Category Archives: Gun Rights News

VA Gov. Northam Lost One When Judge Ordered Gun Range Re-opened

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam lost one recently when a judge in Lynchburg ruled that the governor overstepped his authority by shutting down ranges. nra-ila image
U.S.A. –-( Anti-gun Democrat Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam lost one in Lynchburg Circuit Court when Judge F. Patrick Yeatts ruled—in a much-overlooked case—that Northam overstepped his authority when he declared a state of emergency and closed “recreational and entertainment” businesses, including indoor shooting ranges.
According to NPR, Judge Yeatts essentially said Northam lacks the authority to close gun ranges, as explained in a six-page order.
There is an interesting passage on Page 4 of the order, which could have ramifications reaching far beyond the doors of SafeSide Tactical, the indoor shooting range that sued. According to WFXR News, the range re-opened.
“But the case involves both statutory and constitutional rights analyses, not a pure constitutional rights analysis,” Judge Yeatts explained. “Levels of scrutiny favorable to the Governor in the present case contradict §44-146.15(3) (state statute)’s provision that the Governor canot “in any way limit or prohibit rights of the people to keep and bear arms.” (Emphasis added in original document). Having found that indoor gun ranges are protected by the statute, the Court cannot uphold executive orders that limit or prohibit indoor gun ranges. The Court assumes executive orders regulating all businesses would not violate the statute, but the Order targets indoor gun ranges by lumping them in with the closure of recreational businesses.
“The Court declines to invent a level of scrutiny to circumvent the text in the statute,” Judge Yeatts continued. “If the Court were to use a level of scrutiny, the Court would find that proper training and practice, at a range as analyzed above, is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms, even necessary for the self-defense concern discussed by the Governor. Accordingly, the Court would apply strict scrutiny and find that the Order fails because the total closing of all indoor gun ranges is not narrowly tailored.”
In his decision, Judge Yeatts alluded to a Second Amendment Foundation case from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Ezell v. City of Chicago, which held “that the federal constitution’s Second Amendment includes a corresponding right to train with firearms by target practice at a range.”
According to the Virginian Pilot,” Richard Schragger, a law professor at the University of Virginia, said in an email the ruling only applies to the Lynchburg gun range, but the reasoning could apply across the state and other gun ranges could bring a similar lawsuit.
NPR noted that Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring issued a statement that his office was “considering how to respond.”
“Governor Northam’s efforts to save lives and slow the spread of COVID-19 are necessary and proving to be effective, but unfortunately, the gun lobby believes the ability to shoot a gun indoors during this pandemic is worth risking further spread of the virus and making Virginia communities and families less safe,” Herring said, according to the Associated Press, according to the NPR report.
But in the final lines of his ruling, Judge Yeatts appears to respond:  (by law) which the Court has a duty to interpret and apply.”
It wasn’t the only piece of bad news for Northam. Fox News reported the Justice Department is “siding with a Virginia church suing Gov. Ralph Northam after police threatened a pastor with jail time or a $2,500 fine for violating the state’s coronavirus lockdown restrictions by holding a 16-person church service on Palm Sunday.”
On the far side of the country, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, also a Democrat now seeking a third term, announced he is going to allow a slow re-opening of the Evergreen State, with fishing and hunting seasons to open May 5, one day after his previous May 4 deadline, but he extended the overall shutdown to May 31.
Washington was the only state, according to some reports, where recreational fishing had been suspended. The order also pushed back the opener of the spring wild turkey hunting season.
Inslee has been taking increasing heat from voters as small businesses across the Evergreen State have been hammered hard. Seattle’s famous Pyramid Alehouse, a landmark business located near the city’s baseball and football stadiums, announced its permanent closure last week.
Inslee’s emergency order did not exempt gun shops or shooting ranges, and many, but not all, have been closed for several weeks. Others remain open in defiance of the emergency order nearly two months ago. Those shops have instituted creative business practices to remain open.
One significant impact has been on concealed pistol license applications in Washington State. For the second month in a row, the state Department of Licensing reported a decline in the number of active CPLs. At the end of February, there were 650,825 active licenses. That declined to 649,165 as of May 1, a loss of 1,660 CPLs.
Sheriffs and police departments have suspended taking new CPL applications because the process requires completed fingerprinting, and that requires physical proximity between staff and applicants.
While federal lawsuits have been filed in other states over similar issues, so far Washington authorities have not been sued.

amzn_assoc_placement = “adunit0”;
amzn_assoc_search_bar = “false”;
amzn_assoc_tracking_id = “ammoland-20”;
amzn_assoc_ad_mode = “manual”;
amzn_assoc_ad_type = “smart”;
amzn_assoc_marketplace = “amazon”;
amzn_assoc_region = “US”;
amzn_assoc_title = “More 2A Reading”;
amzn_assoc_linkid = “4d2715a257fcd3b86661b022917516db”;
amzn_assoc_asins = “1523085991,1935071165,0872867234,1632206196,1566639719,1476747458,0925279773,0936783702,1316611280,1498562663,1620876272,B07Y5L261Y,1988963273”;

About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
The post VA Gov. Northam Lost One When Judge Ordered Gun Range Re-opened appeared first on

