View Full Version : Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
Pages :
1
2
[
3]
4
5
6
7
8
9
Black Elk said it best many years ago:
"The boys of my people began very young to learn the ways of men, and no one taught us; we just learned by doing what we saw, and we were warriors at a time when boys now are like girls."
Boys can't be boys any more.
Black Elk said it best many years ago:
"The boys of my people began very young to learn the ways of men, and no one taught us; we just learned by doing what we saw, and we were warriors at a time when boys now are like girls."
Boys can't be boys any more.
which, quite honestly, sucks. give me 'boys being boys' over 'metrosexuals' any day of the week. it teaches them a level of self-respect sorely lacking nowadays..I have found that the boys taught to behave like boys(& therefore men) are the ones that show the most kindness, respect and common decency to those who are weaker...
which, quite honestly, sucks. give me 'boys being boys' over 'metrosexuals' any day of the week. it teaches them a level of self-respect sorely lacking nowadays..I have found that the boys taught to behave like boys(& therefore men) are the ones that show the most kindness, respect and common decency to those who are weaker...
Yeah man...it helps teach We instead of Me, Myself, and I.
ddoering
06-11-2013, 05:41
Our growing boys may never get the chance. One more baby step in citizen disarmament:
'Children at a California elementary school were able to turn in their toy guns for books and raffle tickets on Saturday.
School Principal Charles Hill, who came up with “Strobridge Elementary Safety Day,” said toy guns teach kids to not take real guns seriously, San Jose Mercury News reported.
“Playing with toys guns, saying ‘I’m going to shoot you,’ desensitizes them, so as they get older, it’s easier for them to use a real gun,” Mr. Hill said.'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/calif-elementary-school-offers-toy-gun-buyback/
:mad::confused:
Hitler did the same thing. He knew he could never convince most ordinary Germans that his way was right so he established the Hitler Youth to ensure the next generation was properly indoctrinated.
Sad.
Two more articles from Guns Magazine 1963
Maryland Shall Issue, in association with the Associated Gun Clubs of Maryland, the Maryland Licensed Firearm Dealers Association, and several individual plaintiffs filed a complaint today in Baltimore County Circuit Court against the Maryland State Police (MSP) for the state’s failure to process firearm applications within the seven days mandated by Maryland law.
The MSP’s failure to comply with its statutory duty -- which MSP has admitted is taking closer to 55 than the required seven days -- infringes the fundamental constitutional right of Maryland citizens to purchase and keep firearms for purposes of self-defense in their homes, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and puts them at risk while the bureaucracy takes its time to process citizen applications. The lawsuit seeks a court order compelling the MSP to process all firearms applications in seven days as required by law.
Additionally, the MSP’s failure to issue approvals has caused significant economic harm to licensed firearms dealers in Maryland. These business owners also risk civil or criminal sanctions if a firearm has been transferred to a purchaser whose application is later disapproved by the MSP.
We have requested an expedited review of this case given the nature of the harm brought against our members who are attempting to exercise a civil right. Additionally, the plaintiffs are listed as anonymous individuals - publishing their names would provide those persons looking to do harm notice that their potential victim is unarmed. For this reason, we ask that you do not speculate on their identity.
It has been 30 days since this was filed. Hope to hear results soon.
Badger52
06-17-2013, 12:04
It has been 30 days since this was filed. Hope to hear results soon.Is that 8 months in Maryland time?
:mad:
Maybe when POTUS referred to 57 states he was thinking of those states that have their own more draconian guidelines for peasant behavior. Isn't it usually 3 days and, in the absence of any word back, an implied approval?
psherlin
06-18-2013, 09:34
Here the State Police have 120 days to either give you your license or tell you why they rejected you. I have been a Safety Instructor for Concealed Carry since we started. Was part of the group that came up with the standards. This is the current listing of states that issue Concealed Handgun Licenses that are recognized and honored by the State of Arkansas.
