View Full Version : State, local and jurisdictional-level actions related to gun-control (Post-Newtown)
Ret10Echo
01-03-2013, 18:25
There are multiple threads that have already started related to reactions to the recent shootings. National-level politics tends to take the lead, but what is occurring locally can sometimes be overshadowed.
The idea of starting this thread is to provide discussion on what is occurring within our individual States and localities. Information that would be of good use to responsible gun-owners and those who are engaged with the established processes (executive, legislative, judicial or law-enforcement)
Currently residing in an occupied bastion of liberalism... I watch closely.
From the Peoples Republic of Maryland (PRM)...
Jan 3, 2013 2:26 p.m.
Research conducted by a state-appointed task force on the relationship between mental illness and regulated firearms reveals that those on the task force believe additional research is needed.
It also reveals that those conducting the study, a team made up of lawmakers, mental health experts and law enforcement officials, believe keeping guns out of the hands of all considered "mentally ill" may be too broad.
Link HERE (http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/state/study-more-research-needed-in-mental-illnessgun-regulations-discussion)
There does need to be more places to put people that are mentally ill and need supervision. Not everyone with a mental illness needs to be put away but there are several that do and the system waits until the do something and put them in prison instead.
Maybe a court ordered mental health probation where those that need it can check-in/stay at a halfway house or check-in at a community probation site where they can receive/take meds and be on their way. Those who have trouble staying on meds will get the halfway house.
Dekadenz
01-03-2013, 20:36
There are multiple threads that have already started related to reactions to the recent shootings. National-level politics tends to take the lead, but what is occurring locally can sometimes be overshadowed.
The idea of starting this thread is to provide discussion on what is occurring within our individual States and localities. Information that would be of good use to responsible gun-owners and those who are engaged with the established processes (executive, legislative, judicial or law-enforcement)
Currently residing in an occupied bastion of liberalism... I watch closely.
From the Peoples Republic of Maryland (PRM)...
Link HERE (http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/state/study-more-research-needed-in-mental-illnessgun-regulations-discussion)
Ahh a fellow Marylander. My father, a NRA instructor, called up to ask about a concealed carry permit and the lady actually laughed at him. Wonderful state.
On topic, I'm not worried about this gun ban bill passing. With a Republican controlled house it just won't happen and not even Obama would dare sign an executive order for that, as much as he does love those handy maneuvers. America will remain a bastion of freedom for the next decade or so at least.
The Reaper
01-03-2013, 22:42
Ahh a fellow Marylander. My father, a NRA instructor, called up to ask about a concealed carry permit and the lady actually laughed at him. Wonderful state.
On topic, I'm not worried about this gun ban bill passing. With a Republican controlled house it just won't happen and not even Obama would dare sign an executive order for that, as much as he does love those handy maneuvers. America will remain a bastion of freedom for the next decade or so at least.
Yeah, I thought that about the Republican House up till they sold out on the fiscal cliff bill.
I don't think so anymore. Anything is possible with these traitors.
Obama will sign anything he wants to now.
Talk about an imperial presidency.:rolleyes:
TR
Destrier
01-03-2013, 23:07
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S1422-2013
And where pray tell would they put all the new felons that said, 'I will not comply'.
Looks like I may need to sell the property and head West.
Dekadenz
01-05-2013, 19:01
Yeah, I thought that about the Republican House up till they sold out on the fiscal cliff bill.
I don't think so anymore. Anything is possible with these traitors.
Obama will sign anything he wants to now.
Talk about an imperial presidency.:rolleyes:
TR
While you're probably correct I choose to disagree based on necessity. My sanity and temperament would not hold up well if I believed that.
The only thing Boehner has done in the past couple years I agreed with was telling Harry Reid to go fuck himself, twice. Please no mo' executive orders Massa Obama.
Badger52
01-06-2013, 12:01
Obama will sign anything he wants to now.
Talk about an imperial presidency.:rolleyes:
TRWith plenty of accomplices in both houses. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c113:1:./temp/~c1139glAYu:e642:)
One of many little daggers that were waiting upon swearing in; there are more, their text just isn't back from the Gov Printing Office yet.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013'.
TITLE I--REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE
SEC. 101. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.Note the way it's worded to brand the NRA as endorsing it.
The 'soft' fight is moot and would take a generation or better. The other kind is about to be 'on'.
Ghost_Team
01-06-2013, 12:51
I think Obama WILL sign it, whether it is a law or an executive order. If the majority of Americans were stupid enough to put him in for another 4 years, then he is definitely dumb enough to sign it. After all, he has nothing to lose, and one thing I have learned is to never ever underestimate someone who has nothing to lose.
Ret10Echo
01-17-2013, 08:32
But I guess it's OK to go home and play "Grand Theft Auto (http://www.rockstargames.com/V/)"
Bang! You're suspended: Maryland children punished for making gun gestures
"Kaine says most 6-year-olds’ minds aren’t developed enough to understand why their idea of fun play might make adults upset"
Story here (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/01/15/parents-furious-after-young-boys-suspended-after-playing-with-imaginary-weapon/)
There were also a couple of arrests recently at a gun show for vendors selling "high capacity" magazines (more than 20 rounds) which violates MD law.
Story here (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/lutherville/ph-tt-gun-show-arrest-0123-20130116,0,2983962.story)
Massachusetts following NY.
http://www.mass.gov/governor/legislationeexecorder/legislation/an-act-to-strengthen-and-enhance-firearms-laws.html
Ret10Echo
01-17-2013, 09:59
Massachusetts following NY.
http://www.mass.gov/governor/legislationeexecorder/legislation/an-act-to-strengthen-and-enhance-firearms-laws.html
Shocker...well...NOT
I recall having to obtain my FID to purchase ammunition while stationed there.
Looks like MA is going the route of the 7 round limit and a requirement to sell your noncompliant mags.
NH storage facilities will be packed.
"SECTION 24. Said section 131M of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in line 3, the word “1994.” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- 1994; or (ii) a large capacity feeding device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; or (iii) a large capacity feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of this act that has a capacity of, or that can readily be restored or converted to accept, more than seven but no more than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.”
"SECTION 25. Said section 131M of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following paragraph:-
Any large capacity feeding device that has or can readily be restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of this act must be sold or otherwise lawfully disposed of within one year of the act’s effective date. Such large capacity feeding devices may only be sold or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapon."
Badger52
01-17-2013, 11:36
NH storage facilities will be packed.
Unless people are gonna use air-travel to get in/out of their locker they need to be locking in the opposite compass direction.
Unless people are gonna use air-travel to get in/out of their locker they need to be locking in the opposite compass direction.
Live Free or Die - the good folks of NH have yet to be entirely corrupted by liberal Massholes (apologies for the redundancy).
But, your advice is well taken.
Ret10Echo
01-17-2013, 12:43
Unless people are gonna use air-travel to get in/out of their locker they need to be locking in the opposite compass direction.
Growing up we would drive through CT...NY...VT...NH to get to Maine for a hunt.
Growing up we would drive through CT...NY...VT...NH to get to Maine for a hunt.
Dad used to drive to Millinocket, Maine for deer camp - back in the day.
The thing about heading south out of MA puts you in RI, CT, NY and then NJ...none of them are overly firearm friendly. No, the weather may be harsh but the freedom in the New England area is north.
VT is proudly independent and their laws on firearms reflect VT's rural nature and colonial heritage. IIRC, VT is one of only a few states where carrying a firearm is considered a right not subject to regulation.
Maybe GOAL can kill this MA legislation - but I hold out little hope.
Unfortunately, Vermont has become such a liberal state that the legislature is considering assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans. This is not the same state that I left in 1972 when I enlisted. Too damn many flat landers have moved in and are now trying to make the state just like the place they left to move here. However, we still don't need a CCW permit in Vermont and we can carry open or concealed if we so choose.
ZonieDiver
01-17-2013, 13:39
Unfortunately, Vermont has become such a liberal state that the legislature is considering assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans. This is not the same state that I left in 1972 when I enlisted. Too damn many flat landers have moved in and are now trying to make the state just like the place they left to move here. However, we still don't need a CCW permit in Vermont and we can carry open or concealed if we so choose.
It is happening in Arizona, too. SO much so that I believed we should stop LEGAL "immigration" from CA, NY, Chicago, etc MORE than illegal immigration from Mexico (they LOVE firearms!).:D
GratefulCitizen
01-17-2013, 22:28
The states are pushing back.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/state-lawmakers-president-obamas-gun-control-proposal/story?id=18233268
Another state pushing back. :lifter
Alaska gun bill threatens federal agents with arrest
By Richard Mauer
The Anchorage Daily News
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- House Speaker Mike Chenault says federal law enforcement officers should be arrested in Alaska if they attempt to enforce any future federal law banning personal possession of assault rifles or large ammunition clips or if they attempt to register any Alaska firearm.
On Wednesday, just as President Obama was announcing new firearm-control initiatives in the aftermath of the child murders at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., Chenault offered his countermeasure in House Bill 69.
His bill would extend the reach of a law passed in 2010 by asserting that any firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition possessed by anyone in Alaska was not subject to federal law. The 2010 law only covered firearms and ammo manufactured in Alaska and it already was of dubious constitutional validity, though it's never been challenged because no firearm is known to have been manufactured here since then.
In addition to adding the word "possession" to the 2010 law, Chenault's bill declares that any "federal statute, regulation, rule or order" taking effect after passage of House Bill 69 would be invalid in Alaska if it restricted semi-automatic firearms or magazines. The bill also declares invalid any future registration scheme involving firearms, magazines or other firearm accessory.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/17/3186810/alaska-gun-bill-threatens-federal.html#storylink=cpy
From a report filed on Fox Business on 3 August 2012 "States That Get The Most Federal Money" available here (http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-money/).
1) Alaska
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $15,197
> Population: 710,231
> Pct. of U.S. population: 0.23%
> Amt. per capita: $17,762
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: .39%
No state in the U.S. received more money per person from the federal government than Alaska. One contributing factor is that the state had the second-highest figure for defense spending in 2010, at $7,337.59 per capita. The federal government also allocated a great deal toward wages and salaries in Alaska — $5,709.52 per capita. This was more than any state other than Hawaii, which spent $5,805.78 per person, and twice the next-closest state within the contiguous U.S. — Virginia — at $2,638.68.
More generally, "Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In" according to a piece published in the on line version of Mother Jones available here (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps).
And has anyone else noticed how closely maps of poverty in America match political maps--that is, red states have a lot of persistently poor people <<LINK (http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-map-state/)>> and <<LINK2 (http://www.povertyusa.org/wp-content/themes/poverty2012/full-screen-county-map.php)>> compared to <<LINK3>>?
So maybe before encouraging state governments to thumb their noses at .GOV --and risk a political realignment of historic proportions in 2016 (if not 2014)-- perhaps Americans who oppose more gun control could tell their elected representatives what they will support to help reduce violence against children in America rather than simply saying "no."
Stiletto11
01-18-2013, 19:31
JUST SAY NO!
Dozer523
01-18-2013, 23:49
Mother Jones, really?
Yeah Mother Jones.
Mother Jones is a politically left-wing American magazine, featuring investigative and breaking news reporting on politics, the environment, human rights, and culture.
Mother Jones has been nominated for 23 National Magazine Awards and has won six times, including for General Excellence in 2001, 2008, and 2010.
The stated mission of Mother Jones is to produce revelatory journalism that in its power and reach informs and inspires a more just and democratic world.
The magazine was named after Mary Harris Jones, called Mother Jones, an Irish-American trade union activist, opponent of child labor, and self-described "hellraiser". She was publicly described as the most dangerous grandmother in America. She was a part of the Knights of Labor, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist Party of America, the United Mine Workers of America, and the Western Federation of Miners.
She's buried just up the road in Mt Olive Il. It's practically a shrine. Right off I-55.
Go Devil
01-19-2013, 08:08
From a report filed on Fox Business on 3 August 2012 "States That Get The Most Federal Money" available here (http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-money/).
More generally, "Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In" according to a piece published in the on line version of Mother Jones available here (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps).
And has anyone else noticed how closely maps of poverty in America match political maps--that is, red states have a lot of persistently poor people <<LINK (http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-map-state/)>> and <<LINK2 (http://www.povertyusa.org/wp-content/themes/poverty2012/full-screen-county-map.php)>> compared to <<LINK3>>?
So maybe before encouraging state governments to thumb their noses at .GOV --and risk a political realignment of historic proportions in 2016 (if not 2014)-- perhaps Americans who oppose more gun control could tell their elected representatives what they will support to help reduce violence against children in America rather than simply saying "no."
The fire of anti-Democratic rhetoric is coming from a demographic of free thinking human beings who appreciate being left alone with the physical or idealogical products of their personal labor and the ability to protect said products.
Anyone with a funcioning Medulla can readily observe that there is a press from the White House and associated Media that vehemently opposes the above demoghraphic and seeks to obtain their abilities by any means necessary.
It is clearly understood that their voice is now a whisper in a wind storm of pontificating, well fed, organizers.
The word "no" has and will probabaly continue to suffer attempts to be redifined, but like the prom date that wears the dress knows,
"No" always means "No".
The fire of anti-Democratic rhetoric is coming from a demographic of free thinking human beings who appreciate being left alone with the physical or idealogical products of their personal labor and the ability to protect said products.
Anyone with a funcioning Medulla can readily observe that there is a press from the White House and associated Media that vehemently opposes the above demoghraphic and seeks to obtain their abilities by any means necessary.
It is clearly understood that their voice is now a whisper in a wind storm of pontificating, well fed, organizers.
The word "no" has and will probabaly continue to suffer attempts to be redifined, but like the prom date that wears the dress knows,
"No" always means "No".
How is the call for a national conversation about gun violence and legislation to reduce gun violence "anti-democratic"? If the POTUS were relying on EO's alone, your point might have somemerit, but as offered, it is more noteworthy as an example of unintentional irony.
GratefulCitizen
01-19-2013, 10:03
The national conversation is not synonymous with federal officials deciding among themselves what is best for everyone else, while pretending "the people" are part of the conversation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-propose-gun-control/t/story?id=18253197
It's a big country.
Let each state decide for itself what should be done.
We may soon see the significance of Printz vs US.
Badger52
01-19-2013, 15:36
We may soon see the significance of Printz vs US.Indeed. Many states are probably paddling along the canoe because of the administration they were under at the time, not understanding or choosing to not have it on their to-do list. My state still conducts a separate check for a handgun sale (but same check). Many of these mini-fiefdoms done at the bidding of the G could go away.
During the recent kerfuffle here over "worker's rights" (ta-da, Fed court has upheld as Constitutional (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-court-of-appeals-upholds-walkers-act-10-union-law-ur8eg0e-187488851.html)) there was much blathering about throwing away women's right to equal pay, etc. It was nonsense, of course, that's something that's regulated in US law and there is no gain to the state maintaining a separate mechanism "in-house" to manage that. I doubt the G is anxiously waiting for some of the off-loaded state chickens to come home to roost.
Noslack71
01-19-2013, 16:47
From a report filed on Fox Business on 3 August 2012 "States That Get The Most Federal Money" available here (http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-money/).
More generally, "Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In" according to a piece published in the on line version of Mother Jones available here (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps).
And has anyone else noticed how closely maps of poverty in America match political maps--that is, red states have a lot of persistently poor people <<LINK (http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-map-state/)>> and <<LINK2 (http://www.povertyusa.org/wp-content/themes/poverty2012/full-screen-county-map.php)>> compared to <<LINK3>>?
So maybe before encouraging state governments to thumb their noses at .GOV --and risk a political realignment of historic proportions in 2016 (if not 2014)-- perhaps Americans who oppose more gun control could tell their elected representatives what they will support to help reduce violence against children in America rather than simply saying "no."
Sigaba:
I am somewhat surprised at your post. In the past, my perception has been that you generally are not supportive of cherry picking" quotes, factoids etc. Your post prompted me to look at the recent census data.
I suspect the information about Alaska and the Red states is correct.
According to the US Census data, 23-25% of Alaska's population is native American. Native Americans receive a fair amount of money from the USG in a variety of forms, cash, tax breaks, cash for each child and tribal member. Between fishing and hunting rights, education medical, these "benefits add up to a fair amount of money. Is the the money given to the tribes part of the quoted statistics? I suspect you will discover that a majority "Native American Reservations" happen to be in Red states. I would be shocked to discover that any poitical party or fiction writer for an activist publication would present such figures for any reason other than push their own agenda. The Fed transfer a lot of money to Native Americans (in wash state, the Fed transfers about $2K per month per child for every child) but, as you know they can make it look like whatever they want through the miracles of creative accounting
Bringing children into while relevant in some aspects is simply an emotional ploy. Right now, Jan. 2013 the public debt is around 16.5 trillion with expectations of a trillion more each year for the next four years. The "Fair Share portion" of that debt for all the children 18 and under is approx. $250K. What will be the impact in terms of intended and un-intended consequences? Will quality healthcare decrease, will there be fewer Cops on the streets? These things are too numerous to count but, the impact on those 18 and younger may be substantial. Will more of them die because medical care is more scarce? Fewer firefighters & EMT's Will there be an upsurge in highway deaths because fewer Cops? You get the picture. The tragedies will not be covered by the Pols or MSM because they cant stir up the folks and get more votes or sell more stuff. I will guess that many more of the children (18 yo and younger) will die, and lead lives with fewer opportunities, more illness, taxes less freedom because of these budget machinations. The Pols, the leftists and the MSM will not cover any of these consequences because, that would be inconvienent.Or maybe, the Red States are full of uneducated Rubes that need the Left to "Convert them" much the same way those Europeans did to all those simple native populations during the Colonization period!;)
Noslack
GratefulCitizen
01-19-2013, 17:35
Or maybe, the Red States are full of uneducated Rubes that need the Left to "Convert them" much the same way those Europeans did to all those simple native populations during the Colonization period!;)
Noslack
;)
;)
lol That's the way I look at it. :cool:
Yeah Mother Jones.
Thank you Wiki-Dozer. I'm aware of the background of both the magazine and the person. My comment was meant to imply that finding an "anti-right" article in that magazine is about as challenging as finding a pro-gun article in American Rifleman. I was a bit disappointed in Sigaba for taking the lazy route on that citation, and posted as much. Perhaps I was being too subtle?