NRA: Jackson’s Mayor Exploits Crisis, Achieves Nothing

Category : Gun Rights News , NRA-ILA

Jackson Mississippi continues to deal with politicians who see their rights as a nuisance.
U.S.A. -( Popular wisdom holds that crisis reveals character –nothing brings out the true nature of a person more than having to rise to face the challenges of an unexpected disaster or emergency. Our current pandemic has already revealed a fair share of heroes and fools.
On April 24, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, the Mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, released a video advising that he had signed an “executive order” suspending “the open carry law during the COVID-19 civil emergency.”(This order followed his earlier “stay home” orders directing city residents to cease all nonessential travel and activities).
In the video, he refers to several violent crimes in Jackson that “could have been avoided if we had a state law that enabled us to better control the presence of firearms on our streets.”He cited, as the authority for his order, a state statute that gave him the discretion, “in the interest of public safety and welfare, to issue such orders that are necessary for the protection of life and property.”A screenshot shows Mississippi Code §45-17-7 (although an earlier version of the video apparently cited Section 45-7-17(7)(e), a law that doesn’t exist).
Strangely, City residents wishing to inform themselves about the order had to rely on an unsigned version that a newspaper posted online –as of late April, there appeared to be no evidence of this order at the City website or the mayor’s webpage.
Mississippi Code §45-17-7 allows a “chief administrative officer” to issue the listed orders or “such other orders as are necessary for the protection of life and property” once a proclamation of a civil emergency has been made.
As is usually the case, this statute doesn’t exist in a legal vacuum.
One clear limitation on the mayor’s authority is Mississippi’s firearm preemption law, Miss. Code §45-9-51, which generally prohibits any municipality from adopting laws that restrict the possession, carrying, transportation, sale, transfer, or ownership of firearms.
On April 26, Mississippi’s top law enforcement official, Attorney General Lynn Fitch, advised Mayor Lumumba that she had reviewed his executive order and found it to be invalid and unconstitutional. “Neither Section 45-17-7 nor any other provision of law governing municipal civil emergencies, authorizes a mayor to suspend any valid state statute or constitutional right…Mississippians enjoy the right to lawfully open carry in all of Mississippi’s 82 counties and in every municipality within the State. The City of Jackson is no exception.”
She added that she had “no evidence that the State’s open carry law was implicated in these crimes [cited as justification] or that your order would have changed the outcomes.”Because the mayor (or the city more generally) “lacks statutory authority to suspend a state statute or constitutional provision,” her letter directed the mayor to “rescind the Order immediately.”
Since then, a whole lot of things have happened, but a recall of the executive order hasn’t been one of them.
On April 27, the Mississippi Justice Institute filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of State Rep. Dana Criswell, challenging Mayor Lumumba’s unconstitutional and illegal “overreaching attempts to ‘suspend the constitutional right to carry a firearm openly in public” as a violation of state law and the Second Amendment.
The mayor’s colleagues on the Jackson City Council seized the opportunity of a council meeting on April 28 to unanimously disavow his action and pass a resolution repudiating the mayor’s unilateral suspension of carry rights. Several council members noted Mayor Lumumba acted without input from the city council, despite it being a matter of importance that merited consideration by the city’s governing body as a whole. “We’ve got to work as one body and under the requirements of the U.S. and Mississippi state constitution and Mississippi state law,” said Councilman Melvin Priester. Another council member disclosed that the city attorney had advised Mayor Lumumba against issuing the open carry executive order, but the mayor went ahead, regardless.
On April 30, Attorney General Fitch filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff in the federal lawsuit, and Mike Hurst of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi, the chief federal law enforcement officer for over half the state, published a remarkable op-ed strongly opposing Mayor Lumumba’s illegal curtailment of civil liberties.
In it, he points out the mayor’s purported justifications for the ban were not “substantiated in any way.”“I have not seen a single case where a killing in Jackson could have been prevented if open carry rights had been revoked.”The mayor “also knows full well, as a former criminal defense attorney, that the right to openly carry firearms is not interfering with law enforcement taking criminals off the street.”Our constitutional rights do not become less necessary or lose their character as fundamental rights at the worst of times. “If we are to preserve the character of our nation and ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity,’ we must remain vigilant and collectively act to protect and preserve our constitutional liberties and civil rights of every American, especially in times of crisis.”
On the same day, April 30, the mayor’s executive order expired. Appearing at a press conference that afternoon, Mayor Lumumba defended his order at length without actually pointing to any indication that it made a dent in criminal violence or protected life and property in any way. He dismissed the critics and opponents of his order as “outside agitators” but at the same time, called out and thanked Mike Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups for their support.
Mayor Lumumba is an attorney and (we assume) is knowledgeable about the law. Like the rest of his colleagues on the City Council, he has taken an oath to uphold the law and the Constitution.
The events following the issuance of his order should have been ample indication that his order was unconstitutional, unjustified, and ineffective.
Indeed, the text of the (unsigned) executive order itself acknowledges that since “the issuance of the Stay-at-Home …Orders by the Mayor of the City of Jackson, there have been nearly a dozen shootings in the City of Jackson.”What possible reason is there to believe that anyone who violates a stay-home order (and state and federal law) to commit a crime will obey a similar mayoral direction banning the open carry of a firearm?
Mayor Lumumba’s executive order was utterly useless in addressing the harm caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or curbing the kinds of senseless homicides he cited as justifying his order. In fact, one council member expressed his concern that selective enforcement of the order in only some neighborhoods would enable “bad policing” that damaged the community’s trust. In responding to the pandemic, Mayor Lumumba demonstrated a blatant disregard for state law and his willingness to sacrifice the civil rights of his constituents. At the very least, the City of Jackson now faces spending taxpayer dollars on outside counsel to defend itself against the consequences of its mayor’s foolish actions.

amzn_assoc_placement = “adunit0”;
amzn_assoc_search_bar = “false”;
amzn_assoc_tracking_id = “ammoland-20”;
amzn_assoc_ad_mode = “manual”;
amzn_assoc_ad_type = “smart”;
amzn_assoc_marketplace = “amazon”;
amzn_assoc_region = “US”;
amzn_assoc_title = “More Second Amendment Reading”;
amzn_assoc_linkid = “2180f7a1334858fbf5f13b2d402a0302”;
amzn_assoc_asins = “1476747458,1566639719,1523085991,0936783702,0925279773,1632206196,1935071165,1454876441,0393652572,0872867234,B003AK7K4Q,1510719954,1565846990,1523085940″;