Alabama Michigan South Carolina
Alaska Minnesota South Dakota
Arizona Mississippi Tennessee
Colorado Missouri Texas
Delaware Montana Utah
Florida Nebraska Virginia
Georgia New Hampshire Washington
Idaho New Mexico West Virginia
Iowa Nevada Wisconsin
Indiana North Carolina Wyoming
Kansas North Dakota (Class 1 only) must be over 21
Kentucky Ohio
Louisiana (state only) not individual Parishes Oklahoma
Maine Pennsylvania
Here the State Police have 120 days to either give you your license or tell you why they rejected you. I have been a Safety Instructor for Concealed Carry since we started. Was part of the group that came up with the standards. This is the current listing of states that issue Concealed Handgun Licenses that are recognized and honored by the State of Arkansas.
Alabama Michigan South Carolina
Alaska Minnesota South Dakota
Arizona Mississippi Tennessee
Colorado Missouri Texas
Delaware Montana Utah
Florida Nebraska Virginia
Georgia New Hampshire Washington
Idaho New Mexico West Virginia
Iowa Nevada Wisconsin
Indiana North Carolina Wyoming
Kansas North Dakota (Class 1 only) must be over 21
Kentucky Ohio
Louisiana (state only) not individual Parishes Oklahoma
Maine Pennsylvania
Nice, like the West.
It should be that when you pass a background check and qualification in any state its for the whole damn country...especially since that's the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.
Badger52
06-18-2013, 13:24
Here the State Police have 120 days to either give you your license or tell you why they rejected you.I believe pcfixer is speaking above to the issue of simply being allowed to carry through a purchase and get the permission slip such that the buyer can legally own the firearm, not a carry permit process.
awisewon
06-18-2013, 13:38
“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, Its the Right of the People not the military or anyone else that shall not be infringed. Any, Any, Any Restrictions are in fact in direct violation of the Constitution. You cannot fight fire with fire if you do not have at least equal fire power and its nor the gov or states business what supplies and fire power the people have and hold so long as they are not using such to commit crimes which most are not. That means jacking up prices, limits on ammo or types of weapons held by the people in order to keep our nation safe. we also have the what if, what if we are invaded by our enemies could we distribute enough fire power to our civilian population in time to hold off such a invasion, I think not nor do most of our civilian population have the needed skills and training to engage in massive combat. To me its only prudent that as a entire nation we be ready and trained at least in the basics and that the civilian population have a certain bond and faith as well as trust in those who serve in our armed forces a established relationship so to speak more than just a thank you for your service which most civilians really don't know what all that service really means. We are in critical times in our country if all Hell cuts loose for any reason natural disaster invasion whatever our military needs the faith and trust of the people to restore order and follow their instruction knowing its for their greater good and safety.
Badger52
06-18-2013, 17:07
Whether you want a Serbu .50 BMG or not, this is an interesting twist on the NY SAFE Act. I like it - alot.
:cool:
LINK to full story. (http://www.examiner.com/article/jpfo-offers-chance-to-win-gun-denied-to-nypd?CID=examiner_alerts_article)
Your chances to win a Serbu BFG-50A rifle are dwindling with each passing moment if Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Executive Director Charles Heller’s predictions are correct.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
“We have sold almost half of the tickets this morning,” Heller told Gun Rights Examiner, expressing his belief the rest will be gone “most likely by tomorrow morning. If not, probably before we light the Shabbos candles...”
Heller announced the drawing during a “Roundtable” segment on Armed American Radio Sunday evening, informing host Mark Walters, Neil McCabe of Human Events, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and this correspondent that Serbu Manufacturing had been contacted by NYPD SWAT for a quote on this rifle, but refused the business, explaining that if it was not legal for New York gun owners to buy one, then they would not sell it to New York law enforcement.