Badger52
01-20-2013, 08:15
January 18, 2013
The Beaufort County (N. C.) Board of Commissioners, meeting in special session January 18, 2013, adopted unanimously a resolution calling upon the N. C. General Assembly to take necessary measures to nullify any Federal action within the State that infringes on the Second Amendment's guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The resolution further directed the County Manager to insure that no county employees or resources were used in Federal actions that infringe on Second Amendment rights and called upon the Legislature to adopt necessary measures to call for, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the other states, the convening of a constitutional convention for the "specific purpose of amending the Unites States Constitution to strengthen the Second and Tenth Amendments…"
Link to story & County Commission meeting video (http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-01-18-264893.112112-Beaufort-Commissioners-vote-to-ask-state-to-nullify-infringement-of-Second-Amendment-and-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention.html)
I suspect the information about Alaska and the Red states is correct.I wonder how carefully you read the post with which you're disagreeing and/or any of my recent posts on the political management of the gun control debate and/or any of my posts about the current administration's plans for America.
Since 2008, I have been arguing that the Democratic Party wants to reshape the American political terrain profoundly and permanently.
Since 2008, I have been arguing that the GOP and other elements of the American political right have been playing into the POTUS's hands by responding to issues (health care, national security, judicial appointments, gun control) piecemeal by saying "no no no" without also putting comprehensive counter proposals on the table that will appeal to a wider range of Americans, regardless of their political ideology. That is, the GOP et al are not acquitting themselves well in the market place of ideas. (All the neat talk of running .GOV like a business, but where is the innovation? Where are the new products? Where is the continuous improvement? Where is the plan to expand market share? Where is the risk management? Where is the focus on stakeholder satisfaction?:confused:)
MOO, as far as many Americans on the left side of the aisle are concerned, Alaska is the state of Sarah Palin and a bridge to nowhere. As far as many Americans are concerned, regardless of their political leanings, correlation is causation. In this current environment, how difficult will it be for Democrats to make (again) the argument that Republican politicians are unconcerned with poverty in America, that the GOP's public policies do not help the poor, or that conservatives will play brinksmanship at the expense of their constituents?
Dirty pool, you say. Cherry picking, you allege. How about that. My reply is what it was--know your horses before placing a bet and nodding your head in agreement with anyone--especially if you're inclined to agree with what they're saying. And what I'm saying is that if those who don't want more gun control don't do a better job of managing the debate over gun violence, that if they don't bring something to the table other than a list of "nos", that if they continue with the talk of "nullification," the POTUS is going to keep on doing what he's been doing because his opponents are doing what they want to do at the expense of what could be done. I was a bit disappointed in Sigaba for taking the lazy route on that citation, and posted as much. Perhaps I was being too subtle?Razor--
First, the use of Mother Jones was aimed to contrast to the use of Fox Business to show how both the echo chambers of the left and the right can slice and dice data that will fit into political arguments.
Second, the post fits into my broader point that the POTUS and his supporters are attempting to use the post-Newtown debate over gun violence to back his opponents into a corner <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=483442&postcount=22)>>.
Third, does the fact that an argument and supporting evidence appear in an outlet that one doesn't approve automatically mean the argument and the evidence are not valid? Is the piece inaccurate? Do red states not receive more money from the federal government than blue states? Republican politicians in red states that threaten "succession" or "nullification" probably don't read Mother Jones or The Nation, but should those who advocate such measures thumb their noses at information because they don't like the sources? (If one doesn't like Mother Jones's take perhaps the attachment will suffice.)
Now for a rant.
To put it bluntly (albeit politely), I think there's an expanding inconsistency at play in the discussion of policies and politics among the president's opponents. This dynamic is manifesting itself here at PS.COM. This dynamic sees different burdens of proof being applied based upon the perceived political viewpoints of those participating in a conversation over a controversial issue.
Little, if anything, is said if Glenn Beck is used as a source, or if members grossly misread/misunderstand the Federalist papers or other primary source material, or if one is using intellectually unsustainable generalizations, or if unsubstantiated rumors are presented as facts, as long as such information fits within a certain trajectory of POVs.
By contrast, if someone offers what appears to be a diametrically opposed POV, and sources such as the NYT, Mother Jones, and so forth is used, comments about "bias" and intellectual sloth often ensue, if not also a dog pile. As examples, I point to a certain QP and a certain active duty officer are two of the most conservative members of this BB who regularly post. The former has offered reliable forecasts of recent political events. The latter person in particular harbors a hostility towards liberals in general and the president in particular that is breathtaking to behold. Yet, over the past several months, when either offers a POV that clearly comes from a right of center perspective and also attempts to engage positively the "opposition" they get thrashed faster than it takes one to not read what they've posted.
IMO, I think that what is being lost in this dynamic is the concept of "the loyal opposition" in which disagreement, dissent, disappointment, and, at times, disgust, are sublimated in favor of using a controversial issue as an opportunity to generate sustainable counterpoints that will resonate among the "opposition."
It is my considered opinion that this expanding dynamic in which ideological conformity increasingly trumps intellectual clarity as well as any effort to balance the preferable with the possible is a greater threat to right of center political thought in America than anything the left has done, is doing, or can do.
My $0.02.
Stiletto11
01-20-2013, 09:59
Everyone has an opinion and they are to be respected unless they are baseless and not factual. Glenn Beck in my opinion is not an authority or mouth piece for conservatives. Documentation like statutes, Senate Reports, USC, etc, goes a long way to support ones conclusion or opinion. Tracking?
Everyone has an opinion and they are to be respected unless they are baseless and not factual. Glenn Beck in my opinion is not an authority or mouth piece for conservatives. Documentation like statutes, Senate Reports, USC, etc, goes a long way to support ones conclusion or opinion. Tracking?
How much of what Beck says do you personally believe?
Stiletto11
01-20-2013, 10:20
Depends on the subject matter.
Depends on the subject matter.
Conservative values.
My $0.02.
Yup, some folks here lean heavily on obviously biased sources, and some seldom get called on it--except by you, and rightly so. You do a good job of providing well-researched counterpoints and balancing discussions with reasoned discourse. However, given your tendency to point out such inconsistencies, crying foul when the shoe is on the other foot, even if it was in the course of making a broader example, rings a bit hollow.
As for the need to provide counter proposals rather than outright refusals to compromise on gun control, I seem to recall that our more liberal brothers and sisters adopted a "no, won't happen, go pound sand" tack in the discussion on revamping Social Security some years back, and look what that got them--exactly what they wanted, no change.
As for more compromise by the gun supporters, given your background in history I'm surprised you aren't pointing out the many compromises made over the last century (e.g., 1934, 1968, 1986, 1990, 1993, 1994), with little to no give by the gun control crowd. Pete regularly points out that never ending compromise has a real result of eventually abandoning one's position. We already have to undergo detailed background checks, pay a substantial fee and register to own a short barrel rifle or shotgun or to own an automatic weapon or suppressor. We have to submit to a criminal background check to buy a firearm through a retailer or from a private party in another state. We lose our right to own a firearm if we were ever a convicted felon for any reason, if we were ever considered mentally defective (regardless of our current mental state), if we received a dishonorabe discharge, or if someone accuses us of domestic abuse or files a restaining order on us (whether justified or not). We can't import foreign military surplus rifles (even if they are single-shot, bolt action) that don't have a nebulous "sporting purpose", or foreign handguns with "evil" features. We have to be licensed and keep meticulous records to operate a firearms business, and can be shut down with little to no recourse for any error in those records identified during a no-notice spot check by federal authorities. We can't own automatic weapons manufactured after 1986, thus shrinking the market and driving prices on the limited pool of legal-to-own autos into the thousands of dollars. We can't carry a gun openly within 1000 feet of a school. We can't buy, sell or transport a gun across state lines if we're under indictment for (but not yet convicted of) a misdemeanor that can carry a one year or greater sentence. Depending on our state of residence, we can't own a scary-looking rifle that has certain cosmetic or operational features, or own a magazine capable of holding more than an arbitrarily determined number of rounds, or obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
What are the restrictions on free speech or press? Oh yeah, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded room, and you can't lie about someone's character (unless you're a prominent public figure that is materially affected by the lie, or you're saying you're a member of the military).
Restrictions on the practice of religion? Well, you can't kill someone or something in the practice of it, and you can't used controlled substances...oh wait, yes you can, never mind.
Quartering troops? Nope, no changes to that at all.
Unreasonable searches? The officer needs probable cause for a warrantless search unless it entails a counterintelligence-related investigation that includes contact with foreign nationals.
Self-incrimination, due process, double jeopardy, eminent domain? Well, if you were directly involved in or directly supporting terrorism, you can be detained for an unspecified period of time.
Trial by jury? See above.
Right to face your accuser? See above, or in sensitive intelligence-related crimes.
Cruel and unusual punishment? Heck no, and let's keep redefining what is considered cruel to narrow that list more and more!
So tell me, which Constitutionally-protected (and Supreme Court reaffirmed) individual right has seen the most compromise--and hence the most restriction--since its inception, and more specifically in the last century? How many more concessions are gun owners expected to make in the name of reasonable compromise? What other component of our right to own and carry a firearm must we sacrifice to "bring something to the table other than a list of no's"?
The Reaper
01-20-2013, 12:51
Shouldn't compromise offer concessions from both sides?
Why is it that only one side is being asked to give existing rights and priviliges?
Was it concession when the Germans passed the Nuremberg Laws?
TR
You do a good job of providing well-researched counterpoints and balancing discussions with reasoned discourse. However, given your tendency to point out such inconsistencies, crying foul when the shoe is on the other foot, even if it was in the course of making a broader example, rings a bit hollow.I will do a better job with my sources in the future.
As for more compromise by the gun supporters, given your background in history I'm surprised you aren't pointing out the many compromises made over the last century (e.g., 1934, 1968, 1986, 1990, 1993, 1994), with little to no give by the gun control crowd. Pete regularly points out that never ending compromise has a real result of eventually abandoning one's position. I believe that you are misreading my posts on this topic. I've been pretty clear that opponents of gun control should flatly refuse to discuss further infringements upon the Second Amendment.
My point has been (and remains) that in addition to saying no to more gun control, opponents of gun control might profit from bringing other ideas to the table, that is, ideas aimed at reducing gun violence but without more gun control.
Like it or not, public policy (good or bad) is the outcome of a political process that centers around discourse, advocacy, and, ultimately, the raw power of who can marshal the most votes. IMO, for Americans to, on the one hand, sing the praises of the framers and then ignore the central reality that they dealt with throughout their public lives is an open invitation to not be taken seriously by anyone with a library card.
What are the restrictions on free speech or press? Oh yeah, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded room, and you can't lie about someone's character (unless you're a prominent public figure that is materially affected by the lie, or you're saying you're a member of the military). There are many laws that some argue constitute severe infringements upon the First Amendment and the concept of "free speech." For example, there are vibrant debates emanating from Pr0n Valley about what types of acts can and cannot be depicted in pornographic media. Academics grouse, complain, and rebel against the constraints of USC Code Title XVII. As media become increasingly digital there are also debates about ownership and usage of software, movies, sound recordings, games, books, and libraries.Unreasonable searches? The officer needs probable cause for a warrantless search unless it entails a counterintelligence-related investigation that includes contact with foreign nationals.Have you ever been stopped and frisked because you fit a profile? Have you been the focus of a display of overwhelming force because your skin is a different color from everyone else walking in a residential area? Ever have a police helicopter shine a light into your house because you don't look the same as your neighbors? These events happen often to certain groups and some nod their heads in approval. Yet, if there's the least hint that a similar standard may be used on other groups, people say TYRANNY.
Self-incrimination, due process, double jeopardy, eminent domain? Well, if you were directly involved in or directly supporting terrorism, you can be detained for an unspecified period of time.In municipalities like Los Angeles and Santa Monica, the issue of eminent domain is increasingly controversial. Local governments have forced out residents for the sake of the "public good." That is, people are being turned out of houses that their family has owned for decades with all parties understanding that, given the conditions of the housing market, will translate into downward social mobility.
Trial by jury? See above.Do we hold ourselves to the spirit and the letter of the BoR when it comes to the presumed innocence of a suspect? How many posts in how many threads on this BB have some suggested that a trial is not necessary? Do such expressions, as understandable as they may be, bolster the conceptualization of the BoR? Or do such comments feed into a wider dynamic in which the jury pool is increasingly compromised by a saturation of information that should not be disclosed until it comes to light as part of the legal process?So tell me, which Constitutionally-protected (and Supreme Court reaffirmed) individual right has seen the most compromised--and hence the most restriction--since its inception, and more specifically in the last century? How many more concessions are gun owners expected to make in the name of reasonable compromise? What other component of our right to own and carry a firearm must we sacrifice to "bring something to the table other than a list of no's"?Again, as noted, I think you're misreading my position. My argument is that in addition to saying "No, the right to bear arms is non negotiable," gun owners could use their expertise to act as consultants rather than as advocates.
For example, gun owners could bring to the discussion insights on how growing up with guns in a home have contributed to a sense of personal responsibility and self confidence. They might also inform gun control advocates of how the presence of fire arms may lead to greater opportunities to non violent conflict resolution (beyond saying "an armed society is a polite society). They could also provide input on the development of technologies that make firearms more secure without unduly compromising the privacy concerns of law abiding gun owners.
Here's an example of the latter. Almost every laptop computer has a "Kensington security slot." Would it be possible to develop similar solutions that could be used on portable personal electronic devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones) as well as fire arms? As a lock could be used on a range of everyday products, there would be no way of knowing if a consumer were locking up a ThinkPad or a firearm.
As no lock is perfect, additional security features could be built in--biometric locks, RFF devices to help locate stolen property, ink gel packs that have synthetic DNA that will stain the skin of thieves. Such devices might be activated only after property has been lost or stolen, and up to that point no one would know who owned them or what was being locked up.
If this concept is not technologically feasible, does that mean that one could not find ones that are? Would bringing such solutions to market help bolster the argument that the private sector is more adept, efficient, and responsive than the federal government when it comes to addressing the demands of the market?
One closing point. It is my view that Second Amendement advocates who talk about the original intent of the framers do themselves a profound disservice by decoupling the debate over gun control from other debates centering around the BoR. To me, a political and intellectual line of argumentation that holds the entire BoR as an irreducible whole will allow for broader coalitions that might be more effective politically. Also, this approach will, I believe, prove more sustainable historiographically.
Granted, this idea will require tough choices. It is anyone's guess if a left of center feminist bisexual pornographer from San Francisco who wants to stream video of herself performing a number of lurid acts can make common cause with a politically conservative heterosexual guy from the Bible Belt.
Yet, as I see it, Hamilton provided for these types of day/night pairings. American political history is filled with examples of cross-matched coalitions working well enough. That is, until one group starts to focus on a single topic, and to make holding the line on that single issue a symbol for everything else.
This is not to say that there is no place for taking a hard line in a political debate. Everyone must decide for themselves the point beyond which they say "No." My concern remains that saying "No" too soon will push the conversation to that point when it may not otherwise reach that line if people were more willing to negotiate from the jump.
My two cents.
For example, gun owners could bring to the discussion insights on how growing up with guns in a home have contributed to a sense of personal responsibility and self confidence. They might also inform gun control advocates of how the presence of fire arms may lead to greater opportunities to non violent conflict resolution (beyond saying "an armed society is a polite society). They could also provide input on the development of technologies that make firearms more secure without unduly compromising the privacy concerns of law abiding gun owners.
I'm sure there are many of those types of gun owners in Detroit and Chicago.
The non-working proletariat who put Obama in office don't swamp gun shows.
GratefulCitizen
01-20-2013, 14:59
Missouri takes a stand.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/billpdf/intro/HB0170I.PDF
Missouri takes a stand.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/billpdf/intro/HB0170I.PDF
Good for them....
I can tell you that a lot of Fed LEOs are not in favor of DCs possible actions. We are buying new toys fust like the general population.
Badger52
01-20-2013, 15:49
IMO, for Americans to, on the one hand, sing the praises of the framers and then ignore the central reality that they dealt with throughout their public lives is an open invitation to not be taken seriously by anyone with a library card.Question: Do you honestly believe that the other "side" in this principal topic under discussion has honestly & fairly exhibited understanding of the scholarship that drives citations of framers by the adversaries they also demonize? If so, can you direct me to evidence in the public record indicating their understanding of an inalienable right at the highest policy-making levels of leadership, versus the apparent starting point that the Second Amendment grants some level of permission and is, therefore, malleable? Pretty sure we've both got library cards, so if you don't want to take the question, fine.
I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted, and, on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. - Hamilton's #84
Can they move to their results-based side and engage on things that might actually get a desired result, rather than affirming that Obama Care covers something that has the words "mental health" in it and chartering another vast sum to the CDC for yet another study that will prove what they (and Clinton) have no interest in hearing?
There's a pretty clear line being drawn in the sand. There are statistics available which put the pro-gun numbers waaaay higher than the controllers.
I look forward to the issue being forced into open legislation.
Badger52
01-20-2013, 16:17
Here's an indication (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2495/ny_democrat_pleads_with_republican_not_to_share_do cument_proposing_confiscation_of_guns) of the NY Dem's understanding of reasonable starting points in the "conversation".... so they should be applauded for their reasonable position because it was necessary to push back so hard on such draconian things and result in the "big compromise" on behalf of NY firearm owners?
Cherry-picked? You bet. Only 56 states to go.
GratefulCitizen
01-20-2013, 16:55
This letter was signed by all but one of Utah's sheriffs.
http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home_files/2nd%20Amendment%20Letter.pdf
Utah to the north, the Navajo Nation to the south, and governed by Arizona's laws.
Definitely picked the right place to live.
GratefulCitizen
01-20-2013, 17:01
The bill from Wyoming:
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf
The dominoes are falling...
GratefulCitizen
01-20-2013, 17:56
New Mexico joins in...
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0114.html
GratefulCitizen
01-20-2013, 18:17
Indiana: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/IN/IN0130.1.html
South Carolina: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/85.htm
Virginia: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?131+ful+HB2340
Tennessee: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB0010.pdf
Texas: http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/member/press-releases/?id=4157&session=83&district=15&bill_code=2825
Mississippi: http://www.clarionledger.com/assets/pdf/D0199315116.PDF
Michigan: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2013-SIB-0063.pdf
Other relevant stuff in the last 4 years: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/
Texas: http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/member/press-releases/?id=4157&session=83&district=15&bill_code=2825
Fom Toth in Texas:
"We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas," said Representative Toth.