About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:
The post NRA: Jackson’s Mayor Exploits Crisis, Achieves Nothing appeared first on

Supreme Court Moves 10 Second Amendment Cases to Conference

Supreme Court Moves 10 Second Amendment Cases to Conference, iStock-1020504756
U.S.A. –-( When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the New York Rifle & Pistol case in 2019, it was big news. The lower courts in the circuits hostile to the Second Amendment have been busy rendering the Second Amendment a second tier Constitutional right. Some members of the Court, notably Justice Clarence Thomas, had written about it.
A few days ago, the Court ruled the New York Rifle & Pistol case was moot. Four justices indicated they should grant a writ of certiorari (hear the case) of another Second Amendment case. The strong implication was the split in the courts and poor treatment of the Second Amendment by several appeals courts made taking a Second Amendment case important.
It takes four Supreme Court justices to agree to hear a case (grant a writ of certiorari). Four justices say they want to hear a case.
There are at least ten Second Amendment cases in the pipeline, waiting to be heard at a Supreme Court conference, where the decision to grant a writ of Certiorari will be made.
Ten Second Amendment cases have been scheduled for the Supreme Court conference to be held Friday, 1 May, 2020. Hat tip to Second Thoughts Blog at Duke. Those cases are shown in the list below. The link on the name of the case is to the Supreme Court case history and assignment to the conference. The second link is to documents showing the particulars of the case. The ten cases are:
Mance v. Barr
A challange to the ban on out of state handgun purchases in the 5th Circuit (Texas).
Rogers v. Grewal
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
Pena v. Horan
A challenge to the microstamping and restrictive “approved” handgun roster in California in the 9th Circuit.
Gould v. Lipson
A challenge to the restrictive Massachusetts may issue ownership and carry permit scheme in the 1st circuit.
Cheeseman v. Polillo
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
Ciolek v. New Jersey
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
Worman v. Healy
A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rounds in the 1st Circuit.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi
A challenge to the Maryland extreme may issue carry permit scheme in the 4th Circuit.
Culp v. Raoul
A challenge to the Illinois refusal to issue carry permits to residents of  some states, in the 7th Circuit.
Wilson v. Cook County
A challenge to an on ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rds in Cook County, Illinois, in the 7th Circuit.
The ten cases above were appealed to the Supreme Court from November of 2018 through November of 2019.  Some of them have been held for conference, waiting on the resolution of the New York Rifle and Pistol case, which has now been ruled moot by the Supreme Court.
Six of the ten cases are about permits to carry. Two are about bans on widely owned and popular firearms, variously defined as “assault weapons”. One is about federal restrictions on the purchase of handguns across state lines, the other about numerous and prohibitive restrictions on what handguns may be purchased in California.
In addition to the ten cases above, the Supreme Court has asked the City of San Jose to submit a brief in Rodriquez v. City of San  Jose.
No one knows how many of the ten cases will be granted a writ of certiorari, if any. Several of the cases could be lumped together.
We should know the results on Monday,  4 May, 2020.

amzn_assoc_placement = “adunit0”;
amzn_assoc_search_bar = “false”;
amzn_assoc_tracking_id = “ammoland-20”;
amzn_assoc_ad_mode = “manual”;
amzn_assoc_ad_type = “smart”;
amzn_assoc_marketplace = “amazon”;
amzn_assoc_region = “US”;
amzn_assoc_title = “More Second Amendment Reading”;
amzn_assoc_linkid = “2180f7a1334858fbf5f13b2d402a0302”;
amzn_assoc_asins = “1476747458,1566639719,1523085991,0936783702,0925279773,1632206196,1935071165,1454876441,0393652572,0872867234,B003AK7K4Q,1510719954,1565846990,1523085940”;

About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
The post Supreme Court Moves 10 Second Amendment Cases to Conference appeared first on

Why Some Are Willing to Trade Freedom for Corona-Safety

Category : Dan Wos , Gun Rights News

By: Dan Wos
Many Americans are willing to sacrifice their constitutionally-protected rights in exchange for security and safety from the Coronavirus, iStock-1213378005
U.S.A. -( As I watch some people work themselves into indignant, self-righteous outrage over the fact that others are storming their statehouses to demand freedom, I can’t help but smile. This is the way it should be. This is the way it was intended. The problem is, those who choose to hand their freedom over to the government for perceived safety will continue to label these Americans as terrorists.
Government Groupies look down their noses at Patriots because they recognize them as people who are willing to stand up for their rights while they know, they, themselves are not.
What’s the difference between the left and the right? The answer comes down to a very simple concept. Those on the left are willing to give up their freedom for safety. Those on the right are willing to give up their safety for freedom. Our brothers and sisters that we see on the steps of our capitol buildings are doing exactly what they should be doing. Our Founding Fathers knew there would come a day when the government would need to be reminded who they work for. Will it take the corona-crisis to remind people how much freedom they’ve given up? For some, maybe.
When we talk to people on the left about this, they tell us that we must do whatever we can to be safe. They can look you straight in the eye without any acknowledgment of the freedom lost as the state representatives they voted for literally put them on home detention. They accept this without question. They are able to do this because, through a collective media effort, they are given a view of the world through a lens of fear and hatred. Fear for their own lives and hatred for those who won’t conform to the herd mentality they have embraced. You will find the same is true with the way guns are portrayed in America. Coincidence?
So why is it that people on the right can no longer tolerate the corona shut down? Why is it that people on the right are storming their statehouses to demand an end to the corona fear campaign? The answer is simple, they recognize when their rights are being violated and their freedom through independent entrepreneurship and free-market capitalism is being destroyed. Real Americans understand the importance of freedom and independence. They get why our founding fathers demanded it.
Logical thinking people understand that virus precautions can be exercised without giving up civil rights.
Others would much rather put the government in control of their lives because a structured, controlled and regulated society makes them feel safe. I’m not even blaming them for it because to them, this makes sense. But I am pointing out the fact that their delusion of a government-controlled Utopian society will only lead to the destruction of America and complete loss of the freedom our Founders fought for.
Those Americans who are waking up to the corona-freedom-grab have become a fierce opposition to the political-left and its push for government control. This is why left-wing media is desperately pushing a “safety over freedom” narrative.
Fortunately, patriotism Has been bred into the majority of Americans. Regardless of the narrative, regardless of the fear campaign, and regardless of how much the left kicks and screams. Real Americans are fighting for the same exact thing our Founders fought for.
Our Founding Fathers are cheering on those Americans demanding freedom, while the media condemns them and spoon-feeds the fearful another dose of debilitating, self-righteousness.

