., during the 2013 calendar year.

The contests feature categories in poetry or prose and awards prizes in two divisions. At the time the article was published or accepted for publication, the author must have been a student in grades 6-8 to enter the junior division; or grades 9-12 (including prep school) to enter the senior division.

For complete contest rules and entry instructions, visit

To request information about how to start a youth writing contest at your local paper, call the OWAA office at 406-728-7434 or email

 By Larry Keane 

Thought Michael Bloomberg would be chastened after the disastrous 2013 Mayors Against Illegal Guns group had and the recent news nearly 50 mayors ditched MAIG  because of its extreme positions?


You don’t know Mike.

Instead, MAIG was back at it recently, releasing a report on the number of school shootings since the Sandy Hook tragedy and trotting out Senator Chris Murphy to call on Congress to pass more gun laws.

Now, to be abundantly clear: Everyone can agree on the need to find solutions to prevent these tragedies. Even one school shooting is too many. But while more and more attention is rightly being paid to the role mental health – and the nation’s porous mental health system – plays in many, many of these incidents, Senator Murphy is content to stick to his comfortable, flawed anti-gun talking points.

“Congress,” and, presumably, by extension, the American people who elected them, “are guilty of indifference, and I would argue, at times complicity,” Murphy said at an MAIG press conference. This despite the fact a recent Gallup poll  found that 56 percent of Americans are satisfied with the nation’s gun laws or believe they are too strict.


Murphy is guilty of at best ignorance and at worst cynical political gamesmanship. After all, just a year ago, Murphy told a town hall crowd this “You can’t solve all this with laws anyway, right? I mean, you can put all the gun laws on the books you want, if these kids have a feeling of hopelessness … no gun law in the world is going to stop somebody from picking up a firearm and doing something dumb with it.

“A lot of my friends in Congress think you can solve all this stuff with gun laws. You cannot.”

Wherever between those two statements Senator Murphy actually falls, his insistence on fixating on the liberal gun rights Boogeyman comes at the expense of taking real action to fix our mental health system and help those affected with mental health issues. By playing politics, Sen. Murphy simply puts more people at risk for the very types of acts of mass violence.

This isn’t the first time Murphy has made a brash statement that reveals his antipathy toward the firearms industry. Last April, Murphy echoed Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy suggesting selling guns to criminals was a basic part of firearms manufacturers and retailers’ business plans.

Taken together, Murphy’s comments reflect the sad state of affairs for the firearms industry in Connecticut. Once home to the “arsenal of democracy,” the state’s ultra-liberal leaders are unceremoniously pushing history out the door to satisfy their liberal leanings . It’s no surprise then that in Connecticut and other states with anti-gun leadership, manufacturers are voting with their feet and relocating their jobs and positive economic impact to places more welcoming.


In the end, the real losers are the people of Connecticut.


Dom Raso “Assault Weapons”


Dom: A popular belief among the American people is that assault weapons are the choice guns for criminals like drug dealers and gang members. It’s all because the media paints this picture of thugs invading homes and busting down doors with AK-47s and other semi-automatic rifles. But is that the reality for the every day criminal? I have my own thoughts on that, but unlike Piers Morgan, I’d rather let an expert on the subject give his perspective.


Dom: This is my friend, Jerry, a SWAT officer in New Jersey who deals with violence on the streets every single day.


Dom: So Jerry, how often are you dealing with this big scary AK or AR that everyone’s talking about?


Jerry: That’s a good question, because the assault weapon concept is so big in society right now, everybody’s talking about it, it’s all across the news because of these active killer-type situations that are happening.


Jerry: But those are isolated incidents. We have to look at it and understand that they are isolated incidents that don’t really impact the everyday criminal activity.


Jerry: That monster that sleeps under the bed, that evil AR-15, it really doesn’t exist in today’s criminal society.


Jerry: In the twenty-one years of law enforcement that I’ve been doing this, I’ve come across four or five. You know, rarely do we see an AK or an AR-15.


Jerry: We’re really talking about two, three percent of criminal activity. And that’s including these active killing situations that involve AR-15s and AK-47s. We don’t see them on a daily basis—I rarely see them and I work in a really progressive town.


Dom: So, when I’m overseas and we’re dealing with the violent intent versus the tools that they are using, these bad guys are going to improvise and figure out a way to do harm to the good people. No matter what laws or no matter what things we try to do and implement, the guys are going to figure it out, whether it’s driving an eighteen wheeler into an out station, or it’s building an improvised weapon or an AK or a blade, they’re going to do harm and they’re going to figure it out.


Dom: So, when I’m overseas and I’m dealing with that type of scenario and those situations, it’s no different when you talk about the violent intent versus the tools. And it is right here on our own soil.


Jerry: Oh, absolutely. All our laws are based off of culpability. They are all based off, did the actor knowingly or purposely do what he did? No matter what the tool is, whether it’s knife, a blunt striking object, a gun, a car, it’s all the same thing. We have to prove intent in which it was used for. And in today’s society we’re seeing bladed weapons and blunt striking objects, closed fists and beatings long before we see any gun activity.


Dom: Are any of these gun laws being debated right now even relevant to your job?


Jerry: In the end they’ll have no impact on criminal activity at all. None at all.


Jerry: Where it will create more criminal activity is the average, everyday citizen that gets caught with these guns and high capacity magazines and assault weapons now, that laws that didn’t exist before—they’ll be part of our national crime statistics because they’ll now be the violent criminal that possess these horrible weapons.


Jerry: And politicians will exploit this by saying, “We’ve made twenty-five percent more gun arrests.” Yeah, they were our citizens. They were the people that had their liberties and freedoms restricted.


Jerry: Once they put these high capacity magazines and the assault weapon ban back into place, I’ll be locking up the average everyday citizen and will consider those violent crime offenders.


Jerry: Just the mere possession of the guns they have always owned will make them criminals. So yeah, criminal activity will be rampant at the expense of our citizens.


Dom: It is unbelievable how we let the media corrupt this debate so far away from addressing the real problems we face as a nation. The only way anything is going to change is by getting more guys like Jerry talking about the violent reality they deal with. Because this whole gun debate, isn’t about solving problems. It’s about politics and cable TV ratings. And we’ve got to decide as a nation whether we’d rather ignore reality and let celebrities and political entertainers make decisions for us, or if we are going to go find the truth for ourselves.