Snip
Good stuff, GC. :lifter
Ret10Echo
01-20-2013, 19:09
Great that the States are stepping up.
What I am waiting to see is if the States have the intestinal fortitude to step away from Federal dollars. Everyone realizes that the administration is going to hold them hostage through grant funding requirements and the traditional venues of the highway monies...etc.
Good luck folks. Hold hard, stay the course!
Great that the States are stepping up.
What I am waiting to see is if the States have the intestinal fortitude to step away from Federal dollars. Everyone realizes that the administration is going to hold them hostage through grant funding requirements and the traditional venues of the highway monies...etc.
Good luck folks. Hold hard, stay the course!
States collect most of the revenue and transfer it to the Feds. Why don't they just decide to hold onto it. Put it into escrow, exceptin' the necessary payments required for Federal mandates.
Surgicalcric
01-20-2013, 20:57
States collect most of the revenue and transfer it to the Feds. Why don't they just decide to hold onto it. Put it into escrow, exceptin' the necessary payments required for Federal mandates.
If the states did so they could always claim Fed taxes are unlawful as well and hang onto those as well. This should provide a bit of a buffer. Otherwise the individual states could cut aid programs until the feds gave in.
I honestly believe if the states pushed back hard enough through bills like we see noted above Congress and the president would give in for fear of another civil war/succession.
Crip
I believe that you are misreading my posts on this topic...My point has been (and remains) that in addition to saying no to more gun control, opponents of gun control might profit from bringing other ideas to the table, that is, ideas aimed at reducing gun violence but without more gun control.
You're correct, I was. Thanks for the clarification
For example, there are vibrant debates emanating from Pr0n Valley about what types of acts can and cannot be depicted in pornographic media.
I think you're not looking hard enough.
As media become increasingly digital there are also debates about ownership and usage of software, movies, sound recordings, games, books, and libraries.
I think the "free" you're discussing here is not the same as the "freedom" generally understood.
Have you ever been stopped and frisked because you fit a profile?
Not that it contributes directly to the discussion, but yes, every single time I've flown on an airplane over the last 16 years I've been hand frisked because I fit a specific profile. Most of the time, I also have to have my carry-on re-scanned, and I have to explain its contents with TSA officials, all of which adds at least 15 minutes to every one of my trips through airport security.
Have you been the focus of a display of overwhelming force because your skin is a different color from everyone else walking in a residential area?
Yup, but I usually try not to frequent those parts of town unless I have specific business there.
In municipalities like Los Angeles and Santa Monica, the issue of eminent domain is increasingly controversial. Local governments have forced out residents for the sake of the "public good." That is, people are being turned out of houses that their family has owned for decades with all parties understanding that, given the conditions of the housing market, will translate into downward social mobility.
Not that I agree with that use, but I believe the 5th Amendment doesn't prevent the use of eminent domain without overwhelming public need, it just requires the government to "justly" (lots of wiggle room there) compensate the owner.
How many posts in how many threads on this BB have some suggested that a trial is not necessary? Do such expressions, as understandable as they may be, bolster the conceptualization of the BoR? Or do such comments feed into a wider dynamic in which the jury pool is increasingly compromised by a saturation of information that should not be disclosed until it comes to light as part of the legal process?
Well, since I haven't heard much on the recent developments of mind control, I'd say that being able to adjust a trial's venue, combined with the process of jury selection are the best methods we currently have to try to mitigate jury prejudice. Unless, of course, you're suggesting adding more restrictions on free speech and press to prevent jury prejudice in the first place.
Here's an example of the latter. Almost every laptop computer has a "Kensington security slot." Would it be possible to develop similar solutions that could be used on portable personal electronic devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones) as well as fire arms? As a lock could be used on a range of everyday products, there would be no way of knowing if a consumer were locking up a ThinkPad or a firearm.
I'm not sure if you're advocating here for locking up a gun in a public place and then leaving it unattended, or if this would be an at-home solution. If its the former, I don't think its wise to leave a weapon unattended in public unless forced to do so (usually due to OC/CC restrictions), and then it should be behind multiple access barriers (locked in a metal container, which is locked to something bolted to a vehicle frame, which is locked inside a trunk or passenger cabin). If its the latter, the gun should be secured by something a bit more substantial than a thin cable lock, or very well-hidden, if the owner isn't home.
If this concept is not technologically feasible, does that mean that one could not find ones that are? Would bringing such solutions to market help bolster the argument that the private sector is more adept, efficient, and responsive than the federal government when it comes to addressing the demands of the market?
That's a good point, but I think that the "market" (if we define that term traditionally, as in the folks that are doing or are considering doing the buying) is happy with the status quo. Its the non-market folks that would be appeased by such solutions.
One closing point. It is my view that Second Amendement advocates who talk about the original intent of the framers do themselves a profound disservice by decoupling the debate over gun control from other debates centering around the BoR. To me, a political and intellectual line of argumentation that holds the entire BoR as an irreducible whole will allow for broader coalitions that might be more effective politically. Also, this approach will, I believe, prove more sustainable historiographically.
We are in full agreement here.
It is anyone's guess if a left of center feminist bisexual pornographer from San Francisco who wants to stream video of herself performing a number of lurid acts...
Now why did you have to bring Sen. Feinstein speaking on CSPAN into this?
GratefulCitizen
01-20-2013, 21:25
It is anyone's guess if a left of center feminist bisexual pornographer from San Francisco who wants to stream video of herself performing a number of lurid acts can make common cause with a politically conservative heterosexual guy from the Bible Belt.
This sort of thing happens all the time.
It usually results in the collapse of the televangelist's ministry.
:D
Badger52
01-21-2013, 06:00
My point has been (and remains) that in addition to saying no to more gun control, opponents of gun control might profit from bringing other ideas to the table, that is, ideas aimed at reducing gun violence but without more gun control.I do believe you. One suggestion that came from multiple fronts was the idea of permitting teachers, already possessing their permit, to have their sidearms with them at school.
It was well-clarified to the administration that this could be done, not in the sense of creating some new deputies or pseudo-cop, but simply that it has been shown time & again that once a monster receives any push-back to their plan they fold, either by giving up or (often) doing the tax-payer's work in offing themselves. Aimed fire is a wonderful kind of push-back. Even the appearance of the potential of it was enough to cause a major rudder correction in the Oregon mall shooter's direction. Teachers as speed bumps. If the monster comes into the room of cowering children they're going to get shot at.
This offering was immediately demonized with the prop-machine doing the administration's bidding and that of those who are against reliance & empowerment because of the hoplophobic terror of a firearm in even closer physical proximity to a student - in the classroom on their teacher's hip or in their purse (hopefully not, I detest the idea of off-body carry but 'nuther discussion).
Oh, wait. That might actually achieve something because it might take a situation, difficult to predict at best, from one number of casualties down to much less. Results-based, so forget I said anything.
Meanwhile, "No."
One suggestion that came from multiple fronts was the idea of permitting teachers, already possessing their permit, to have their sidearms with them at school.
To me, that's viable, and not just in schools.
States collect most of the revenue and transfer it to the Feds. Why don't they just decide to hold onto it. Put it into escrow, exceptin' the necessary payments required for Federal mandates.
Are you sure about that?
Ret10Echo
01-21-2013, 09:04
What I have found is that a majority of tax and other associated payments to the Federals is done by/required by the individual or the corporation in question.
Individual taxes (as we are all familiar....or at least MOST of us ;) ) are remitted by the individual through the familiar tax return filings.
For Employers
The employee tax generally must be withheld and remitted to the Federal government by the employer.19
Joint Committee on Taxation, January, 2011
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/upload/x-1-11.pdf
Then other specific commodities or sectors as follows:
Collection
Most of the excise taxes credited to the HTF are not collected directly from the consumer. Instead, they are paid to the Internal Revenue Service by the producer or importer of the taxable product. User taxes are deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury, and the amounts equivalent to these taxes are then transferred to the HTF. Monthly transfers are made based on estimates and are later adjusted on the basis of actual tax receipts, as shown in the figure
Federal Highway Transportation Administration, http://www.transportation-finance.org/funding_financing/funding/federal_funding/motor_fuel_taxes.aspx
What is most interesting is in the "From those according to what they have to those according to what they need" method of distribution of those funds.
For instance, the States where the most Federal revenue is collected are not necessarily the States where the most Federal dollars are expended. The top State for receipt of Federal dollars is New Mexico (2007 data) which receives just over$2.00 for every dollar the "State" (being the collective residents and businesses) contribute. The lowest return on money sent to D.C. is New Jersey, where only .61 of every dollar is returned to the State.
(Link to data from the Tax Foundation here (http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005))
More complete data set is located here (http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005)
So at the end of the day....the individual taxpayer and the businesses must serve multiple masters, exclusive of one another. The States levy taxes based upon their code and the Feds theirs. Depending upon where you live that burden can be applied in a multitude of ways. In the DPRM, it is a tax-on-tax State. Multiple levels of taxes are paid and can range from the State, County, City, Municipality, Fire District...etc....
So if you are talking about how the Feds can squeeze? Well considering the Feds doled out over $490B (That's $490,000,000,000 just for the visual) in grants in 2011...
How much money do state and local governments receive from the federal government?
In calendar year 2011, state and local governments received $493 billion in federal grant funding. This amount includes the infusion of funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and is based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s National Income and Product Accounts
Source here (http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/state/fiscalconditionsfaq.html)
My opinion has always been that government (at any level) is in the business of perpetuating it's own existence. If you accept that point...then consider the fact that the State and the politicians attached to it will not be able to (literally) bring home the bacon...and threaten their reelection.
Good luck with that.
With few exceptions, the "Rights of the People" will be sacrificed for the perpetual existence of the bureaucracy.
YOMV
Stiletto11
01-21-2013, 15:04
If you want to do a litmus test to see where your tax dollars go, try writing a check out to the US Treasury for any income tax owed. It will be sent back to you. A good study of the Bretton Woods Act and its amendments should be a clue as to where your tax dollars are headed and why. It will also define the players and who and what is dejure vs who and what is defacto.
Vermont Senator Withdraws Gun Bill
MONTPELIER, Vt.
"Just a week shy of being introduced, Vermont's senate majority leader is withdrawing a bill that would have banned semi-automatic guns."
Posted: Jan 21, 2013 11:52 AM EST
Updated: Jan 21, 2013 12:02 PM EST
By Lesley Engle
Fox 44 News
http://www.fox44abc22yourvoice.com/story/20639662/vermont-senator-withdraws-gun-bill
GratefulCitizen
01-21-2013, 22:00
More sheriffs take a stand.
Many from California...
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/list-of-sheriffs-standing-up-against-obamas-gun-control-updated/31948/
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s2900557.shtml
Surgicalcric
01-21-2013, 22:17
That is awesome. Hopefully more get on board and hopefully the 30 GOP Governors will stand up to the president in this matter.
Stingray
01-21-2013, 22:20
There does need to be more places to put people that are mentally ill and need supervision. Not everyone with a mental illness needs to be put away but there are several that do and the system waits until the do something and put them in prison instead.
I was working at a county jail when the State Hospital for the Mentally Ill closed. Immediately the population changed. I now work state corrections and nearly half are diagnosed with some mental illness.
I don't have a solution. I do know it is wasting resources attempting to prepare them to be productive citizens. It is beyond our scope.
GratefulCitizen
01-21-2013, 23:19
Oklahoma:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/SB/SB548%20INT.PDF
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/SB/SB401%20INT.PDF
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/SB/SB552%20INT.PDF
Badger52
01-22-2013, 04:35
A friend brings to me notice that it appears their HB0104 as previously mentioned will be going forward.
The bill will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee at noon on 1/28. There's 30+ days left in the session, plenty of time for committee vote, three readings, House vote, and Senate vote. WY is starting to suffer some of the yuppie immigrant riff-raff issues that CO residents have lamented about. But with a state legislature that only sees fit to meet for such short terms, hopefully they are just focusing on the important stuff & go back to their day jobs. Wish other legislatures (like Congress) ran that way. IIRC WY is also way down the list in terms of the amount of bak-sheesh taken from the Fed.
:lifter
Just received this from NSSF. This may be the one and only opportunity to appear at a public hearing on the matter in CT before the legislature takes action.
Connecticut Legislators Eyeing Long List of Gun-Control Measures; Public Hearing Set for Monday, Jan. 28
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00161-R00-SB.htm
...law abiding folks can't have mags holding > 10 rounds and are required to have a permit to own a weapon with that dangerous pistol grip...registration of firearms, all semi-auto rifles deemed "assault weapons" etc., etc., -- that'll stop those crim'nals or mentally deranged folks from doing evil.
There will only be a few opportunities for discussion and opposition as many in Hartford are trying to pass legislation as quickly as possible. The first hearing (and may be the only time to testify) will occur next Monday, Jan. 28, at 10 a.m. at the Legislative Office Building.
Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing
Monday, Jan. 28, 2013
Legislative Office Building
10 a.m., Room 2C
FlagDayNCO
01-22-2013, 12:05
From what I have seen here working in NJ, I have to ask if those "Federal dollars to the States" is genuine.
Does that number for NJ include Federal grants that go to County and Municipal agencies? New Jersey is the State with over 600 municipalities. Add to that the 26 counties and too-many-to-list agencies that share jurisdictions.
Every government agency builds their budget with entire sections coming from "State" or "Federal" or Some Named Agency providing the grant/ funding.
Many times, quasi-government agencies dealing with education or infrastructure are not counted in the State roll-up, as the State labels them as "Private Corporations". Port Authority of NY/ NJ is a prime example.
At the end of the day, the government agencies are in business to spend more money. I feel better that I drive home into Pennsylvania, but I feel more of the NJ crap spreading across the Delaware River. Wife and I are already discussing moving to SC, ID, TX. I refuse to just pick up and move, as I believe in fighting for what is right.
Pennsylvania has not made it onto any Anti-Federal Gun Grab list, though I wonder what the new Democrat AG will do. PA has some great firearms laws and has been very friendly, to include Castle Doctrine.
GA HB 90
A GA bill introduced to protect Second Amendment rights.
http://legiscan.com/GA/text/HB90/id/692116/Georgia-2013-HB90-Introduced.pdf
Summary
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Part 1 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the O.C.G.A., relating to general provisions regarding dangerous instrumentalities and practices, so as to provide that no officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, no persons performing governmental functions, and no firearms dealer shall enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law or regulation relating to a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state; to provide that no federal law or regulation shall be enforceable within this state that attempts to ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or any magazine of such firearm or that requires the registration of any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
Question: Do you honestly believe that the other "side" in this principal topic under discussion has honestly & fairly exhibited understanding of the scholarship that drives citations of framers by the adversaries they also demonize? [...] Pretty sure we've both got library cards, so if you don't want to take the question, fine.From a political standpoint, they don't need to.
In general, conservatives base a great deal of their intellectual credibility in interpretations of America's past that have been either discredited thoroughly or updated so that they're paradoxically more comprehensive and also less definitive. (That is, the more you study American history, the less you know about American history.)
So, when conservatives speak/write of the "lessons of history," those lessons are likely to be out of date (by 30 to 50 years). From there, a person can just say "These guys don't know what they're talking about" and score a huge political point--even though that person may not know what he/she is talking about either. (This corresponding level of historical ignorance is often offset by the argument that the past should not determine how .GOV responds to present day issues, and/or that those very issues are legacies of past, which must be overthrown.)
A point that I've been making (or attempting to make) over the last year or two is that, until the American political right can (a) find the time to get "up to speed" on the changes to the historiographical landscape and/or (b) become more familiar with the historiographical framework of their own understanding of America's past, we need to be very careful about how we talk about the past so that we do not fall into that trap. (Or, worse, we provoke a senior academic historian (or two) from writing a book that destroys, point by point, the conservative view of America's past.)
One last point. Your comment about a "desired result" is a way to put the president, and others, into positions where they can walk the talk in which they say they agree that the Second Amendment establishes the inalienable right of gun ownership for law abiding citizens. That is, the president talks of a reduction in gun violence against children and showing a willingness to try solutions, then why not ask "Okay, what about regular mental health background checks on all school employees in the country, especially at public schools?" Why not suggest, "Okay, let's put veterans returning from OEF/OIF to work as armed security staff?" And then say, if those two options don't meet the criteria you set, we will try additional measures. (It is purely by coincidence that these two options don't help the Democratic Party politically. And none of the measures will unduly impact the ability of lawful citizens to buy, to own, or to sell fire arms.)
From what I have seen here working in NJ, I have to ask if those "Federal dollars to the States" is genuine. Does it matter? Did the current president "inherit" problems that were caused by his predecessor? Did he really address those policy issues he led his supporters to think he would (immigration reform, 'Gitmo, paramilitary operations, trials for terror suspects, LBGT equality, jobs, reform of the banking sector, affordable healthcare, governmental transparency, the environment)?
My point is that there are three sides to this debate: the policy side, the political side, and the personal side.
The president has demonstrated time and again that he's not that adept when it comes to building consensus to make good policy, but he's all right when it comes to the political infighting and making others (read: conservatives) look bad for his benefit.
I think the gun thing is similar to the situation a liquor store in the Little Rock area experienced. It had a good location, both for business and for robberies. It experienced several robberies until the owner had his employees start carrying pistols (not concealed). All of a sudden the robberies just stopped. Maybe if some teachers are armed it might make some of these losers think twice.
Badger52
01-23-2013, 14:47
From a political standpoint, they don't need to.
In general, conservatives base a great deal of their intellectual credibility in interpretations of America's past that have been either discredited thoroughly or updated so that they're paradoxically more comprehensive and also less definitive. (That is, the more you study American history, the less you know about American history.)
So, when conservatives speak/write of the "lessons of history," those lessons are likely to be out of date (by 30 to 50 years). From there, a person can just say "These guys don't know what they're talking about" and score a huge political point--even though that person may not know what he/she is talking about either. (This corresponding level of historical ignorance is often offset by the argument that the past should not determine how .GOV responds to present day issues, and/or that those very issues are legacies of past, which must be overthrown.)
A point that I've been making (or attempting to make) over the last year or two is that, until the American political right can (a) find the time to get "up to speed" on the changes to the historiographical landscape and/or (b) become more familiar with the historiographical framework of their own understanding of America's past, we need to be very careful about how we talk about the past so that we do not fall into that trap. (Or, worse, we provoke a senior academic historian (or two) from writing a book that destroys, point by point, the conservative view of America's past.)