amzn_assoc_placement = “adunit0”;
amzn_assoc_search_bar = “false”;
amzn_assoc_tracking_id = “ammoland-20”;
amzn_assoc_ad_mode = “manual”;
amzn_assoc_ad_type = “smart”;
amzn_assoc_marketplace = “amazon”;
amzn_assoc_region = “US”;
amzn_assoc_title = “More Reading”;
amzn_assoc_linkid = “44fec64a8e3025f6636c84acec5c4025”;
amzn_assoc_asins = “B077YR1SV2,0692645071,B0829GFLHL,B015ZTG3CO,020230762X,1573928836,0202305694,0936488395,B013J9QHM8,1584450576,B01226HGRY,1138307262,B004PUIIAU”;

Dan Wos
About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Dan Wos is an American entrepreneur, author, musician, and NRA member. He is the founder and President of House Detective Inc., a home inspection and appraisal company serving many markets across the United States. He is also an active real estate investor.
The post Why Some Are Willing to Trade Freedom for Corona-Safety appeared first on

Neoliberal Globalist Elite Peter Walker Sells Out U.S. To China

U.S.A. –-( What the Arbalest Quarrel found particularly fascinating from Walker’s mostly frank discussion with host, Tucker Carlson, that aired Thursday, April 23, 2020, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, was Walker’s specific reference to the expressions, ‘Collectivism’ and ‘Individualism.’
Walker admitted that China is a Collectivist society and that our own Nation is founded on the principles of Individualism. That much is true. But what Walker carefully avoided asserting is that Collectivism is inherently evil, insofar as it is a danger to individual liberty. Walker equivocated, suggesting that Collectivism does have merit. What Carlson didn’t ask Walker and what we would have liked to hear is whether Walker felt it was time our Nation adopted the precepts of Collectivism because Walker’s comments about the origin of our Nation doesn’t mean that he agrees we should continue to adhere to the tenets of Individualism, given especially his effusive praise for China and for the manner in which this Collectivism has worked to benefit China.
AQ would have specifically liked to have asked Walker this question: By serving China’s interests as well as McKinsey has, to the detriment of the interests of the United States, how has McKinsey reconciled, or, at least, has tried to reconcile the desires and goals of the autocratic Communist Regime of China, with the desires and goals of our own free Constitutional Republic, whose economic, geopolitical, and military interests are antithetical to our own? We would, then, have liked to have followed up the first question with this one: As an American citizen, do you feel some remorse for having harmed our Nation’s interests, for the sake of profit alone, given the power that McKinsey wields to benefit one Nation, China, over that of your own? And, third, we would have liked to have asked Walker this: How might McKinsey assist this Nation in gaining an edge over China since you have admitted that the key to strengthening our Nation’s economy is to reinstate a measure of self-sufficiency in our productive capacity?
But, then, we can intuit the answers to our questions since avoided asserting the U.S. should, after all, remain a viable sovereign, independent Nation-State, where the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people remain intact. Walker, on behalf of McKinsey, has encouraged McKinsey’s business clients to offshore production to mainland China, thereby setting into motion, the very decline of America’s strength as a manufacturing powerhouse. Walker would know that, even if he had some misgiving as to how he helped to weaken our Nation’s economy when he worked as a senior partner for McKinsey, he would know that McKinsey could not, in good faith, reverse that process as that would mean contravening the very advice McKinsey had given to its corporate clients, harming the McKinsey’s own reputation and standing with its clients. McKinsey made a decision early on: either to work for both the benefit of our Nation and our businesses; or join forces with the forces of neoliberalism globalization, for the benefit of the coming dyarchy that it helped to create: a dyarchy comprising, one, China, and, two, a new transnational political, social, and economic global system of governance, composed of the hollowed-out shells of once-powerful sovereign, independent Western Nation-States.
Walker asserted, but Carlson didn’t further explore Walker’s dissembling. Simply to acknowledge our Nation’s history doesn’t ipso facto imply or entail Walker’s belief that our Nation should continue to espouse the tenets upon which our Nation, as reflected in the U.S. Constitution, are based: the tenets of Individualism, which Walker explicitly concedes. Walker’s decades at McKinsey would seem to have done nothing to suggest he gives a damn about the well-being of our Nation, its Constitution, and the autonomy and sanctity of the individual, since his efforts have been directed essentially to increase the power and stature of China in the world at the expense of the power and stature and well-being of the U.S., as an independent, sovereign nation-state, and at the expense and well-being of the American people.
But AQ wouldn’t describe Walker as a mere opportunist, who has been selling out our Nation for money alone, unlike sell-out Democrats and Centrist Bush Republicans, who simply wish to make a killing for themselves, and to retire in luxury, forgetting that the Oath they took was to serve the Nation and its people by defending the Constitution of the United States, rather than themselves.
For, after all, one would expect the servants of the people to rein in China, and therefore to rein in Companies that, in their quest for profit, have irreparably harmed our Nation. But they do no such thing. Rather, they kowtow to lobbyists for China for their own benefit.
Certainly, McKinsey’s Walker has done everything in his power to assist China in becoming a predominant geopolitical, economic, and military power in the world and in the process has certainly been able to pad his own wallet. But Walker, it is our opinion, has a bigger picture in mind. As a neoliberal Globalist elite, he must see the world of the future—as we point out, supra—as tending toward a massive Dyarchy, where two emerging powers in the 21st Century—China and a supranational new world order, comprising the shells of Western Democratic States—divide the world between them, keeping each other in check.
McKinsey is no ordinary mega-company. It is helping to shape the future of the world on behalf of both the Collectivist superpower China, and the Collectivist neoliberal Global Western elites. Neoliberal Globalist elites are Collectivists. And Walker is no exception. Walker and those employed by McKinsey believe in the tenets of Collectivism and are fervently working toward the realization of the Collectivist super-state goal: China, as the Communist Asian Autocratic powerhouse; and the Western supranational Global empire, ruled by the Rothschild clan and those aligned with them. The world is to be divided between the two. The population of China is subjugated, reduced to penury, and under constant surveillance and control. And the populations of Western Civilization are in the process of being subjugated, reduced to penury, and are, themselves, in the process of losing all freedoms. Worst to be faced with the loss of freedoms are American citizens since, unlike, the populations of Europe, our fundamental rights and liberties are accepted as rights emanating from the Divine Creator, not from man; and, so, cannot be lawfully denied, modified, abrogated, ignored. But, the loss of those God-given rights would ensue anyway as Collectivists do not ascribe to a Divine Creator and do not, therefore ascribe to divinely created rights and liberties that rest beyond the lawful power of man to rescind. But the Collectivists don’t care in sacred Truth. They only care about the effects. They will not abide rights and liberties that impede the creation, implementation, and preservation of the Western Collectivist super-state.
In our Nation, at least, the attempt to subvert fundamental rights and liberties, especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms upon which all other fundamental rights and liberties depend, because, only through force of arms, can the American people effectively resist the Super-State from successfully preventing the exercise of any other fundamental, unalienable, immutable right and liberty.