One last point. Your comment about a "desired result" is a way to put the president, and others, into positions where they can walk the talk in which they say they agree that the Second Amendment establishes the inalienable right of gun ownership for law abiding citizens. That is, the president talks of a reduction in gun violence against children and showing a willingness to try solutions, then why not ask "Okay, what about regular mental health background checks on all school employees in the country, especially at public schools?" Why not suggest, "Okay, let's put veterans returning from OEF/OIF to work as armed security staff?" And then say, if those two options don't meet the criteria you set, we will try additional measures. (It is purely by coincidence that these two options don't help the Democratic Party politically. And none of the measures will unduly impact the ability of lawful citizens to buy, to own, or to sell fire arms.)First, thank you for taking the time.
Last first, I think it's been shown that options that might actually get to the (publicly) desirable result have been presented by one interest or another, yet carry no weight with those already target-fixated on their own political agenda. It may not be immediately tactically sound but, individually, I carry the sense that my starting point is what's right & what works. I do believe that if, individually, millions of people can take that refusal to wrestle in the mud politically because of what works and examine the offense given to someone's political agenda later (if ever) then we will be ahead. I do not believe these tyrant wannabe's wish to engage in anything approaching that which encroaches on their power goals. I hope they do not need to be engaged by other means but, if it comes to that, so be it.
I don't currently think there are yet those millions. But I don't believe that just because painfully obvious history lessons occur 30-50 years apart is reason to discard their outcome as something to avoid. What is a sufficient sample, what value of 'n'? That's been painfully recalled & listed as well. Legacies of mass graves, for instance, don't have a shelf-life. Gun control is about control; I know it & you know it. And while it's a 'quest' ("the more you study American history, the less you know about American history") I don't believe there is currently time to await a mass infusion of understanding of the (let me type this one carefully) historiographical framework of America's past.*
Cheers.
:)
* (Winters are long uper here Kamerad and I have that list of books you mentioned from those end-notes. As soon as I finish Clandestine Radio Operators and another coming into the SOG library, then it'll be one of Nash's. Just one of the rural townspeople here, so I hope he can tell a story. Unless you have a better recommendation. Just let it be not dry.
Proposed Mo. bill: Make parents tell school if they own guns
KSDK.com
1/22/13
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/358395/3/Mo-proposal-makes-parents-tell-schools-about-gun-supply
From article...
"This proposal is one of only a handful in Missouri's house and senate. NewsChannel 5's political analyst Dave Robertson told me he's surprised that there aren't more bills being proposed about gun control, but the chances of any bills about the issue being passed is slim to none because of the political atmosphere between the lawmakers and the governor."
Legacies of mass graves, for instance, don't have a shelf-life. Many professional historians as well as those who've inherited the legacies of mass slaughter would disagree. Although the following link discusses events not taking place in America, they do demonstrate what I mean. <<LINK1 (http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21569007-teaching-children-about-history-nationalism-and-right-and-wrong-writing-past)>>
And while it's a 'quest' ("the more you study American history, the less you know about American history") I don't believe there is currently time to await a mass infusion of understanding of the (let me type this one carefully) historiographical framework of America's past.I think the American political right could be a lot more effective if it were to adjust its temporal mindset, if not also its temperament. This country has faced much bigger crises. Various cohorts have faced longer odds with fewer resources. The core reasons why one these groups has been successful are patience, determination, a full spectrum approach to the issues of the day, and a constantly shifting balance between idealism and pragmatism.
As for power and control, when has America not been about power and control?
As for power and control, when has America not been about power and control?
No arguing with that.
Stiletto11
01-23-2013, 18:43
The problem is the people don't have the power and control as was the intent of the framers. After the Civil War the federal government expanded well beyond its scope and purpose. The progressive movement, which started before the war, was on full throttle and contributed to the expansion of the federal government.
The problem is the people don't have the power and control as was the intent of the framers. After the Civil War the federal government expanded well beyond its scope and purpose. The progressive movement, which started before the war, was on full throttle and contributed to the expansion of the federal government.
Correct.
In the interim, generations of kids have been brainwashed by revised history.
The same revisionists are currently in the process of demonizing Colombus, the Alamo, the white race, etc.
Yankee libdemons are behind it. You know, the same people who want to ban guns.
GratefulCitizen
01-23-2013, 22:35
Pennsylvania: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2013&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=0357
The problem is the people don't have the power and control as was the intent of the framers. After the Civil War the federal government expanded well beyond its scope and purpose. The progressive movement, which started before the war, was on full throttle and contributed to the expansion of the federal government.Which framers do you have in mind? If there had been a consensus on "intent," then what accounts for the schism between Federalists and Jeffersonians--two groups that included many framers?
A quick read as various state legislators consider adopting gun control proposals -- or not.
Thomas Sowell: Do gun control laws control guns?
Posted January 23, 2013 at midnight
http://www.redding.com/news/2013/jan/23/thomas-sowell-do-gun-control-laws-control-guns/
The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.
Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.
If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.
But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.
The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.
There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm's clip or magazine. Some say 10 bullets, but New York state's recent gun control law specifies seven.
Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.
These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.
We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don't know — and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don't have the facts.
The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.
Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.
How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.
But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.
When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.
One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.
Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to "make a statement" — but all at the cost of other people's lives.
Email Thomas Sowell at sowellreplies@yahoo.com.
© 2013 Record Searchlight.
Sowell is a smart man. Thank you TonyZ.
GratefulCitizen
01-24-2013, 08:37
Some consolidated info on: Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Tennesee, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming.
http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2013/01/21/twelve-states-to-jail-feds-who-violate-the-2nd-amendment-or-nullify-federal-gun-control-laws/
Proposed Mo. bill: Make parents tell school if they own guns
KSDK.com
1/22/13
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/358395/3/Mo-proposal-makes-parents-tell-schools-about-gun-supply
From article...
"This proposal is one of only a handful in Missouri's house and senate. NewsChannel 5's political analyst Dave Robertson told me he's surprised that there aren't more bills being proposed about gun control, but the chances of any bills about the issue being passed is slim to none because of the political atmosphere between the lawmakers and the governor."
Nice. I see discrimination against the children of gun owners in the future. Is that a cause the NAACP will take up?
Out here in America ... ;)
http://www.westernnebraskaobserver.net/story/2013/01/17/opinion/sheriffs-corner-gun-control/361.html
Badger52
01-24-2013, 11:30
Proposed Mo. bill: Make parents tell school if they own gunsSomething that still brings a smile to my face came from the filming pre-election of the big glad-handing dinner the NRA holds to 'vet' who will be "their" candidate. All the Republican hopefuls were there, and nearly all said the same basic (obligatory) thing, such as:
"Yes, I remember going hunting with my father..... blah."
"I remember, growing up, shooting tin cans with a .22 with my brother... blah."
"I'm not the guy that got shot by Dick Cheney....blah."
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
I got a big kick out of Fred Thompson's response at that dinner when he stepped to the podium and gave his take on the Second Amendment to the NRA mandarins:
"I own alot of guns. I'm not gonna tell you what kind, how many, or where they are. It's nobody else's business."
And that, was that.
:D
FlagDayNCO
01-24-2013, 12:28
I did see that Pennsylvania has something in the works to retain rights within the Commonwealth. If the recent election is an indicator, I am concerned how the politicians will move on this.
Something that is coming to the surface is the medical/ health perspective. The Feds are applying pressure on the health care professionals to angle in on who has guns within the household.
One of the radio talk show hosts mentioned the VA being used as part of the mental health reporting requirements. Remember when the Defense spending was held up until they revised the wording concerning veterans ownership of firearms? Even though it was promised that no vet would ever have to give up their right to own a firearm, I see this coming back around.
Several PS members mentioned the danger of getting that PTSD designation; disability be damned.
Yes, I too see the kids being labeled if they live in a household with firearms.
Pennsylvania used to have signs that read "America Begins Here", but the Liberals in Jersey cried about it to the Feds.
GratefulCitizen
01-24-2013, 20:14
Utah escalates: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/14312-utah-state-rep-introduces-state-supremacy-firearms-act
ZonieDiver
01-24-2013, 20:49
Something that still brings a smile to my face came from the filming pre-election of the big glad-handing dinner the NRA holds to 'vet' who will be "their" candidate. All the Republican hopefuls were there, and nearly all said the same basic (obligatory) thing, such as:
"Yes, I remember going hunting with my father..... blah."
"I remember, growing up, shooting tin cans with a .22 with my brother... blah."
"I'm not the guy that got shot by Dick Cheney....blah."
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
I got a big kick out of Fred Thompson's response at that dinner when he stepped to the podium and gave his take on the Second Amendment to the NRA mandarins:
"I own alot of guns. I'm not gonna tell you what kind, how many, or where they are. It's nobody else's business."
And that, was that.
:D
Fred Thompson! He doesn't make enough money from the ever-present re-runs of "Law and Order" - and his Senate retirement... he has to shill for "Reverse Mortgages" on TV. To think, the clown ran for POTUS.
Badger52
01-25-2013, 00:24
Fred Thompson! He doesn't make enough money from the ever-present re-runs of "Law and Order" - and his Senate retirement... he has to shill for "Reverse Mortgages" on TV. To think, the clown ran for POTUS.Yep, that's the one. But it was still the right answer. He's not hawking commemorative coins at 0300... yet.
:D
Badger52
01-25-2013, 00:46
Something that is coming to the surface is the medical/ health perspective. The Feds are applying pressure on the health care professionals to angle in on who has guns within the household.
One of the radio talk show hosts mentioned the VA being used as part of the mental health reporting requirements. Remember when the Defense spending was held up until they revised the wording concerning veterans ownership of firearms? Even though it was promised that no vet would ever have to give up their right to own a firearm, I see this coming back around.
Several PS members mentioned the danger of getting that PTSD designation; disability be damned.
What about a civilian victim of a violent crime, who could undergo some level of post-traumatic stress & even receive some counseling over loss of family members in that crime or what happened to them, who decide that next time it'll be different and take steps toward owning the responsibility to protect themselves? Are they now ticking time bombs who become "prohibited persons?"
This is why the people screaming on the privacy front insist on having it that someone must be adjudicated as a threat for a reason. It is a terribly difficult blade with more than one edge, but "see something say something" medical information passed to the DoJ for a decision based on that bureaucrat's boss's position on keeping firearms out of the hands of the peasantry is not a good idea.
Once again, Chris Muir gets a twist on it. (http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2013/01/24/#006822)
Ret10Echo
01-25-2013, 06:10
Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (cspoa) has a running list of Sheriffs that have come forward concerning any pending Federal attempt to distort or impinge upon the 2nd Amendment.
Unsurprising that Western States lead the pack...
Currently 90 on the list. If you know any of them or are in their jurisdiction you should give a plug of support.
Here (http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/)
Fred Thompson! He doesn't make enough money from the ever-present re-runs of "Law and Order" - and his Senate retirement... he has to shill for "Reverse Mortgages" on TV. To think, the clown ran for POTUS.
I wouldn't care if he was selling Shamwows from the Oval Office if he was POTUS, now.
Ret10Echo
01-25-2013, 08:22
I wouldn't care if he was selling Shamwows from the Oval Office if he was POTUS, now.
I'd prefer if the current occupant would do that and leave the "leading" and "governing" to those who know how to do that.
I'd prefer if the current occupant would do that and leave the "leading" and "governing" to those who know how to do that.
I'm in on that, too.
Badger52
01-25-2013, 12:02
Milwaukee COUNTY Sheriff's take on right & responsibility of self-defense:
In his latest radio spot, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and "I need you in the game."
"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.
"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."
Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."
"You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"
LINK here. (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/188365571.html)
It will be intersting to see if Obersturmbahnfuehrer "My officers will prone your law-abiding ass out on the ground" Flynn of the city's PD responds.
TkdGunter
01-25-2013, 13:02
Wow, us Hoosiers are good for something besides growing corn, like preserving the second amendment!
"Gun law nullification passes unanimously"
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/franklin-county-indiana-passes-2nd-amendment-preservation-ordinance/
"All federal firearms acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations - past, present or future... are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county.
ddoering
01-25-2013, 14:33
Insurrections begin at the grassroots level.......:lifter
Team Sergeant
01-25-2013, 14:46
Insurrections begin at the grassroots level.......:lifter
I think there's an app for that now......;)
Wow, us Hoosiers are good for something besides growing corn, like preserving the second amendment!
"Gun law nullification passes unanimously"
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/franklin-county-indiana-passes-2nd-amendment-preservation-ordinance/
"All federal firearms acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations - past, present or future... are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county.
How about that. A law that mandates "burn before reading."
What could possibly go wrong?
Team Sergeant
01-25-2013, 15:06
How about that. A law that mandates "burn before reading."
What could possibly go wrong?
In regards to the Second Amendment I think it's a great idea, a line in the sand.
And what could go wrong? It's better than politicians making unilateral decisions for the people. What could go wrong with that sort of decision making? Ask Saddam Hussein, oh shite, you can't they hung him.
It's better than politicians making unilateral decisions for the people.
Period.
GratefulCitizen
01-25-2013, 21:33
Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1371.pdf
The various state and county governments are discovering that they are not alone.
At this rate the federal government will have more success if they start shutting down First Amendment rights in preparation.
Something to consider...
GratefulCitizen
01-25-2013, 22:01
Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/hb2291p.pdf
:lifter
GratefulCitizen
01-25-2013, 23:04
Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (cspoa) has a running list of Sheriffs that have come forward concerning any pending Federal attempt to distort or impinge upon the 2nd Amendment.
Unsurprising that Western States lead the pack...
Currently 90 on the list. If you know any of them or are in their jurisdiction you should give a plug of support.
Here (http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/)
Here's another list: http://www.examiner.com/article/127-sheriffs-won-t-enforce-obama-gun-laws-specter-of-door-to-door-gun-search
Plus one more here in Arizona:
http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/Sheriff/Lists/News/DispFormA.aspx?List=b382d514%2D09a1%2D4490%2D80f0% 2D4f0e76b7b4c9&ID=646
GratefulCitizen
01-25-2013, 23:30
Utah moving towards Constitutional carry: http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/HB0076.pdf
The sheriffs could use some backup from a de facto militia.
:munchin
Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Wyoming already have Constitutional carry.
And what could go wrong?
IMO, the commission might have better served the interests of its constituents by stipulating that compliance with new "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," would require a thorough review, study, debate, and additional voting first.
Instead, as the new bill "nullifies" future "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," what happens if a 'grand compromise' is reached in Washington D.C, that works to the benefit of responsible gun owners and also reduces the prospect of violence against children?
Potential examples include:
Tax deductions for expenses such as gun safety training, gun safes, trigger locks, and liability insurance.
Incentives (and subsidies) for counties and municipalities to facilitate placing armed security staff on school campuses (provided the staff members follow certain rules and meet standards.
Tort reform that limits the liability of counties and municipalities in case a member of a school security staff involuntarily wounds or kills innocent civilians while attempting to stop an assailant.
Amendments to the Affordable Health Care Act for America that specifically shield the privacy of gun owners from their insurers if they seek mental health care.
Rules for manufacturers that mandate standards for quality control and customer service.
While Franklin County's Board of Commissioners could nullify the nullification, the backtracking would undermine not only the board's credibility but it could also spill over to other groups as well.
MOO, in a policy discussion, especially one of signal importance, you don't say "no" until you know exactly to what you're saying "no."
YMMV.
Nice. I see discrimination against the children of gun owners in the future. Is that a cause the NAACP will take up?
It unfortunate that certain organizations and individuals are increasingly mentioned only as punch lines to "jokes."
Source is here (http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history).
The NAACP's principal objective is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of minority group citizens of United States and eliminate race prejudice. The NAACP seeks to remove all barriers of racial discrimination through the democratic processes.
At one time, blacks were staunch supporters of the GOP. Now, black Republicans are few and far between. Maybe the way self-described conservatives talk about blacks and issues of concern to African Americans has something to do with it.
But hey, it is all in good fun. Anything for a laugh.
Let's not worry about outreach, diversification, different ideas, and new methods. Let's not consider finding the common areas of concern among blacks, Second Amendment advocates, and LEOs IRT violence against children. After all, the GOP has the current president figured out to a T--that's why the Republican candidates did so brilliantly in the last two presidential elections.
But hey, it is all in good, ironic fun. Anything for a laugh.
...........At one time, blacks were staunch supporters of the GOP. Now, black Republicans are few and far between. Maybe the way self-described conservatives talk about blacks and issues of concern to African Americans has something to do with it.................
Maybe there would be more black conservatives if the NAA(Liberal)CP and the liberal black community didn't hammer them so hard.
You usually don't lump all people of one group into the same pile.
Is what black Americans want all that much different from other Americans want?
How much of the black middle class is invested in government jobs? I'm talking Post Office, Schools, City, County, State, Federal - et al and everything?
Is their voting D more because the D's promise to keep their jobs safe? Can it be that the blacks getting the EITC and max welfare benefits (as well as a shit pot load of whites) vote D because the D's promise to keep the gravy train rolling?
Years down the road when the train rolls over them they are going to be wondering just who's train it was that hit them - and blame Bush of course.
IMO, the commission might have better served the interests of its constituents by stipulating that compliance with new "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," would require a thorough review, study, debate, and additional voting first.
Instead, as the new bill "nullifies" future "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," what happens if a 'grand compromise' is reached in Washington D.C, that works to the benefit of responsible gun owners and also reduces the prospect of violence against children?
Potential examples include:
Tax deductions for expenses such as gun safety training, gun safes, trigger locks, and liability insurance.
Incentives (and subsidies) for counties and municipalities to facilitate placing armed security staff on school campuses (provided the staff members follow certain rules and meet standards.
Tort reform that limits the liability of counties and municipalities in case a member of a school security staff involuntarily wounds or kills innocent civilians while attempting to stop an assailant.
Amendments to the Affordable Health Care Act for America that specifically shield the privacy of gun owners from their insurers if they seek mental health care.
Rules for manufacturers that mandate standards for quality control and customer service.
While Franklin County's Board of Commissioners could nullify the nullification, the backtracking would undermine not only the board's credibility but it could also spill over to other groups as well.
MOO, in a policy discussion, especially one of signal importance, you don't say "no" until you know exactly to what you're saying "no."
YMMV.