amzn_assoc_placement = “adunit0”;
amzn_assoc_search_bar = “false”;
amzn_assoc_tracking_id = “ammoland-20”;
amzn_assoc_ad_mode = “manual”;
amzn_assoc_ad_type = “smart”;
amzn_assoc_marketplace = “amazon”;
amzn_assoc_region = “US”;
amzn_assoc_title = “More Reading on the threat of China”;
amzn_assoc_linkid = “9e0ef2ad0402cf66bc7b6a01d5665883”;
amzn_assoc_asins = “1467756008,0812977564,030727831X,0061708763,1641770546,0393332004,1682473031,1611720508,1498567150,0829414584”;

About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit:
The post Neoliberal Globalist Elite Peter Walker Sells Out U.S. To China appeared first on

With No New Leadership Options, an Uncertain Future Lies Ahead for NRA

With No New Leadership, an Uncertain Future Lies Ahead for National Rifle Association
USA – -( For almost a decade I’ve been asking people in the firearms and Second Amendment community to seriously consider who might take over as Executive Vice President of the NRA if Wayne LaPierre were to retire or be hit by a bus.
About 6 years ago I got really serious about that question and was raising the issue in my regular columns, then 3 and a half years ago, after the election of Donald Trump, there was talk that Wayne might be offered some sort of position within the Trump administration, and I was very actively asking people for suggestions of possible successors, or at least the qualities a successor would need in order to be successful and keep the NRA strong. Finally, last year all sorts of accusations of financial improprieties and self-dealing among LaPierre and other NRA executives, broke in major media, and a lot of people began asking the same questions I’d been asking for years, but the same answer kept coming back… Crickets.
No one knows who would make a good CEO for the NRA. A few people have someone they like for the job, but there’s no one that everyone – or even a strong majority of people – are ready to get behind, and that’s the only reason Wayne LaPierre is still sitting in that office. If there were a good candidate that a majority of people could agree on, Wayne would have been gone last April. But Wayne has very deliberately made sure that anyone close to the organization with enough name recognition and clout to be considered a serious contender, is discredited and pushed away from our Association.
A few years ago, questions about a successor to Wayne would generally elicit a few halfhearted suggestions of Chris Cox. That made sense and follows a well-established pattern in the Association, but Chris had some pretty strong detractors among the Board. Still, when the whole mismanagement and self-dealing scandal blew up last year, Wayne seized an opportunity to paint Chris as a traitor and back-stabber and pushed him out of the organization.
Another name that was often mentioned was Oliver North. While LTC. North had his fair share of detractors, he was well-liked and respected on the Board and among the majority of the membership. LaPierre managed to skewer North’s chances of even being considered for the EVP position, by painting him as a highly-compensated stooge for the NRA’s long-time PR firm, Ackerman McQueen. North had attempted to contact LaPierre, to encourage him to step down, for the good of the Association and his own reputation, and warn him that Ack-Mac, whom LaPierre was in the process of suing, was preparing to release some dirt about him. LaPierre painted that as “extortion” and a “coup attempt,” resulting in North’s resignation from the presidency of the organization.
The only other person who had ever been seriously mentioned as a possible successor to LaPierre, was Kyle Weaver, who had served several years as the Executive Director of NRA General Operations. Many on the Board thought Weaver would be a better choice than Cox, but three years ago, Wayne fired Weaver out of the blue. When Directors asked why Weaver had been fired, they were told by LaPierre that he couldn’t discuss it yet, but that it was complicated… but unquestionably necessary. He assured them that they would be informed about the whole sordid affair soon. But soon never came. Directors still don’t know why Weaver was fired, but he collected his full $720k salary for two years after he was gone, then recently took over as Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
By eliminating or casting aspersions on the few people who might be considered as serious contenders for his job, LaPierre has managed to remain in power, in spite of serious allegations of malfeasance and mismanagement.
He is actively supported by only a small minority of the Board, but without a clear, viable alternative, the majority of the Board that is unhappy with him, doesn’t see a way forward around LaPierre. None of them even had the guts to nominate anyone to run against him in the last election, and there’s a high likelihood that no one else will be nominated this year either. That means that LaPierre would once again win reelection by default, to be reported as “unanimous,” even though no vote is even taken.
At this point, unless someone can talk a prominent political luminary like Dick Cheney into coming out of retirement to lead a restructuring of the Association over the next year or so, I see little chance of anyone being able to successfully challenge LaPierre. By the way, if anyone has contact with Mr. Cheney, please let him know that I’d really like to talk with him.
Even though there’s little chance of anything coming of it, let’s engage in a thought exercise to consider what sort of person is needed to step into the EVP position at NRA.
The first and most important qualification is that they must be unwavering in their support for the Second Amendment, and have a solid grasp on the political and philosophical issues surrounding that fight. We simply can’t afford to have another EVP who doesn’t understand and isn’t fully committed to liberty and the right to arms. They must also be someone of the highest integrity, that can be trusted to always act in the best interest of the membership, and be extremely conscientious about spending the members’ money.
Beyond that, there are three basic models the EVP of NRA can follow:

They could be a professional manager who focuses exclusively on running the business of the Association efficiently, and who avoids the limelight and public debate, leaving that to the PR staff.
They could be the chief spokesperson, lobbyist, and cheerleader for the organization, serving primarily in a PR role, while leaving most of the day-to-day operational issues of the business to professional managers hired for that purpose.
They could try to be both the dedicated manager and the chief spokesperson, as LaPierre has tried to do.

Realistically, the EVP of the NRA is going to be a blend of some sort. It’s unrealistic to expect them to fill all of the possible roles and it would be foolish for them to try. A good leader hires good people who do the job well, making the leader look good.
As mentioned, LaPierre, who came up through the ranks as a lobbyist, and had no serious business background, has tried to fill all of the roles, but still blames subordinates for any failures or shortcomings. That’s not how a good leader operates, but then, few people have ever suggested that Wayne LaPierre is a good leader.
The question now is whether anyone with the necessary qualifications, will step up to run against LaPierre, and whether anyone on the Board will have the cajones to make a nomination.
We’ll probably learn the answer to that when the Members’ Meeting, that was supposed to happen on April 18, is finally rescheduled. I expect that to be announced soon, and to be scheduled to run in conjunction with the already scheduled September Board meeting. I also expect the NRA establishment to downplay the Members’ Meeting and try to keep it as small and narrowly-focused as possible. Since it only requires 100 Voting Members to be present to constitute a quorum, they could easily meet that requirement with just the Board of Directors and their spouses.
Regardless of when or where the meeting is scheduled, I intend to be there and hope you will too. The next chapter in the history of the NRA could begin right there, so don’t miss it.

Jeff Knox
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit:
The post With No New Leadership Options, an Uncertain Future Lies Ahead for NRA appeared first on

FL Threatened with Lawsuit After Nikki Fried Cancels CW Applications

Category : Gun Rights News , NRA-ILA

Fried seems full of great ideas – laws and ruled be damned.
U.S.A. -( Nikki Fried, Florida’s anti-gun Commissioner of Agriculture clearly violated Florida law and pretended to have authority she is specifically denied by statute [f.s.790.06(15)].  She knew it. She was even formally asked to stop it by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody.  Imagine the waste of State tax dollars if Nikki Fried’s conduct results in a lawsuit against the State when the Attorney General is already on record warning Fried against such actions.
Florida threatened with lawsuit over cancellation of online concealed carry applications
By Ryan Lovelace
Washington Times
April 30, 2020
Young Americans for Liberty president Cliff Maloney is pursuing litigation against a Florida official for thwarting his ability to obtain a firearm amid social distancing restrictions in response to coronavirus.
Mr. Maloney sent a letter on Wednesday to Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services commissioner Nikki Fried threatening litigation because of the commissioner’s decision to suspend online applications for concealed weapons licenses amid the coronavirus outbreak.
While Ms. Fried, Florida Democrat, closed off online applications for concealed carry licenses, she was scheduled to appear in an online town hall with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden on Wednesday evening.
Ms. Fried was listed as moderator of a discussion with Mr. Biden during the virtual rally on Wednesday, according to Mr. Biden’s campaign website which has since removed the webpage. Mr. Maloney’s letter was sent to Ms. Fried when she was moderating the discussion, according to Mr. Maloney.
“It’s truly sad to see Nikki Fried exploiting the COVID-19 crisis to further her anti-Second Amendment agenda,” said Mr. Maloney. “She can host an online fundraiser for Joe Biden, but she can’t accept online applications for concealed weapons licenses? Commissioner Fried needs to stop infringing on the constitutional right of Floridians to protect themselves and their families.”….READ MORE

About NRA–ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:
The post FL Threatened with Lawsuit After Nikki Fried Cancels CW Applications appeared first on