There is a not so minor difference between what you posted above and what the specific section of the original post (below for your convenience) states.
"All federal firearms acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations..."
Thus, the notion of not adopting federal firearms legislation should not generally preclude one from availing oneself of federal tax incentives, healthcare, or tort reform, as the case may be. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. The one detail that you omitted in your post could, as well, prove to be significant.
Team Sergeant
01-26-2013, 14:12
IMO, the commission might have better served the interests of its constituents by stipulating that compliance with new "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," would require a thorough review, study, debate, and additional voting first.
Instead, as the new bill "nullifies" future "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," what happens if a 'grand compromise' is reached in Washington D.C, that works to the benefit of responsible gun owners and also reduces the prospect of violence against children?
Potential examples include:
Tax deductions for expenses such as gun safety training, gun safes, trigger locks, and liability insurance.
Incentives (and subsidies) for counties and municipalities to facilitate placing armed security staff on school campuses (provided the staff members follow certain rules and meet standards.
Tort reform that limits the liability of counties and municipalities in case a member of a school security staff involuntarily wounds or kills innocent civilians while attempting to stop an assailant.
Amendments to the Affordable Health Care Act for America that specifically shield the privacy of gun owners from their insurers if they seek mental health care.
Rules for manufacturers that mandate standards for quality control and customer service.
While Franklin County's Board of Commissioners could nullify the nullification, the backtracking would undermine not only the board's credibility but it could also spill over to other groups as well.
MOO, in a policy discussion, especially one of signal importance, you don't say "no" until you know exactly to what you're saying "no."
YMMV.
Compromise is not in my vocabulary neither is negotiate, not when it concerns my individual rights granted to me by the 2nd Amendment.
Like many others I will draw that line in the sand and tell the politicians:
Molon Labe
GratefulCitizen
01-26-2013, 14:20
Compromise is not in my vocabulary neither is negotiate, not when it concerns my individual rights granted to me by the 2nd Amendment.
Like many others I will draw that line in the sand and tell the politicians:
Molon Labe
Respectfully, I must disagree that the 2nd Amendment grants anything.
It guarantees a pre-existent right.
Team Sergeant
01-26-2013, 14:22
Respectfully, I must disagree that the 2nd Amendment grants anything.
It guarantees a pre-existent right.
Wordsmith......
While on the topic of natural law and self-defense...not to thread drift but the article at the link below follows up nicely on the immediately prior two posts. Enjoy.
The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller’s Lesson for the World
By David B. Kopel
One of the most important elements of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision is the natural law. Analysis of natural law in Heller shows why Justice Stevens‘ dissent is clearly incorrect, and illuminates a crucial weakness in Justice Breyer‘s dissent. The constitutional recognition of the natural law right of self-defense has important implications for American law, and for foreign and international law.
http://www.nationalshootingassociation.org/reports/Natural_Right_of_Self_Defence.pdf
Stiletto11
01-26-2013, 14:38
Definition of Compromise: Bad Guy, "I'm going to shoot you in the head"
Good Guy, " No, please Mister I have a wife and kids."
Bad Guy," OK, I'll shoot you in the chest."
OldNCranky
01-26-2013, 15:35
Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1371.pdf
The various state and county governments are discovering that they are not alone.
At this rate the federal government will have more success if they start shutting down First Amendment rights in preparation.
Something to consider...
While we are on Arizona...
I never doubted where he would be on the issue, but Sheriff Joe Arpaio has stepped into the breech so distinctly and to the point as he does...
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sheriff-joe-arpaio-im-not-confiscating-guns/
“I took [multiple] oaths of office, and they all say I will defend the Constitution of the United States,” Arpaio told Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio in Phoenix, Ariz. “Now if they’re going to tell the sheriff that he’s going to go around picking up guns from everybody, they’re going to have a problem. I may not enforce that federal law.”
Broomhead pushed the man sometimes called “America’s toughest sheriff” even further, asking Arpaio if the feds passed a law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, would his deputies confiscate such magazines?
“No,” Arpaio said. “My deputies, I said before, I’m going to arm all my deputies – a month ago I said before this – with automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. We’re going to be able to fight back. … I don’t care what they say from Washington.” Sheriff Joe Arpaio
The great thing about Joe is, you know he says what he means and means what he says.
Go Joe!!!!:lifter
Maybe there would be more black conservatives if the NAA(Liberal)CP and the liberal black community didn't hammer them so hard.
You usually don't lump all people of one group into the same pile.
Is what black Americans want all that much different from other Americans want?
How much of the black middle class is invested in government jobs? I'm talking Post Office, Schools, City, County, State, Federal - et al and everything?
Is their voting D more because the D's promise to keep their jobs safe? Can it be that the blacks getting the EITC and max welfare benefits (as well as a shit pot load of whites) vote D because the D's promise to keep the gravy train rolling?
Years down the road when the train rolls over them they are going to be wondering just who's train it was that hit them - and blame Bush of course.IME, blacks across the political spectrum will talk about the lives they're living and would like to live. Some will vent against the rampant douche baggery that influences all sorts of young people--regardless of race, class, gender, and cultural background. Some will express preferences for policies that fall into the wheelhouse of right of center political ideology.
At times, the discussion will then turn to what were the bad old days for some and the good old days for others. Because some conservatives often broadly paint the sixties as the latter and speak about "states' rights," the talk will go from being cautiously optimistic to guardedly cynical.
We who sit on the right side of the issues have very little control over how liberals think, act, talk, and walk. We have considerably more control over how we respond to this shrinking window of opportunity.
This past summer was brutal for many blacks living in Chicago. What might have happened--what might happen--if rather than chortling about memes of the Second City as a symbol of everything that's wrong about the Democratic Party, the president and his policies, and their constituents, the Republican Party and others had changed the tenor of the conversation to respectfully phrased questions. Does American liberalism work for citizens living in cities like Chicago? If existing gun control make you safer, then why all the shootings? Might you be better off if you owned a weapon and knew how to use it? And, have the president, the mayor of your fair city, and the Democratic Party more generally delivered?
A comment about the continuing allegation that many blacks vote for Democratic candidates because of the "gravy train." If this generalization is accurate, how is that behavior any different than that of any other demographic cohort? That is, who in America doesn't make political choices that do not serve his/her best interests as he/she perceives them? Rather than castigating blacks for doing what many other Americans do and then writing them off, how about making better, more persuasive arguments about how the GOP's policy preferences will benefit them?
A comment about the continuing allegation that many blacks vote for Democratic candidates because of the "gravy train." If this generalization is accurate, how is that behavior any different than that of any other demographic cohort? That is, who in America doesn't make political choices that do not serve his/her best interests as he/she perceives them? Rather than castigating blacks for doing what many other Americans do and then writing them off, how about making better, more persuasive arguments about how the GOP's policy preferences will benefit them?
"America traditionally represents the greatest possiblity of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism-or at least, we used to."
Written by a black man who gets it, Larry Elder.
The opportunity is there for anyone who wants to capitalize on it, black or white.
GratefulCitizen
01-26-2013, 17:26
Gun control has a long history in this country.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/gun_control_a_failed_american_experiment.html
Consider where gun control laws are the most strict.
What are the ethnic demographics of these locals?
:munchin
Gun control has a long history in this country.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/gun_control_a_failed_american_experiment.html
Consider where gun control laws are the most strict.
What are the ethnic demographics of these locals?
:munchin
GC, it's counterproductive to point out the obvious. Ask Tony Blair. Heard much from him, lately?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/12/ukcrime.race
Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.
One accused him of misunderstanding the advice he had been given on the issue at a Downing Street summit.
Black community leaders reacted after Mr Blair said the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth. He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".
It needed to be addressed by a tailored counter-attack in the same way as football hooliganism was reined in by producing measures aimed at the specific problem, rather than general lawlessness.
Mr Blair's remarks are at odds with those of the Home Office minister Lady Scotland, who told the home affairs select committee last month that the disproportionate number of black youths in the criminal justice system was a function of their disproportionate poverty, and not to do with a distinctive black culture.
Giving the Callaghan lecture in Cardiff, the prime minister admitted he had been "lurching into total frankness" in the final weeks of his premiership. He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime. He said that "the black community - the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law abiding people horrified at what is happening - need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids".
Mr Blair said he had been moved to make his controversial remarks after speaking to a black pastor of a London church at a Downing Street knife crime summit, who said: "When are we going to start saying this is a problem amongst a section of the black community and not, for reasons of political correctness, pretend that this is nothing to do with it?" Mr Blair said there needed to be an "intense police focus" on the minority of young black Britons behind the gun and knife attacks. The laws on knife and gun gangs needed to be toughened and the ringleaders "taken out of circulation".
Last night, British African-Caribbean figures leading the fight against gang culture condemned Mr Blair's speech. The Rev Nims Obunge, chief executive of the Peace Alliance, one of the main organisations working against gang crime, denounced the prime minister.
Mr Obunge, who attended the Downing Street summit chaired by Mr Blair in February, said he had been cited by the prime minister: "He makes it look like I said it's the black community doing it. What I said is it's making the black community more vulnerable and they need more support and funding for the work they're doing. ... He has taken what I said out of context. We came for support and he has failed and has come back with more police powers to use against our black children."
Keith Jarrett, chair of the National Black Police Association, whose members work with vulnerable youngsters, said: "Social deprivation and delinquency go hand in hand and we need to tackle both. It is curious that the prime minister does not mention deprivation in his speech."
Lee Jasper, adviser on policing to London's mayor, said: "For years we have said this is an issue the black community has to deal with. The PM is spectacularly ill-informed if he thinks otherwise.
"Every home secretary from [David] Blunkett onwards has been pressed on tackling the growing phenomenon of gun and gang crime in deprived black communities, and government has failed to respond to what has been a clear demand for additional resources to tackle youth alienation and disaffection".
The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.
Answering questions later Mr Blair said: "Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don't think it's the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation.
"I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them."
Some people working with children knew at the age of five whether they were going to be in "real trouble" later, he said.
Mr Blair is known to believe the tendency for many black boys to be raised in families without a father leads to a lack of appropriate role models.
He said: "We need to stop thinking of this as a society that has gone wrong - it has not - but of specific groups that for specific reasons have gone outside of the proper lines of respect and good conduct towards others and need by specific measures to be brought back into the fold."
Snip
Written by a black man who gets it, Larry Elder.IMO, this type of formulation "I know of a black man/woman who agrees with me" is of increasingly limited utility.
The spectrum of political discourse in the black community is at least as diverse as it is in other parts of American society. "Getting it" is not about cherry picking and nodding approvingly at those who agree. To me, "getting it" is about being able to engage individuals across that spectrum effectively.
YMMV.
As for posts #125 and #126, in the aftermath of Newtown, Latinos have raised the argument that mass shootings in America are most often perpetuated by Anglos. They assert that it is the distinct culture of whites that accounts for the violence.
How about that.
GratefulCitizen
01-26-2013, 18:22
They assert that it is the distinct culture of whites that accounts for the violence.
How about that.
No argument here.
White liberals are all about defenseless victim zones.
How about that.
Team Sergeant
01-26-2013, 18:25
IMO, this type of formulation "I know of a black man/woman who agrees with me" is of increasingly limited utility.
The spectrum of political discourse in the black community is at least as diverse as it is in other parts of American society. "Getting it" is not about cherry picking and nodding approvingly at those who agree. To me, "getting it" is about being able to engage individuals across that spectrum effectively.
YMMV.
As for posts #125 and #126, in the aftermath of Newtown, Latinos have raised the argument that mass shootings in America are most often perpetuated by Anglos. They assert that it is the distinct culture of whites that accounts for the violence.
How about that.
LOL, what a joke.... guess how many mexicans had their heads removed in just the last few years and how many have been murdered in mexico.... what is it now sixty thousand?
The spectrum of political discourse in the black community is at least as diverse as it is in other parts of American society. "Getting it" is not about cherry picking and nodding approvingly at those who agree. To me, "getting it" is about being able to engage individuals across that spectrum effectively.
I'd bet that most blacks think Benghazi is a man. Black spokesmen like Larry Elder, Allen Keyes, Allen West and others stand out because they do "get it". If they "got it", then why did over 90 percent of blacks vote for Obama?
I'd bet that most blacks think Benghazi is a man.
He's a woman!? :eek:
Pat
He's a woman!? :eek:
Pat
Not now, Tippy.
Not now, Tippy.
Well, obviously. Geez.
Pat
GratefulCitizen
01-26-2013, 19:49
GC, it's counterproductive to point out the obvious. Ask Tony Blair. Heard much from him, lately?
To be clear, the point I was trying to make was that gun control has its roots in suppressing minorities.
It still seems to be used towards this end.
If certain large cities allowed legal access to weapons, the populations would be able to defend themselves better.
This is the first step in escaping a dependent mindset.
To be clear, the point I was trying to make was that gun control has its roots in suppressing minorities.
It still seems to be used towards this end.
If certain large cities allowed legal access to weapons, the populations would be able to defend themselves better.
This is the first step in escaping a dependent mindset.
Certainly is.
Badger52
01-27-2013, 07:02
To be clear, the point I was trying to make was that gun control has its roots in suppressing minorities.
It still seems to be used towards this end.
If certain large cities allowed legal access to weapons, the populations would be able to defend themselves better.
This is the first step in escaping a dependent mindset.Point made in my view. Some time ago, before evil polymer (and Hi-Point), the efforts to eradicate the wicked "Saturday Night Special" - a short-barreled .38 revolver - had a collateral impact on minorities. In its day, it was simply an affordable & functioning weapon of choice for those who weren't into engraved 1911's. Another option to be denied them, and the aspiring despot does not consider 2nd & 3rd order effects of their actions on others unless it is in their burgeoning interest.
Escaping the dependent mindset is tough & also starts with states refusing programs that get barbed tenterhooks into their domain under the cover-sheet of money. It ain't easy; often the only way to do it is to cut off the barb and pull the the rest of the thing through. Painful, but it works. Here, bite down on the stick.
If certain large cities allowed legal access to weapons, the populations would be able to defend themselves better.
I suspect if that were the case, they would have to on a more regular basis.
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
01-27-2013, 09:36
I suspect if that were the case, they would have to on a more regular basis.
Richard :munchin
I don't follow your logic. :confused:
Would criminals become more aggressive because potential victims are armed?
Would formerly law-abiding citizens start criminal endeavors because they now can be legally armed?
I don't follow your logic. :confused:
Would criminals become more aggressive because potential victims are armed?
Would formerly law-abiding citizens start criminal endeavors because they now can be legally armed?
It just seems to me that more weapons per capita in those "certain large cities" would mean more incidences per capita of weapons related injury - whether unintentional or intentional.
Obviously YOV.
Richard :munchin
I don't follow your logic. :confused:
Would criminals become more aggressive because potential victims are armed?
Would formerly law-abiding citizens start criminal endeavors because they now can be legally armed?
While I had some logic questions as well, I do seem to recall a study done in the 1970's about how muggers were more likely to be armed and to strike victims first thereby disabling them in areas of the country where armed citizens were more prevalent. What changed that was the sentencing add-ons for those convicted for the more violent and/or armed offenses.
Another study from the 80's indicated that armed citizens who were in drinking establishments were more likely to be involved in an altercation with their firearm. I suspect the study and question the chicken v. egg situation regarding altercations and drinking establishments.
It just seems to me that more weapons per capita in those "certain large cities" would mean more incidences per capita of weapons related injury - whether unintentional or intentional.
Obviously YOV.
Richard :munchin
Some of those cities are war zones, Bro. I would not want to have to do business in certain areas of certain cities without packing max heat.
If disarmament of the criminal element would work, it would have already been done.
Team Sergeant
01-27-2013, 09:59
I suspect if that were the case, they would have to on a more regular basis.
Richard :munchin
You would suspect wrong. That's not the case and never has been.
We've already shown correlations between urban gun violence and armed and unarmed citizens of large cities. Richard if you're going to continue to comment of this subject you should do more reading and less "suspecting".
You would suspect wrong. That's not the case and never has been.
We've already shown correlations between urban gun violence and armed and unarmed citizens of large cities. Richard if you're going to continue to comment of this subject you should do more reading and less "suspecting".
My "suspecting" was in reference to all gun-related incidents per capita in large cities, whether accidental or intentional - including suicide, and it certainly could be wrong.
However, this is an interesting piece to consider.
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/01/growing-divide-urban-gun-violence/4328/
Richard
My "suspecting" was in reference to all gun-related incidents per capita in large cities, whether accidental or intentional - including suicide, and it certainly could be wrong.
However, this is an interesting piece to consider.
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/01/growing-divide-urban-gun-violence/4328/
Richard
My reading of the link you posted shows a big link in shootings - and it wasn't the guns.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0126-compton-20130126,0,977110.story
The trouble began soon after they arrived.
The black family—a mother, three teenage children and a 10-year-old boy—moved into a little yellow home in Compton over Christmas vacation.
When a friend came to visit, four men in a black SUV pulled up and called him a "nigger," saying black people were barred from the neighborhood, according to Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies. They jumped out, drew a gun on him and beat him with metal pipes.
It was just the beginning of what detectives said was a campaign by a Latino street gang to force an African American family to leave.
The attacks on the family are the latest in a series of violent incidents in which Latino gangs targeted blacks in parts of greater Los Angeles over the last decade.
Compton, with a population of about 97,000, was predominantly black for many years. It is now 65% Latino and 33% black, according to the 2010 U.S. census. But it's not only historically black areas that have been targeted.
Federal authorities have alleged in several indictments in the last decade that the Mexican Mafia prison gang has ordered street gangs under its control to attack African Americans. Leaders of the Azusa 13 gang were sentenced to lengthy prison terms earlier this month for leading a policy of attacking African American residents and expelling them from the town.
Similar attacks have taken place in Harbor Gateway, Highland Park, Pacoima, San Bernardino, Canoga Park and Wilmington, among other places. In the Compton case, sheriff's officials say the gang appears to have been acting on its own initiative.
Sheriff's detectives said Friday they had arrested Jeffrey Aguilar, 19, of Gardena and Efren Marquez, 21, of Rialto, both alleged members of the Compton Varrio 155 gang, and are continuing to look for more assailants.
"This family has no gang ties whatsoever," Sheriff's Lt. Richard Westin said. "They are complete innocent victims here."
The 19-year-old family friend managed to break free that first day and run into the house, where the children were the only ones at home.
The attackers left, but a half-hour later a crowd of as many as 20 people stood on the lawn yelling threats and epithets. A beer bottle crashed through the living room window as the youngsters watched in horror.
"They were scared if they called the sheriff they'd be killed," Westin said. "So they called their mom, who called the Sheriff's Department."
The gang members were gone by the time deputies arrived, but they kept coming back, almost daily, driving by slowly until they got someone's attention, then yelling racial insults and telling them to leave. The mother sent the children to live with relatives and is now packing up to leave herself.
"This gang has always made it clear they have a racial hatred for black people," said Westin, who has worked in the area for more than two decades. "They justify in their own sick minds because of their rivalry with the Compton black gangs. They repeatedly used racial epithets, they use racial hatred graffiti and they tag up the black church a lot."
At the home on 153rd Street on Friday, the rain-drenched street was empty and quiet. But the gang's presence was clear.
Its tags marked several long walls, stop signs, curbs and school crossing signs — often with the nicknames of individual gang members included.
Crews remove the graffiti almost every morning.
Down the street, the Greater Holy Faith Missionary Baptist Church — a remnant from the time when Compton was almost all black — is often tagged, most recently, just below the cross.
Neighbors say its pastors come on Sundays and no longer live in the area.
Snip
hydrashok
01-27-2013, 17:29
This is one of our of our more brilliant delegates last week while the General Assembly was in session. Notice the placement of his thumb, clearly he is well versed in firearms. He also happens to be the same guy who was charged with multiple felonies back in the 90's for "losing" some firearms while in his custody.
Peregrino
01-27-2013, 17:33
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0126-compton-20130126,0,977110.story
Snip
Maybe if the Federal and State governments had done their duty WRT controlling illegal immigration, this problem wouldn't exist at its current magnitude.
Oldrotorhead
01-27-2013, 18:02
Maybe if the Federal and State governments had done their duty WRT controlling illegal immigration, this problem wouldn't exist at its current magnitude.
I have asked my Senators and Congressman to end the "Anchor Baby" draw for illegal immigrants as part of any "Immigration Reform". Congress has the ability to end anchor babies being citizens, the power to do so was given to Congress in the 14th A. They could allow people with a green card to be exempt or limit citizenship to children born to citizens. This is not an ethnic issue as there are a lot of illegals from Canada and Europe as well as from Asia.
GratefulCitizen
01-29-2013, 20:33
Alabama: http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLoginie.asp
Dominoes keep falling...
Badger52
01-30-2013, 06:54
In addition to WY's HB104, which I like to think of as the "go pound sand" piece, Wyoming also has HB105 in the works, which seems consistent with the recent letter provided by our country's Quiet Professionals (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40772)* which contained actual positive ideas to foster the other side of the so-called "national conversation."
House Bill 105 would allow concealed weapons in public elementary and secondary schools and public colleges and universities with proper concealed weapons permits. It would also allow concealed weapons at professional sporting events held on public property.
Link to Billings Gazette. (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/committee-advances-bill-to-block-federal-gun-ban/article_03bbb2e7-8036-5d70-9c4a-9b0a51228e67.html)
* which continues to go viral. :D
It unfortunate that certain organizations and individuals are increasingly mentioned only as punch lines to "jokes."
Source is here (http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history).
Just the organization Sigaba. Furthermore, I feel that the NAACP has had its day, which has passed, much like the need for labor unions has come and gone. Since when is supporting gay 'rights' encompassed under the charter of combating racial prejudice and promoting racial equality?
We have elected a black man to the highest office in the land. When can we set down this self serving argument that we are a prejudiced nation?
Let's not worry about outreach, diversification, different ideas, and new methods. Let's not consider finding the common areas of concern among blacks, Second Amendment advocates, and LEOs IRT violence against children. After all, the GOP has the current president figured out to a T--that's why the Republican candidates did so brilliantly in the last two presidential elections.
But hey, it is all in good, ironic fun. Anything for a laugh.
Ultimately the issue in the OP is that of leaving alone a right that our founders believed we had before the Constitution was written. To me, there is no need to find common ground with anyone on this one. Its like finding the common denominator in peoples basic right to breathe oxygen for free.
Just the organization Sigaba. Furthermore, I feel that the NAACP has had its day, which has passed, much like the need for labor unions has come and gone. Since when is supporting gay 'rights' encompassed under the charter of combating racial prejudice and promoting racial equality?
If we all get along and leave each other alone there would be no need for a long list of special interest groups and the people associated with them.
Problems equates Paychecks.
If we all get along and leave each other alone there would be no need for a long list of special interest groups and the people associated with them.
Problems equates Paychecks.
Bingo! Which goes along with something I was thinking about this morning, not saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. I learned a lot about patriotism as a child, and I stood each morning, proudly with my hand over my heart as I recited that pledge. I remember tripping over the word "indivisible" when I was a boy. Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Of all the things that busy a child during their day, that pledge is the one thing that helps remind them that they are a very small part of a bigger thing, a nation. Without that reminder, they are just little people with no common cause, only things which so divide us: religion, skin color, economic status etc.
If we could, as a nation, work towards indivisibility, instead of division on every level, imagine what a different nation this would be.
...and from the land of Wolverines...
Fort Collins students read Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic (http://www.9news.com/news/article/313505/222/Fort-Collins-students-read-Pledge-of-Allegiance-in-Arabic)
...and from the land of Wolverines...
Fort Collins students read Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic (http://www.9news.com/news/article/313505/222/Fort-Collins-students-read-Pledge-of-Allegiance-in-Arabic)
Is Boulder bleeding over into Larimer County? :confused:
Pat
Fort Collins students read Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic
I'd be glad to help them with their German.
Ich verspreche allegience, der Flagge, der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, und der Republik, für die sie steht, eine Nation unter Gott, unteilbar, mit Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit für alle.
But I'm a bit rusty, I haven't used it much over the last few decades...except I did get to use it a couple of weeks ago to speak to a couple from near Rostock who we met at the Grgich Hills winery in Rutherford. Visitors are always surprised to encounter Americans who are multi-lingual; their perceptions seem to be that we don't care much about other languages or cultures. ;)
Richard :munchin
Badger52
01-30-2013, 10:50
except I did get to use it a couple of weeks ago to speak to a couple from near Rostock who we met at the Grgich Hills winery in Rutherford.Neat Richard, that must've been very cool. The Rostock area was a popular destination way "back in the day", but it wasn't because of wineries.
:cool:
ZonieDiver
01-30-2013, 13:10
...and from the land of Wolverines...
Fort Collins students read Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic (http://www.9news.com/news/article/313505/222/Fort-Collins-students-read-Pledge-of-Allegiance-in-Arabic)
As long as they're saying the Pledge, if they occasionally lapse into Klingon, it's okay by me. Geeks need to say the Pledge, too! :D
GratefulCitizen
01-30-2013, 22:49
Wyoming: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Bills/HB0105.pdf
Best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Badger52
01-31-2013, 04:25
Wyoming: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Bills/HB0105.pdf
Best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.:D
From a report in the paper to the state house, and entitled "Citizens' and Students' Self-Defense Act."
Total, including refs & necessary corrections to underlying statutes, 3 pages, double-spaced. These guys are doing something right.
GratefulCitizen
01-31-2013, 09:41
Colorado:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/B27A6A9AC874B85687257AEE0057DF35/$FILE/009_01.pdf
First line of defense.
GratefulCitizen
02-01-2013, 21:11
Illinois concealed carry: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=85&GA=98&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=997&GAID=12&LegID=71413&SpecSess=&Session
This is starting to get interesting.
:munchin
Issuing authorities would have to prove why someone shouldn't receive a license.
the Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant would pose a danger to the applicant's self, another, or public safety, or would use a firearm unlawfully, if granted a license to carry a concealed firearm under this Act.
And...
If the court decides that the reason for the denial was arbitrary, capricious, malicious, or without merit, the court shall award punitive damages.
Concerning reciprocity:
The Department shall enter into reciprocal agreements with any other state whose requirements to obtain a license or permit is substantially similar to those requirements contained in Section 85.
GratefulCitizen
02-01-2013, 22:18
Montana lending some common sense to schools:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/lchtml/LC1672.htm
Passing a law to clarify that a "finger gun" is not actually a gun.
Sadly, such laws now are necessary.
GratefulCitizen
02-02-2013, 19:34
South Carolina: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/247.htm
Exempts "unorganized militia" from federal gun laws.
Seems pretty consistent with the 2nd Amendment.
:munchin
GratefulCitizen
02-04-2013, 22:53
An interesting article addressing the theme of this thread:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14394-sheriffs-and-legislators-are-acting-to-nullify-obama-gun-controls
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/arkansas-house-passes-bill-allow-guns-churches-235026007.html
Incidentally, AR is controlled by Republicans for the first time in a century.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) - The Arkansas House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday to allow concealed-carry permit holders to take their weapons into churches, and it is expected to be signed into law by the state's governor.
The Church Protection Act would allow individual places of worship to decide whether to allow concealed handguns and who could carry them. The Republican-controlled House passed the bill 85-8 with bipartisan support. The measure previously passed the Republican-controlled Senate 28-4.
Arkansas joins a handful of other states, including South Carolina, Wyoming and Louisiana, that allow guns in churches, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Gun control and gun rights issues have dominated the public conversation since a gunman shot dead 20 children and six adults at an elementary school December 14 in Newtown, Connecticut.
Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat, was expected to sign the bill into law.
Snip
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/arkansas-house-passes-bill-allow-guns-churches-235026007.html
Incidentally, AR is controlled by Republicans for the first time in a century.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) - The Arkansas House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday to allow concealed-carry permit holders to take their weapons into churches, and it is expected to be signed into law by the state's governor.
The Church Protection Act would allow individual places of worship to decide whether to allow concealed handguns and who could carry them. The Republican-controlled House passed the bill 85-8 with bipartisan support. The measure previously passed the Republican-controlled Senate 28-4.
Arkansas joins a handful of other states, including South Carolina, Wyoming and Louisiana, that allow guns in churches, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Gun control and gun rights issues have dominated the public conversation since a gunman shot dead 20 children and six adults at an elementary school December 14 in Newtown, Connecticut.
Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat, was expected to sign the bill into law.
Snip
Praise the Lord and pass the ammo.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammo.
Amen.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/arkansas-house-passes-bill-allow-guns-churches-235026007.html
Incidentally, AR is controlled by Republicans for the first time in a century.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) - The Arkansas House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday to allow concealed-carry permit holders to take their weapons into churches, and it is expected to be signed into law by the state's governor.
The Church Protection Act would allow individual places of worship to decide whether to allow concealed handguns and who could carry them. The Republican-controlled House passed the bill 85-8 with bipartisan support. The measure previously passed the Republican-controlled Senate 28-4.
Arkansas joins a handful of other states, including South Carolina, Wyoming and Louisiana, that allow guns in churches, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Gun control and gun rights issues have dominated the public conversation since a gunman shot dead 20 children and six adults at an elementary school December 14 in Newtown, Connecticut.
Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat, was expected to sign the bill into law.
Snip
Dusty
You have any land for sale that will give us interlocking and mutual supporting fire by you? I need to establish residence there......
I can just see our flags flying over the house (Camp) and all the GS running around doing the daily dozen. Your camp can be a radio relay for the sector.....;)
Dusty
You have any land for sale that will give us interlocking and mutual supporting fire by you? I need to establish residence there......
I can just see our flags flying over the house (Camp) and all the GS running around doing the daily dozen. Your camp can be a radio relay for the sector.....;)
There's a defensible bench just to the west of my shack. :cool:
Badger52
02-06-2013, 10:14
Many of the blogosphere's earlier efforts at <click on the link to send your rep a nastygram> are starting to generate the typical canned replies. One came in this AM from a local Dem in Congress who has, thus far, managed to hold onto his power & grow it a little - by pandering to the rhetoric of the moment at the nearest big city. He's also the Minority Whip and on the Health and Ways & Means Cmte's. The return fire went like this:
Dear Rep. Kind,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I note with interest your comment here:
"And we can and should be enforcing stricter penalties for gun trafficking to stop the spread of illegal weapons across our borders and among our communities."
Does that mean you will support measures currently ongoing in Congress that hold Attorney General Eric Holder and others in the Department of Justice and BATFE accountable for the weapons consciously allowed to funnel to murdering cartels operating against us and our neighbors to the south in Mexico?
I share with all rational people sadness over any events like Sandy Hook, not just the latest one on the news. Yet I wonder how those who are dancing on the graves of the children & teachers to move their long-standing agenda of firearm confiscation (Sen. Feinstein's own words, on the record) would feel about Photo ID in order to vote, and a full multi-agency background check to get that ID.
This is not about hunting & sportsmen in Wisconsin and you and the rest of Congress know it. And, not that it should matter, more voters in your district are watching your votes on this than you might realize. Gun control is not about guns, it never has been. It's about control by a few. You're a product of a good education and should know that as well. Conduct yourself accordingly as an American.
Respectfully,
Charitable mood today; civility included the possum last night that wisely chose not to push the issue. I think ZD put some weird juju on his avatar....
There are multiple threads that have already started related to reactions to the recent shootings. National-level politics tends to take the lead, but what is occurring locally can sometimes be overshadowed.
The idea of starting this thread is to provide discussion on what is occurring within our individual States and localities. Information that would be of good use to responsible gun-owners and those who are engaged with the established processes (executive, legislative, judicial or law-enforcement)
Currently residing in an occupied bastion of liberalism... I watch closely.
From the Peoples Republic of Maryland (PRM)...
Link HERE (http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/state/study-more-research-needed-in-mental-illnessgun-regulations-discussion)
PRM is a bastion of liberalism turning the corner into progressivism.
See this is what is proposed by Gov Martin O'Malley
http://marylandshallissue.org/share/SB0281_pamphlet.pdf
More and more every day is see control of social, economic and political life being exercised by those who are executives in government. Please tell me I'm wrong.
Frederick County Md.. I live here. Sheriff blasts gun control.
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/
Badger52
02-10-2013, 17:23
An interesting article addressing the theme of this thread:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14394-sheriffs-and-legislators-are-acting-to-nullify-obama-gun-controlsRe-reading some of the bills actually up in various states; just wanted to thank you for the continuing synopses.
Of all, I like the wording in South Carolina's S.247 (http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/247.htm) alot for the exact reason you mentioned.
:cool:
It seems everyone else is trying to get rid of guns, Texas is trying to put them IN THE SCHOOLS.
http://whiteforeasttexas.com/?p=842
Representative James White filed HB 1142, which provides locals schools boards the discretion to add an elective course offering that would give their high school students the opportunity to gain an appreciation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
And Texas has a few more keyed up:
HB 700 seeks to allow Texans the option of open carry.
HB 48: would provide CHLs the opportunity to renew their license in a continuous process on line.
HB 223: would allow members of a school district’s school board and the superintendent with a concealed carry license to carry into school board meetings.
HB 553: would take steps to protect Texan’s second amendment rights from egregious actions by the federal government.
HB 627: exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation.
HB 698: requires that digital or electronic fingerprinting be offered within 25 miles of applicants.
HB 972: CHL on campus
"New Jersey General Assembly members are seeking outright bans and onerous restrictions on your rights through a large number of anti-gun bills. To oppose these bills, NSSF is urging all sportsmen, hunters and gun owners to attend Wednesday’s (Feb. 13) public hearing of the Law and Public Safety Committee starting at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 11, 4th Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, New Jersey."
A list of the proposed NJ legislation reported by the New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc.
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Legislative_Analysis.pdf
ZonieDiver
02-12-2013, 08:39
I think ZD put some weird juju on his avatar....
No 'ju ju' from me. I hire that out. :p
Teaching is a gift Hatchet. We seem to have our share of very good ones on this site. Keep up your good work in teaching good things to good people.
I am sure that someone will be along to implore you to use more paragraphs - that is not my place here.
In the spirit of your post about sharing good information with good people...
"Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
Hebrews 13:16
Badger52
02-12-2013, 11:39
No 'ju ju' from me. I hire that out. :p Jobu is da man!:D
This is a good read and some self fulfilling prophecy.
http://www.naturalnews.com/038970_gun_control_backfired_America.html#ixzz2KCr AGA2N
For the record once again, these people are not calling for such actions, they are merely predicting what is likely to take place. A government that attempts to disarm the citizenry at gunpoint is essentially declaring war on the People and should expect to be treated like an occupying enemy of America. On top of that, the real power in all this is that there is no central leader of any such rebellion. These actions would organically rise out of the population in the form of independent, self-initiated teams of armed defenders who are willing to risk their lives to save America from tyranny.
Veteran firearms instructor Paul Howe even penned a popular piece called 2nd Amendment and the Kool-Aid Drinkers in which he explains one popular solution for handling those who attempt to engage in gun confiscation:
Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car.
Howe also explains, in other interviews, that gun confiscation teams -- "tac teams" -- should expect to be attacked without warning and take huge casualties, reducing the effectiveness of those teams and effectively ending gun confiscation activities.
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/
Not sure how ya'll think of Paul Howe.
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/
pcfixer,
The article by Paul Howe was posted in its entirety by QP TR in another thread: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=482340&postcount=401
Not sure how ya'll think of Paul Howe.
In his words:
Good words from a great American.
Much to think about here.
TR
Thank You BofH. Good catch. I don't read all the post and didn't do a search for this particular post as I thought it was pretty recent. :)
GratefulCitizen
02-13-2013, 22:35
283 SHERIFFS AND 8 STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATIONS SAYING ‘NO’ TO OBAMA GUN CONTROL
http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/
Couple weeks old.
Probably even more sheriffs on board now.
ZooKeeper
02-14-2013, 16:22
Progressive liberal hacks out of St Louis have introduced a bill in Missouri to ban.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
The most interesting piece of this -
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
Progressive liberal hacks out of St Louis have introduced a bill in Missouri to ban.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
The most interesting piece of this -
I saw that - absolutely no pretense at thier disdain for the 2A.
I'm reading that this MO bill will probably not go anywhere - but the cat is out of the bag - these folks want you to effectively disarm.
Here is another story on the proposed MO bill with links in the very short story - the comments are typically lively.
Missouri Democrats Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms – Gives Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Weapons
Gateway Pundit
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, February 14, 2013, 9:52 AM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/
The fundamental transformation may not take place over the next 4 years but the seeds are being sown for a transformation. Crippling debt, ever increasing government dependence. And, if they could, they'd grudgingly allow you at most, a single shot .410 - disabled or locked in the local police station - only available upon application to the proper authorities. Same for a Big Gulp. These folks are crazy.