NRA on Former VP Biden: On Guns, Joe Biden Is Full Of It

Category : Gun Rights News , NRA-ILA

Biden standing at a podium labeled, “Beat the NRA with Biden” presumably yelling unintelligibly about AR-14 clip-a-zines, firing shotguns in the air,or defending himself against allegations of sexual harassment.
U.S.A. -( Presumptive Democratic 2020 presidential nominee Joe Biden is not one for clarity, tact, or a firm grasp of the facts. However, even an American public that has long been aware of his shortcomings was taken aback in early March when the former vice president launched an unhinged attack on a pro-Second Amendment autoworker.
The verbal dispute occurred as Biden toured a Fiat Chrysler plant in Michigan as the state was holding its primary. As Biden made his rounds, autoworker Jerry Wayne went up to the presidential candidate and asked him about his position on the Second Amendment. Speaking with Fox News’ Fox & Friends the following day, Wayne explained that he “asked [Biden] how he wanted to get the vote of the working man when a lot of us, we wield arms. We bear arms and we like to do that. And if he wants to give us work and take our guns, I don’t see how he is going to get the same vote.”
Wayne told Biden, “You’re actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take our guns,” to which a visibly agitated Biden responded, “You’re full of **it.” Following Biden’s use of profanity, a female Biden staffer attempted to quell the confrontation. Biden responded by shushing the assistant.
Biden then claimed that he supports the Second Amendment—providing as evidence his ownership of 12- and 20-gauge shotguns. An angry Biden then professed, “I’m not taking your gun away” and denied ever having said he would take guns away. Wayne responded that there was a video of Biden expressing his desire to take guns, to which the candidate responded with a denial.
At that point Biden thought it appropriate to point a finger in Wayne’s face and clarify that he was going to “take your AR-14s away.” The befuddled politician presumably was referring to America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15. When Wayne protested Biden pointing a finger in his face, a now irate Biden challenged the autoworker to a fight, replying, “Don’t tell me that, pal, or I’m going to go outside with your a**.”
Demonstrating a firmer grasp on U.S. civics than the Syracuse Law graduate*, Wayne responded to the unhinged “public servant” by saying, “You’re working for me, man.” Continuing his profanity-laced tirade, Biden responded with, “I’m not working for you. Don’t be such a horse’s a**.”
Confused, Biden then appeared to conflate commonly owned semi-automatic rifles with machine guns. Wayne was then forced to explain to the former vice president the difference between semi-automatic and automatic firearms. An addled Biden then shouted, “Do you need 100 rounds? Do you need 100 rounds?” before wandering off.
Describing the interaction on Fox News, Wayne recalled that Biden “kind of just went off the deep end.”
That is an understatement.
Biden continues to boast about his role as lead sponsor on the Senate crime bill that contained 1994 Clinton ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
At present, Biden’s campaign website touts his plan for a more restrictive ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines. Further, while attending a private $500-per-person fundraiser in November, Biden revealed his intent to ban 9 mm pistols. According to an article from the Seattle Times, while at the soiree, the 77-year-old asked attendees, “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9 mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”
As with so many anti-gun politicians, when Biden claims to support the Second Amendment, he is not being honest.
At a campaign rally in Dallas on the Monday before the Super Tuesday primaries, failed U.S. senate and presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke endorsed Biden for president. Sharing the stage with his former rival, Biden stated,
“I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ll see of this guy.” Biden went on say, “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on ya.”
By offering Beto a role on guns in a potential future administration, Biden has made clear that he supports Beto’s gun-control position. That position is gun confiscation.
During the Sept. 12, 2019 Democratic debate, Beto O’Rourke was asked about his proposal to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Beto responded in part by saying,
“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.”
Moreover, Biden himself has stated that he intends to take firearms. Biden had the following exchange with CNN’s Anderson Cooper when asked about firearm confiscation during an Aug. 5, 2019 interview.
Cooper: “So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns.”
Biden:” Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.”
Biden must think he can get away with lying to Second Amendment-supporting working people. In the friendly confines of a CNN interview, Biden was more than happy to admit his gun-confiscation plans. However, put him in front of a group of workers and he tries to hide his radical anti-gun agenda.
Thanks to autoworker Jerry Wayne, Biden wasn’t able to get away with it this time. Wayne was correct to ask Biden about his history of attacking the Second Amendment and support for firearms confiscation. Biden, on the other hand, was full of it.

About NRA–ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:
The post NRA on Former VP Biden: On Guns, Joe Biden Is Full Of It appeared first on