NurseTim
02-14-2013, 17:23
Then there is this guy.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/police-chief-wants-citizens-as-reserve-force-to-defend-against-feds/#ixzz2KpmuAeix
I like the idea of pulling an end run on the feds, but to fight the feds? Not so much.
GratefulCitizen
02-14-2013, 21:34
Oregon joins the trend: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/02/bill_in_oregon_legislature_see.html
The bill's text isn't yet posted on the legislature's website.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/
Florida Sheriffs Association Proclamation Supporting The Second Amendment.
https://www.flsheriffs.org/uploads/FLSheriffs2ndAmendmentProcl_2013v3.pdf
NurseTim
02-16-2013, 09:55
All these folks coming out against the Feds infringing your rights but what about them? Were do they stand on that issue?
All these folks coming out against the Feds infringing your rights but what about them? Were do they stand on that issue?
Most of the Senate and some of the Congress has been infiltrated...the Executive branch is lost. The Judicial branch is hanging by a thread.
"Populations that the regime subjugates or indoctrinates for long periods are less likely to possess the will required to sustain a prolonged and difficult struggle."
The Regime marches on...
As the OP suggests...IMO, it is the locals that will generally carry the day where the rubber meets the road. YMMV.
Utah Bob
02-16-2013, 12:52
Florida Sheriffs Association Proclamation Supporting The Second Amendment.
https://www.flsheriffs.org/uploads/FLSheriffs2ndAmendmentProcl_2013v3.pdf
Colorado sheriffs are opposed to gun control legislation. It doesn't seem to matter right now though. All the bills passed through the House yesterday.:mad:
doctom54
02-21-2013, 06:02
This guy use to be my neighbor when I lived in MO. He was a state representative and is now a state senator. I don't think the Dems will get their agenda through the MO legislature. If you left out St. Louis and KC MO would be a great state.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/media/13info/Sater/columns/011413SenateCommittees.htm
The next to last paragraph is the pertinent one.
Ret10Echo
02-21-2013, 08:04
Colorado sheriffs are opposed to gun control legislation. It doesn't seem to matter right now though. All the bills passed through the House yesterday.:mad:
You're in the same boat as most other's Bob... The dense urban centers are dictating what the rest of the State does (or doesn't do). Our version here in the flatlands is the elitist libo-crowd and the entitlement handout metro counties control the State....the rest suffer.
Westford, MA is a reasonably small town in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, United States. The population was approximately 21,951 at the 2010 census. The town sits along Route 495, Blue Star Memorial Highway.
Westford Selectmen Withdraw Proposal To Ban Assault Weapons
By Jim Armstrong, WBZ-TV
February 20, 2013 10:10 PM
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/20/westford-selectman-proposes-ban-on-assault-weapons/
WESTFORD (CBS) – A thunderous round of applause and a standing ovation greeted the news Wednesday night that a proposed town bylaw to restrict some assault weapons was going to be officially withdrawn.
The overwhelming majority of the close to 400 people who packed a special meeting of the Westford Board of Selectmen opposed the idea.
The man who originally proposed it told the crowd the debate had not gone as he had hoped.
Vice Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Robert Jeffries said, “This was meant to be a discussion within the town of Westford, a community discussion that’s gotten way, way beyond that. We’re not really getting the discussion we want.”
After the meeting, Jeffries added that he had hoped he and his town would not be alone in an effort to restrict assault weapons and high-capacity firearms from the town.
“I thought there would be a [negative] reaction,” Jeffries said. “But I also thought maybe some other towns in Massachusetts might have also tried something similar and none of them did. So it left us isolated as the only ones.”
Westford residents at the meeting felt a sense of relief.
<snip>
David Keene happened to be in Massachusetts on Wednesday night, where he was taking part in a gun control discussion with students at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
Of Westford’s attempt, Keene told WBZ, “One of the things that people in these town meetings and other folks ought to look at is the constitution itself. It is possible and it is legal to put certain restrictions on second amendment rights,” he continued, “but those kinds of restrictions have to be looked at very critically.”
Keene said any attempt to curtail gun ownership is misguided. He cited a recent FBI report on violent crimes when he claimed that hammers kill more Americans every year than guns.
“The murder weapon of choice in this country is the hammer. We’ve never had a three day waiting period for a hammer, although a lot of folks who have to-do lists from their wives might like one,” Keene said.
In fact, that FBI report indicated that “blunt objects” like hammers and clubs are responsible for more deaths than “rifles.” When other weapons like handguns and shotguns are included in the total, firearms then take the lead when it comes to deaths caused.
<snip>
10 round limits, no online ammo sales, gun free zones, background checks for private transfers, etc., etc.,
N.J. Assembly pulls trigger on gun laws
PUBLISHED FEB 21, 2013 AT 5:15 PM (UPDATED FEB 21, 2013)
The West Milford Messenger
http://westmilfordmessenger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130221/NEWS01/130229968/NJ-Assembly-pulls-trigger-on-gun-laws
TRENTON – The New Jersey General Assembly on Thursday approved 22 gun violence prevention bills focusing on reforming gun and ammunition sales, improving mental health services, enhancing gun safety, combating illegal gun trafficking, boosting school security and preventing gang violence.
Details on each bill are available at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillsByNumber.asp.
<snip>
The Reaper
02-21-2013, 19:39
10 round limits, no online ammo sales, gun free zones, background checks for private transfers, etc., etc.,
N.J. Assembly pulls trigger on gun laws
PUBLISHED FEB 21, 2013 AT 5:15 PM (UPDATED FEB 21, 2013)
The West Milford Messenger
http://westmilfordmessenger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130221/NEWS01/130229968/NJ-Assembly-pulls-trigger-on-gun-laws
TRENTON – The New Jersey General Assembly on Thursday approved 22 gun violence prevention bills focusing on reforming gun and ammunition sales, improving mental health services, enhancing gun safety, combating illegal gun trafficking, boosting school security and preventing gang violence.
Details on each bill are available at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillsByNumber.asp.
<snip>
And I bet Christie signs it.
TR
And I bet Christie signs it.
TR
You mean the Democrat in Republican clothing? I fear that you are correct. Christie will most likely sign that laundry list of bills...:mad:
Ret10Echo
02-22-2013, 02:45
Unsurprising... It is the People's Republic....
The Bill is out of State senate panel for debate in the full senate. I am shocked that the fees were reduced. Reckless tax-and-spend is the standard here. No accountability as the blue-sheeple blow bubbles and eat cheese.
Senate Panel Approves Gun Control Bill
Friday, February 22, 2013
Robert Lang and Associated Press
Members of a Maryland Senate committee have made some changes to Governor Martin O'Mullet's gun control bill, but supporters say the bill has largely been kept in tact.
Committee changes....
Rejected amendments that would have eliminated the assault weapons ban, as well as the requirement that handgun purchasers submit to fingerprinting
Cut the license fee for a handgun from $100 to $50. The renewal fee for a license was cut from $100 to $20.
Cut the required number of training hours from eight hours to four hours, cutting the cost of training in half from $150 to $75.
The committee extended the length of handgun license from five years to ten years.
Approved an amendment allowing the Maryland State Police to investigate alleged "straw purchases" of firearms at gun shops.
Prohibit someone from owning a handgun if the person has been involuntarily committed for any duration for mental health reasons.
Prohibit someone from owning a handgun if the person was voluntarily in a mental institution for more than 30 days.
Story here (http://www.wbal.com/article/97765/2/template-story/Senate-Panel-Approves-Gun-Control-Bill)
Badger52
02-22-2013, 04:29
States pushing back to any success that might come out of DC, states firing up their own versions possibly out of lack of confidence in the Central Committee in DC being able to get it done. Pretty clear polarization, which plays well for the administration - makes 420 cuts instead of 1,000 an easier sell and lots of points for 2A supporters to have to defend against.
Local, local, local.
Utah Bob
02-22-2013, 11:07
You mean the Democrat in Republican clothing? I fear that you are correct. Christie will most likely sign that laundry list of bills...:mad:
It would not surprise me to see him switch parties in the future.
Dan Bongino @ Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, MD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-wPs7UZ5ufM#!
Very well spoken speech.
After reading this bill, you can't possibly not be left stupefied at the lengths that Democrats will go in this assault on the 2nd Amendment...
Better Get The Underground Activated Soon (http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3200.intro.pdf)
Oregonians would be required to surrender their assault weapons and "high capacity" magazines within 120 days of the signing of the bill into law (based on the "emergency" declaration in Section 6). Those currently in possession of assault weapons/magazines would be allowed to retain ONE assault weapon and THREE magazines...
From Section 4:
(5) A registered owner of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine is required to:
(a) Securely store the assault weapon or large capacity magazine pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the department;
(b) Allow an inspector from the department to inspect the storage of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with this subsection;
From Section 5:
(4) The department may conduct inspections of registered owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with the storage requirements of section 4 of this 2013 Act.
From Section 6:
This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its passage.
The Section 6 declaration of "emergency", which puts the law into effect immediately upon passage, coupled with the very loose/generic wording for both the storage and inspection of assault weapons and magazines is troubling:
Securely store the assault weapon or large capacity magazine pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the department
AND
The department may conduct inspections of registered owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with the storage requirements of section 4 of this 2013 Act.
What if they deem that the only "sufficient" storage is a $4000+ gun safe? And another safe to store the firing pins in?
How often do they get to "inspect" the storage of these weapons? Do they have to give notice of the inspections? What if they discover some other violation (drugs, etc.) when they are conducting the inspection of weapons storage? Is that "off limits" because the primary purpose of the visit was the inspection of weapons storage? Are there even limits to this warrantless search/inspection?
May you live in interesting times indeed...
This appears to be a 4th And Issue but................
The law says you must register your weapon. By registering your weapon you give permission for the search. So they can search.
But if you don't register they don't know for sure you have one - BUT - they can't search without a warrant.
That whole bill is just so stupid - and it's written by folks who got a lot of people's votes.
The Supreme Court is where the 2nd Amd will live or die. 3 1/2 years to sweat it out.
Badger52
02-23-2013, 16:35
The Supreme Court is where the 2nd Amd will live or die. 3 1/2 years to sweat it out.Heh. Given the potential alternative, I raise my coffee cup for their continued health & thorough continued enjoyment of their position within their chosen calling.
argghh...
:rolleyes:
GratefulCitizen
02-23-2013, 16:55
The Supreme Court is where the 2nd Amd will live or die. 3 1/2 years to sweat it out.
I refuse to relinquish my inalienable rights to the opinion of 5 people.
Step 1: Fight it at the ballot box. Should that fail...
Step 2: Pressure legislators. Should that fail...
Step 3: Fight it in the courts. Should that fail...
Step 4: Refuse to comply/ overwhelm enforcement capabilities with civil disobedience. Should that fail...
Step 5: Engage in an open campaign promoting jury nullification/ overwhelm the legal system. Should that fail...
Step 6: If we reach this point, we've long since lost legitimate government.
The whole while, educate as many as will hear and sternly inform the gun grabbers that they will NEVER get their way, NO MATTER THE COST.
Molon labe.
F' Molon labe, what's Greek for 'We're Coming for your Ass!'?
Stiletto11
02-23-2013, 21:58
Here is a response from one of my hacks hell bent on riding the wave of gun control:
Thank you for contacting me about how we can prevent future gun tragedies. I appreciate your correspondence and hope that you find this response helpful.
Gun violence prevention is a sensitive and complicated issue that can be very divisive. While we may not agree on all aspects of how to best enact change, it is important to remember that we do all have the same priorities at heart: the safety of our children, the traditions of our forefathers, and the freedom of our fellow Americans. I can assure you that I am working hard every day to ensure that all of these priorities can be achieved.
Newtown will forever be a reminder of what can happen when even one deranged person can gain access to a deadly weapon. Newtown was not the first time it happened, but I am committed to making sure it is among the last. Too many lives have been traumatically ended or interrupted by gun violence, and our nation has waited too long to establish real safeguards that are capable of protecting the lives of our children and families. Now is the time to work together to establish stronger common sense gun laws that will simultaneously protect our Constitutional rights and keep Americans safe.
As you may be aware, I recently announced my support for the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 , a bill that would take critical steps towards eliminating high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons that are designed to inflict deadly harm and mass casualties. Specifically, this bill will ban semiautomatic weapons that can accept detachable magazines and have at least one military feature, as well as eliminating high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It excludes weapons that are used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement, as well as antique weapons and a specific list of 2,258 makes and models of legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns. Passing this legislation is an important first step in preventing a mass shooting in the future.
But there is still more work to be done. Research has demonstrated again and again that background checks are effective in keeping guns out of the hands of potential criminals, and most American households--gun-owners and non-owners alike--agree on the importance of this safeguard. Unfortunately, 40% of gun sales today do not require background checks because they are private sales, made over the internet or at gun shows through non-licensed dealers. We need to increase the efficacy of our existing program by closing these loopholes and making it harder for dangerous people to obtain deadly weapons.
Further, preventing the next Newtown is not only about reducing access to the deadliest of weapons. Mental illness is a common thread among the perpetrators of recent mass shootings, and identification and treatment of potentially dangerous people must be made a priority. At the same time, we must recognize that there is absolutely no inherent connection between mental illness and violent behavior, and any steps we take to address these issues must not further stigmatize mental illness or discourage individuals and families from seeking diagnosis and treatment.
As we debate ways to stop gun violence, we must also ensure that the conversation does not stop at Newtown, but encompasses the thousands of victims of gun violence across the country every year. Specifically, too many urban neighborhoods are plagued by unacceptably high rates of gun violence. Better access to mental health care and smarter, more effective common sense gun laws can reduce this violence, and I will do everything I can to address this issue not only in the coming months, but every day that I am serving in the United States Senate.
Thank you again for contacting me about this matter. I appreciate hearing from you and assure you that I will always do my best to represent the views of my constituents in the Senate. In the future, please do not hesitate to call me in my Connecticut office at (860) 549-8463 or my Washington office at (202) 224-4041.
Every Best Wish,
Christopher S. Murphy
United States Senator
Stiletto11
02-23-2013, 22:00
And I bet Christie signs it.
TR
Yup, Christie has always been anti gun.
Utah Bob
02-24-2013, 06:18
And pro Twinkie.
And pro Twinkie.
You're awful...but in a funny, intolerant kind of way. :D
The Supreme Court is where the 2nd Amd will live or die. 3 1/2 years to sweat it out.
That's probably my biggest concern.....the Supreme Court.
Hopefully the remainder of the right side of the Court doesn't croak or retire and upset the yin-yang balance of "The Force".
Almost tied for 1st with me is seeing President Obama pick Mary Jo White(Wall Street's best legal friend) to head the SEC. Which would have been like John Gotti's old lawyer Bruce Cutler that got him off so many times made the District Attorney of NYC.....except instead of millions, we're talking trillions.
Who's been prosecuted on Wall Street of substance(beyond obvious ponzi schemers) since "Bush's buddies" at Enron and Worldcom got thrown in jail under President Bush's watch?
When's the last time anyone did a perp walk?
The story behind John Corzine is simply unbelievable.
There's some pretty big and very bad stuff getting smashed through while both the left and the right are bickering over the 2A.
While I reckon the 2A battle is very real, I also think it's a convenient distraction.
You're in the same boat as most other's Bob... The dense urban centers are dictating what the rest of the State does (or doesn't do). Our version here in the flatlands is the elitist libo-crowd and the entitlement handout metro counties control the State....the rest suffer.
The rest will suffer indeed. I was listening to talk radio this morning, and they were discussing how Beretta is going elsewhere should the governors' gun bill go all the way. Link:
Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/berettas-future-in-maryland-tied-to-states-gun-control-debate/2013/02/23/bcc56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html)
Ret10Echo
02-25-2013, 18:35
The rest will suffer indeed. I was listening to talk radio this morning, and they were discussing how Beretta is going elsewhere should the governors' gun bill go all the way. Link:
Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/berettas-future-in-maryland-tied-to-states-gun-control-debate/2013/02/23/bcc56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html)
I don't understand why ANY national or international-level business stays in the PDRM. Those idiots in Assapolis spend their days trying to figure out creative ways to rip everyone off. Virginia is too close (but they are being overwhelmed as well).
Beretta...head on down to the Tidewater region. You'll be welcomed I'm sure.
I'd be shaking the dust from my sandals as soon as possible.
Guntersville authorities would confiscate guns of “unruly” individuals during disasters
http://www.infowars.com/city-wants-power-to-disarm-individuals-during-crisis/
Why the push for this law? As the individuals state in the story LEOs already have the power to deal with "unruly" individuals.
"Guntersville (Ala.) Mayor Leigh Dollar is working with city officials to pass an ordinance that would give police the power to “disarm individuals” during a disaster, a chilling example of how the second amendment is being assaulted via the back door..........................."
"Give us your guns" "No" "Unruly - take 'um down"
nousdefions
02-26-2013, 15:33
I'd be shaking the dust from my sandals as soon as possible.
Come on down to Texas, the weather is fine....except for Amarillo.....:cool:
Badger52
02-26-2013, 18:22
Guntersville authorities would confiscate guns of “unruly” individuals during disastersThanks for posting. Another article (assume the typical news-cycle self-abuse including the video) had the same thing but included this:
The Code of Alabama, 31-9-10, Section C 2 states:
A law enforcement officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual. The officer shall return the firearm to the individual before discharging that individual unless the officer arrests that individual for engaging in criminal activity or seizes the firearm as evidence pursuant to an investigation for the commission of a crime or, at the discretion of the officer, the individual poses a threat to himself or herself or to others.
From here (http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/#!/states/alabama-gun-laws/b-scope-of-preemption/), about handguns specifically:
“No incorporated municipality shall have the power to enact any ordinance, rule, or regulation which shall tax, restrict, prevent, or in any way affect the possession or ownership of handguns by the citizens of the state. The entire subject matter of handguns is reserved to the State Legislature. This section shall not be construed to limit or restrict the power of a municipality to adopt ordinances which make the violation of a state handgun law a violation of a municipal ordinance to the same extent as other state law violations . . . ”
And guns in general:
“(a) No county or municipal corporation, instrumentality, or political subdivision thereof, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows, the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, registration or sue of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, firearms dealers, or dealers, or dealers in firearm components. (b)(1) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority of a municipality has under law to regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality or the authority a county has under law enacted prior to August 1, 2000, to regulate the discharge of firearms within the jurisdiction of the county ”
Now, that's just the theory of Alabama. Will someone stand for being declared a criminal to facilitate their own criminal victimization?
GratefulCitizen
02-26-2013, 20:09
Article V convention.
Indiana Senate plays the trump card.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130226/NEWS05/302260067?odyssey=mod%7Cmostcom
Many states may be in the mood to jump on board.
Badger52
02-26-2013, 20:37
Article V convention.
Indiana Senate plays the trump card.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130226/NEWS05/302260067?odyssey=mod%7Cmostcom
Many states may be in the mood to jump on board.Gotta get back to drafting the retirement papers, so will look into further. However, IIRC (and I might not) some may want to look into that a bit more before signing on. No scholar here but in an Article V convention I believe it's all on the table, not just a few things that are pissing you off to call for one. Jes' sayin'.
GratefulCitizen
02-26-2013, 20:54
Gotta get back to drafting the retirement papers, so will look into further. However, IIRC (and I might not) some may want to look into that a bit more before signing on. No scholar here but in an Article V convention I believe it's all on the table, not just a few things that are pissing you off to call for one. Jes' sayin'.
Still takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any individual amendment proposed.
NurseTim
02-26-2013, 22:02
Article V convention.
Indiana Senate plays the trump card.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130226/NEWS05/302260067?odyssey=mod%7Cmostcom
Many states may be in the mood to jump on board.
Unintended consequences. I have heard that those that call for CC are sometimes bitten in the butt by their creations. Just be careful of what you wish for is all I'm saying.
http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=2005356.proteus.fma
This has to be one of the more ridiculous things I've read so far... and here I thought I was safe from dumb gun control laws when I moved down South. I'd expect this from my home state of Massachusetts, but FL?
TXGringo
03-06-2013, 16:24
http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=2005356.proteus.fma
This has to be one of the more ridiculous things I've read so far... and here I thought I was safe from dumb gun control laws when I moved down South. I'd expect this from my home state of Massachusetts, but FL?
Obama took Florida in 2008 AND 2012. You should try farther West. Don't go too far though. :D
http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=2005356.proteus.fma
This has to be one of the more ridiculous things I've read so far... and here I thought I was safe from dumb gun control laws when I moved down South. I'd expect this from my home state of Massachusetts, but FL?
From the article:
"A Florida legislator wants anyone trying to buy ammunition to complete an anger management program first, in what critics say is the latest example of local lawmakers reaching for constitutionally-dubious solutions to the problem of gun violence.
The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, would require a three-day waiting period for the sale of any firearm and the sale of ammunition to anyone who has not completed anger management courses. The proposal would require ammo buyers to take the anger management courses every 10 years."
I'll take a fricken anger management class to buy ammo when she takes a mandatory IQ test and mandatory common sense classes to be a legislator.
The Reaper
03-06-2013, 19:58
From the article:
"A Florida legislator wants anyone trying to buy ammunition to complete an anger management program first, in what critics say is the latest example of local lawmakers reaching for constitutionally-dubious solutions to the problem of gun violence.
The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, would require a three-day waiting period for the sale of any firearm and the sale of ammunition to anyone who has not completed anger management courses. The proposal would require ammo buyers to take the anger management courses every 10 years."
I'll take a fricken anger management class to buy ammo when she takes a mandatory IQ test and mandatory common sense classes to be a legislator.
Let's just say that Audrey has an abusive boyfriend.
He beats her ass for the umpty-third time, sending her to the hospital, and she gets a restraining order.
He calls her cell phone and tells her he is coming over to kill her and her children once and for good this time.
Should she have to take an anger management class?
How many days should she have to wait before she can buy a handgun and ammunition to protect herself?
Unintended consequences, indeed.
TR
TX- he may have won the state, but not my neck of the woods. I'm too Northern to live in Alamaba or Mississippi easily, but I've enjoyed my visits to Texas. ;-) Never been to NM, NV or AZ. CA-couldn't pay me to live there...
TR- I agree completely. Anyone who has ever been-or has known someone who has been- a victim of domestic violence knows how ASSinine her 'reasoning' is. I know I wouldn't be happy to have to submit to anger management classes just so I could protect myself from harm.
I know there are those who would say "this will never pass legislature", but how many times had that been said previously, only to be proven wrong? Honestly-kind of disturbs me it even made it to the Bill submission stage.
Ret10Echo
03-08-2013, 09:27
Uber-libo freakout crowd has to have rules not to be absolute dolts...
But this is the people's republic....and to use the "Richardism"
And so it goes.....
Lawmaker Introduces Bill After Pop Tart Gun Suspension
Friday, March 08, 2013
Robert Lang
The case of a second grader suspended from school because he shaped his Pop Tart like a gun is prompting legislation in Annapolis.
Baltimore and Harford County Republican Senator J.B. Jennings has introduced a bill that would bar a school from suspending a student for simply drawing a picture of a gun, molding food into the shape of a gun, or pointing their thumb and forefinger in the shape of a gun.
"I don't know what to say. I think it is ridiculous," Jennings told WBAL News in reaction to the suspension of Joshua Welch of Anne Arundel County..
Jennings says a student would still face suspension if using any of these items to attack someone or threaten someone.
Full article at WBAL (http://www.wbal.com/article/98126/2/template-story/Lawmaker-Introduces-Bill-After-Pop-Tart-Gun-Suspension)
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb1277&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS
HB 1277 Increasing the sales and use tax rate for ammunition to 50% of the taxable price; and distributing the revenue from the sales and use tax on ammunition to the Waiting List Equity Fund to pay for services for individuals with developmental disabilities.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb1277&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS
If a legislator proposed a similar tax (50%...and, they'll do us a favor and settle for 25%) on a segment of speech or a governmental entity proposed enacting a similar restraint -- there would be hell to pay.
When one looks at the state proposals in total - if enacted - we are rapidly approaching a point where the people could effectively be considered "disarmed."
Ask anyone who has tried to purchase any 9mm target stuff or .22LR at a retail store, lately.
FWIW, some handgun courses suggest a minimum 1,000 rounds or more for the course. A couple of courses and no ability to replace what you might have used in training and you are SOL. I can go through a couple of hundred rounds at the range, easily, just getting in a little practice before work.
Stiletto11
03-09-2013, 15:18
Here is what's coming down the pike for Connecticut as the commies get ready to vote on the most draconian legislation ever proposed in this state:
A ban on all modern sporting rifles classifying them as "Assault Weapons." ANY rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip will be banned.
Arbitrarily restricting the magazine size to 10 rounds.
Confiscating all magazines holding more than 10 rounds, pistols included as of Oct. 1, 2013.
Mandate an unproven and unavailable smart-gun concept.
Statewide gun registration for all firearms.
One-Gun-A-Month restrictions.
Increase pistol permit fees in order to fund gun-control legislation.
Expand standards and suitability to acquire pistol permit.
Eliminate Board of Firearms Permit Examiners which is the appeal process for anyone denied a permit. (No Appeal Process)
It looks like Barry is waiting for the states to do his dirty work and then he'll clean up the loose ends.
GratefulCitizen
03-14-2013, 20:36
The latest list of sheriffs supporting the 2nd Amendment:
http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/
Tree Potato
03-18-2013, 19:30
The SHAC interim report was released, but doesn't seem to have much attention yet: http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/SHAC_Interim_Report_2013.03.18.pdf
It seems politically motivated to endorse significant additional gun control, so it seems appropriate to post in this thread rather than the others. Please feel free to move if it's better posted elsewhere.
...It is important to note that the Commission postponed discussion of mental health issues until after the interim report in order to develop a strategy to call upon the vast research and the many experts who would want to provide input...
^^^As opposed to firearms issues, where research is lacking and there are no experts to call upon.^^^:rolleyes:
Here's the table of contents; the obvious focus is evident in what is explored first (firearms) and what is not included in this interim report (mental health). The proposed firearms restrictions are exactly what can be expected from the anti-gun crowd:
Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Membership.....3
Introduction and Background.....4
Firearms and Ammunition.....6
--Firearm Permitting and Registration.....6
--High-capacity Firearms, Magazine Capacity, and Ammunition.....6
--Firearm Storage and Security.....8
--Miscellaneous (Firearms and Ammunition).....8
Safe School Design and Human Resource Emergency Preparedness.....10
--Minimum Classroom Security Standards.....10
--Threat and Risk Assessment/Emergency Planning and Response Standards.....10
--Identification and Financing of School Hardening Tactics.....13
--Human Resource Training and Capacity-Building.....13
Additional Required Partnerships and Support.....15
Miscellaneous.....16
--Commission Findings:.....16
Additional SHAC meetings and press release info is here: http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?a=3997&q=516496
G&A report on the best and worst states for firearm owners.
by James Tarr | March 18, 2013
"To provide you, dear reader, with a primer of gun-friendly regions of the United States, we’ve analyzed all 50 states—and Washington, D.C.—and ranked them to find out which are the most pro-gun."
<snip>
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/03/18/text-only/
GratefulCitizen
03-19-2013, 07:31
G&A report on the best and worst states for firearm owners.
by James Tarr | March 18, 2013
"To provide you, dear reader, with a primer of gun-friendly regions of the United States, we’ve analyzed all 50 states—and Washington, D.C.—and ranked them to find out which are the most pro-gun."
<snip>
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/03/18/text-only/
Arizona!!
:lifter
Happy to live in Free America!
New York State Sets Up Gun Snitch Line With $500 Award
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 12:34 PM
Gateway Pundit
New York State is now offering $500 to people who snitch on gun owners.
And, The Troy Record also has news on the tip line on their Facebook page – It is real. There is actually someone there to take your tips… So that state officials can come take your guns.
NY State has established a toll-free tip line – 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text – individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip then contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation.If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500.
This is like something you’d read about in China or Cuba, not America.
Pat Bailey from CBS6 has more on the snitch line.
A program aimed at rewarding people who blow the whistle on illegal gun owners has yet to show significant results, says three police agencies in the New York.
In February of 2012, 11 months before the passage of the NY SAFE Act, Governor Cuomo’s office announced a four pronged initiative to curb gun violence. One of the programs was a cash reward for citizens who lead police to the arrest and confiscation of illegal fire arms.
Known as the “Gun Tip Line”, New Yorkers can call a toll free hotline to alert police if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun. The call would be picked up by state police and local law enforcement would be notified if the tip seemed reliable.
If there was an arrest the tipster would receive as much as $500.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/new-york-state-sets-up-gun-snitch-line/
Badger52
03-20-2013, 18:48
New York State Sets Up Gun Snitch Line With $500 AwardNeighbors... who'd a thunk it? Sad, not the DDR I remember.
Oh, wait - they'd already gotten the guns and were down to simple snitching about visitors from the west.
Ret10Echo
03-21-2013, 07:23
Pennsylvania
Here (http://www.repmetcalfe.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=16800)
Grove and Metcalfe Roll Out Welcome Mat to Gun Manufacturers: ‘We Are Passionate About Defending the Second Amendment in PA’ 3/18/2013 HARRISBURG — State Representatives Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) and Seth Grove (R-York) announced today that they are reaching out to encourage several leading out-of-state firearms and weapons components manufacturers, including Beretta, Magpul and Remington, to relocate their facilities and bring hundreds of jobs to Pennsylvania.
“With America’s single largest per capita representation of National Rifle Association members and more than one million licensed hunters and anglers contributing billions of dollars annually into our state and local economies, Pennsylvania is a natural fit for any of our nation’s major producers of guns, ammunition or accessories that are currently looking for a new home due to the imposition of senseless, gun-grabbing legislation by their state or local governments,” said Metcalfe, who is the prime sponsor of the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (House Bill 357).
Final enactment of House Bill 357 would make any new federal gun control laws unenforceable within the Commonwealth.
“Pennsylvania is known all over the country for clinging to its guns, and it’s time that we use this reputation to our advantage,” Grove added. “By enticing these three companies to Pennsylvania, we are sending a clear message that we welcome their industry, and we also welcome the hundreds of jobs and multi-million dollar economic impact this would bring to the Commonwealth."
This will make me a felon in California WHEN I choose not to comply IF this passes.
SB47 (http://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB47)
Rot in hell Leland Yee. NOT ONE INCH!
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
So it begins...
An arsenal of more than 300 guns, many of them illegal, has been seized from a Long Island home around the corner from a high school, and the homeowner was arrested, authorities said Thursday.
Jay Steiner, 66, was arrested in late January after an undercover Suffolk police officer visited his Centereach home.
Steiner has been charged with criminal possession of a weapon and is free on bail.
"Wow!" said one surprised neighbor. "That's a lot of guns. It's scary." :rolleyes:
Police were acting on a tip from a gun owner who had taken his weapon to Steiner, said Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota.
"The guns were stored all throughout the house," said Spota, as he stood in front of a table filled with the seized weapons.
In all, 85 illegal handguns and 230 rifles and shotguns were found, as well as thousands of rounds of ammunition.
"He had more firepower than the detectives who arrested him," said Spota.
Investigators said Steiner had once held a federal gun license, permitting him to buy and sell weapons, but it expired in 2004.
Steiner maintained a business card, prosecutors said, displaying that expired license number.
Several calls to Steiner's lawyer, William Eppig of West Islip, were not returned.
It's unclear what the Centereach man was doing with all the guns.
The guns are being examined to determine whether any have been stolen or used in crimes.
Steiner had no pistol license for any of the handguns, according to Spota.
LINK (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/21/17403948-300-gun-arsenal-seized-from-long-island-ny-home?lite)
Edit: This happened in January but was reported today. Too bad the snitch couldn't wait a little longer he could have made $500.
Cuomo’s 7-Bullet Limit to Be Suspended Indefinitely, Skelos Says
By Freeman Klopott - Mar 24, 2013 8:30 PM ET
Bloomberg
Governor Andrew Cuomo’s seven-round limit on magazines sold in New York will be suspended “indefinitely” by a measure in his $136.5 billion budget set to be passed this week, Dean Skelos, a Senate majority leader said.
The ban on magazines holding more than seven bullets was set to start April 15. Cuomo has said the law needs to be rolled back because manufacturers don’t make seven-round holders. The measure was a center piece to a gun law the 55-year-old Democratic governor pushed through the legislature in January, making New York the first state to respond with tougher gun regulations to the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre.
<snip>
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-25/cuomo-s-7-bullet-limit-to-be-suspended-indefinitely-skelos-says.html
Cuomo’s 7-Bullet Limit to Be Suspended Indefinitely, Skelos Says
By Freeman Klopott - Mar 24, 2013 8:30 PM ET
Bloomberg
Governor Andrew Cuomo’s seven-round limit on magazines sold in New York will be suspended “indefinitely” by a measure in his $136.5 billion budget set to be passed this week, Dean Skelos, a Senate majority leader said.
The ban on magazines holding more than seven bullets was set to start April 15. Cuomo has said the law needs to be rolled back because manufacturers don’t make seven-round holders. The measure was a center piece to a gun law the 55-year-old Democratic governor pushed through the legislature in January, making New York the first state to respond with tougher gun regulations to the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre.
<snip>
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-25/cuomo-s-7-bullet-limit-to-be-suspended-indefinitely-skelos-says.html
Wonder why he picked "7", anyway...:munchin
Wonder why he picked "7", anyway...:munchin
Because it was less than ten. After this all settles down and there is another shooting, it will become five. I mean like how many rounds do you need to kill Bambi?
Stiletto11
03-27-2013, 09:41
"7 round holders" uh huh.
Wonder why he picked "7", anyway...
Cuomo is a closet 1911 fan.
Stiletto11
04-02-2013, 18:41
http://news.yahoo.com/connecticut-responds-newtown-groundbreaking-gun-control-laws-205226340.html
Does this qualify as an "Infringement?" This is a case of zealots (commies) trying to out do New York and have the top position on the manifesto. Commiecticut is a small state and may not get the attention of Colorado but it is in the "cradle of communisim." The framers are rolling over in their graves. I hope Colt and Stag pull out but Colt is so far up the govt's ass with it's contracts I doubt they will move.
I hope Colt and Stag pull out but Colt is so far up the govt's ass with it's contracts I doubt they will move.
Maybe some consumer pressure is in order...
GratefulCitizen
04-11-2013, 20:21
In Texas?!?
:eek:
First 40 seconds of the video.
http://youtu.be/a0LwGnaKZy8
Wonder why he picked "7", anyway...:munchin
Because he knows nothing about weapons, and was too lazy to ask his personal bodyguards? ;)
Because he knows nothing about weapons, and was too lazy to ask his personal bodyguards? ;)
No. It's to force manufacturers to re-tool at a higher capital expenditure.
Pat
I was just down at the tanner gun show, and was trying to do a trade of one of my pistols for another pistol that a FFL dealer had. Long story short my background check failed. LOL
Now I have to send in the appeal form.
I had two forms of ID and my military orders with me, my record is clean as far as I know. ( I just bought a pistol 4 months ago and another ruger 10/22)
If they keep this up I wont be retiring in this state. :munchin
More on the national side of the legislative agenda than the state side but interesting and timely, nonetheless. Some thoughts and observations on the subject of the proposed Manchin-Toomey amendment at link below - by someone well versed in the gun control arena
The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control
David Kopel • April 15, 2013 2:20 am
The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular:
1. The provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry.
2. The provision which is supposed to strengthen existing federal law protecting the interstate transportation of personal firearms in fact cripples that protection.
<snip>
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/
In Texas?!?
:eek:
First 40 seconds of the video.
http://youtu.be/a0LwGnaKZy8
No, that's not Texas...that's Austin! Or what is known as "Califonia East"!
LIFE Act Votes:
SB 374 Assault Weapons - passed 5-2
SB 47 Bullet Button - passed 5-2
SB 293 Smart Gun Tech - passed 5-2
SB 299 Lost or stolen - passed 5-2
SB 53 Ammunition: purchase permits - passed 5-2
SB 683 Safety Certificate - passed 5-2
SB 567 Illegal Shotgun - passed 5-2
SB 108 Residential Storage - passed 5-2
SB 585 Cow Palace Gun Show Ban- passed 5-2
SB 396 Mega-Magazines - passed 5-2
SB 755 Prohibited Gun Owners - passed 5-2