Senators Warn Banks Not to Use Recovery Funds to Starve Gun Business

By Larry Keane
The NSSF reports that US Senators are warning politicians not to use COVID-19 to shut down businesses they don’t like.
U.S.A. -( U.S. Senators are warning big banks not to use the recent pandemic recovery funds as a bludgeon against industries they find out of fashion. In other words, don’t use taxpayer funds as a weapon to score political points at the next corporate cocktail party.
U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), along with 18 additional senators, authored a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin and Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, warning them not just that this could happen, but they fully expect it to happen. That’s because they have seen it happen before.
“A small but vocal minority has weaponized federally-backed banks against politically-disfavored businesses that operate in good faith and compliance with the law, by denying them financial services based on political reasons that have nothing to do with creditworthiness,” wrote the 19 senators who signed the letter.
Disfavored Industries
The senators didn’t pull punches. They listed the worst offenders, including Citibank, Bank of America JP Morgan Chase among others. Each of these banks has taken discriminatory stances against the firearms industry, denying financial services unless manufacturers and retailers adopt their views on gun control. It isn’t just the firearm industry that’s been victimized by the corporate virtue signalers. These banking institutions, along with credit card processors and financial service providers, also targeted the oil and gas industry, coal, private corrections and other politically disfavored industries.
These are all banking institutions which use taxpayer funds not only to bail them out but to insure them against losses. They are literally playing politics with American’s taxpayer dollars – again – at a time when America is in a financial crisis.
Specifically, the senators are asking Sec. Mnuchin and Chairman Powell how the White House and the Small Business Administration is going to ensure the Paycheck Protection Program and SBA disaster relief funds are distributed in an “unbiased manner.” The senators also want to know how the Trump Administration is communicating to the banks that now, more than any other time, isn’t when banks should be playing favorites with money that isn’t theirs and what the administration and SBA will do when it learns these banks do it anyway.
Abusive History
The senators have reason to be wary. They watched these taxpayer-protected banks do this before, with no accountability. In 2008, taxpayers came to the rescue when the banking industry was crashing. A cool $16.8 trillion dollar check was paid out by taxpayers to keep banks afloat because they were considered “too big to fail.” But they turned around and failed the taxpayer. They used those funds that came from everyday taxpayers, from the firearm and ammunition industry, from oil and gas and private corrections among others, and wrote new policies that said if these industries didn’t adhere to their “social standards,” they’d lose out on the financial services they need to survive.
That’s why Sen. Cramer introduced the Freedom Financing Act, S. 821. This bill, along with the U.S. House of Representatives companion bill, H.R. 2079 by Congressman Roger Williams (R-Texas), would work to end discriminatory lending practices of major banking institutions that seek to circumvent the legislative process and set social policy from the boardroom. But banks don’t seem to be getting the message. They continue to scoff at lawmakers’ warnings that they’re abusing their authority and crushing free commerce by picking winners and losers like it’s a popularity contest.
Citbank’s CEO Michael Corbat actually tried selling his bank’s policy of discriminating against Second Amendment-protected businesses as “good practice.” This is the same bank that got at $45 billion bailout on the backs of taxpayers, only to turn around and attempt to push policies that went beyond the law. That decision cost Citibank a $600 million Louisiana road improvement investment project because they interfered with the lawful commerce-in-arms.
Still Happening
Other banks weren’t paying attention. In 2018, Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan refused to buckle under political pressure to deny firearm manufacturers financial services, saying, “I don’t know if banks or credit card companies or any other financial institution should be the arbiter of what an American can buy.” That changed, though. Sloan retired in June 2019, just two months after Wells Fargo and other banks got “failing grades” from gun control radicals Guns Down America. This week, the new CEO Charles Scharf reported the bank’s relationship with the NRA is “declining,” adding the bank would no longer participate in line of credit or mortgage commitments. It’s not coincidental that Wells Fargo got the failing grade, backed off financing with gun-related organizations and at the same time gave $10 million over three years to the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, a gun control research program.
Big banks continue to benefit off the backs of American taxpayers, even as they pick winners and losers outside of the framework of the legislative process. Public policy is decided by those who are elected by the people and remain accountable to the people for their decisions. Banks have demonstrated an antipathy to taxpayers and their concerns, instead shoving their politically-driven ideas down from their high-rise corporate boardrooms.
The 19 U.S. senators are right to demand answers and accountability. Banks have proven they won’t use tax dollars to benefit taxpayers. They will use them, though, as a way to crush businesses they despise.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers.
The post Senators Warn Banks Not to Use Recovery Funds to Starve Gun Business appeared first on

NM Gov’s New Order Allows Partial Operation of Gun Stores & Ranges

Category : Gun Rights News , NRA-ILA

New Mexico’s Gov. Grisham partially reverted his illegal order to close gun shops and ranges.
U.S.A. -( Recently, facing mounting pressure to re-open New Mexico businesses and litigation filed by NRA-ILA, the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, and other pro-Second Amendment organizations, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham extended her emergency executive stay-at-home order until Friday, May 15.  However, she amended the order to allow gun stores and shooting ranges to operate by appointment-only, effective Friday, May 1.  Language from her order:
“Federally licensed firearm dealers may operate to the extent necessary to conduct background checks and to allow individuals to take possession of firearms that were ordered online or through other remote means. They shall provide these services by appointment only. They shall provide these services by appointment only. [sic] Shooting ranges may open by appointment and shall ensure that appropriate social distancing measures are in place.”
NRA issued the following statement after the governor’s announcement:
“The governor’s announcement today was a first step toward restoring the self-defense and Second Amendment rights of New Mexicans — rights she unlawfully, unilaterally and carelessly stripped away when she ordered the closure of all gun stores last month. The NRA will not stop until the rights of all law-abiding New Mexicans are fully restored.”

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:
The post NM Gov’s New Order Allows Partial Operation of Gun Stores & Ranges appeared first on

W88club Support 247 – Liên lạc W88

Nhà cái W88club có đội ngủ chăm sóc khách hàng hoạt động 24/7, bạn có thể liên lại với W88ok bất kỳ lúc nào cần hổ trợ nhé.

Dưới đây là cách bạn có thể liên lạc với bộ phận CS  của W88vn ở Việt Nam nhé:

Gái xinh W88top

W88top Game Online & Casino & Keno

W88top nơi hội tụ các thành viên đam mê thể thao, casino, slot, poker, xổ số, keno, fishing, .. Với số lượng thành viên lên đến hàng triệu người giúp bạn tha hồ chia sẽ kinh nghiệm cá cược cùng các thành viên W88club khác.

Trong xã hội hiện đại, con người thường rất căng thẳng sau ngày làm việc mệt mỏi. WW88 thực sự là nơi thư giãn tuyệt vời sau ngày làm việc mệt nhọc, giải tỏa đầu ốc, tăng cường sáng tạo cho ngày mai tươi sáng.

Bạn là người có máu đỏ đen nhưng chưa từng chơi bao giờ? Đưng lo lắng, W88vn nơi chia sẽ và học hỏi nhiều kinh nghiệm hay về giới cờ bạc từ rất nhiều thành viên kinh nghiệm lâu năm.

W88OK sự lựa chọn tuyệt vời của bạn. Hãy nhanh chân lên, bấm vào W88cuoc và đăng ký cho mình tài khoản cá cược ngay và luôn nào.
w88 – w88club – w88vn