“But YOU can have a chance of owning this superb .50 cal, semi-auto rifle!” JPFO announced on their website. “The JPFO logo is to be engraved onto the side of the action and this unique one-of-one rifle will have the serial number "JPFO 01". A letter of provenance will accompany the gun from the manufacturer, stating that this rifle is 1 of 1, and it indeed is the one that NYPD could not have.
“Now, an Arizona charity is running a draw to benefit JPFO, and you could be the winner!” the announcement continues.
“The drawing is to be held on September 28th 2013 in Houston, at Gun Rights Policy Conference,” the announcement continues.
psherlin
06-19-2013, 11:49
We are still trying to get a National Carry law, along the lines as your drivers license, if a state has you one, yours is good in their state. Our problem is the seven states that have the most gun restrictions, which just happen to be the ones with the highest crime rates keep messing it up. Last try we were 4 votes short in the Senate.
If more people would read the Federalist Papers, they would know why the amendments were added to the Constitution. Most people would be surprised to know that your rights to own firearms is you only civil right not automatically restored if you have been convicted of a felony then given a pardon. It must state in your pardon that your right to own firearms have been reinstated.
Maryland Shall Issue, in association with the Associated Gun Clubs of Maryland, the Maryland Licensed Firearm Dealers Association, and several individual plaintiffs filed a complaint today in Baltimore County Circuit Court against the Maryland State Police (MSP) for the state’s failure to process firearm applications within the seven days mandated by Maryland law.
The MSP’s failure to comply with its statutory duty -- which MSP has admitted is taking closer to 55 than the required seven days -- infringes the fundamental constitutional right of Maryland citizens to purchase and keep firearms for purposes of self-defense in their homes, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and puts them at risk while the bureaucracy takes its time to process citizen applications. The lawsuit seeks a court order compelling the MSP to process all firearms applications in seven days as required by law.
Additionally, the MSP’s failure to issue approvals has caused significant economic harm to licensed firearms dealers in Maryland. These business owners also risk civil or criminal sanctions if a firearm has been transferred to a purchaser whose application is later disapproved by the MSP.
We have requested an expedited review of this case given the nature of the harm brought against our members who are attempting to exercise a civil right. Additionally, the plaintiffs are listed as anonymous individuals - publishing their names would provide those persons looking to do harm notice that their potential victim is unarmed. For this reason, we ask that you do not speculate on their identity.
It has been 30 days since this was filed. Hope to hear results soon.
What a poorly drafted Complaint, unfortunately. I predict the defense filing and receiving a 12(b)(6) dismissal with some "shotgun pleading" language thrown in by the judge. Sure it'll be dismissed Without Prejudice but with Rule 11 hovering, the Plaintiff attorney won't refile. I see some good ideas in the pleading but using that Venue and those particular arguments is a loser.
We are still trying to get a National Carry law, along the lines as your drivers license, if a state has you one, yours is good in their state. Our problem is the seven states that have the most gun restrictions, which just happen to be the ones with the highest crime rates keep messing it up. Last try we were 4 votes short in the Senate.
If more people would read the Federalist Papers, they would know why the amendments were added to the Constitution. Most people would be surprised to know that your rights to own firearms is you only civil right not automatically restored if you have been convicted of a felony then given a pardon. It must state in your pardon that your right to own firearms have been reinstated.
I've had carry licenses in some of those states and they are real pain in the ass. Guilty until innocent environment...two or three taps? We'll have to look at this extra hard, why didn't you shot them in the leg, your scores show you can?
Think lack of understanding, personal limitations and fears, and the desire to control everything (an impossible goal) will make a National CCW unlikely. Doesn't mean it ain't worth trying for though.
see post #513
77R Litigation Successful - MSP Agrees that Dealers Can Release Guns
We filed a lawsuit against Maryland State Police because Maryland citizens were not being cleared by Maryland State Police to receive their purchased regulated firearms within the seven days required by law.
Maryland State Police's processing time had become greater than 60 days.
Maryland State Police had not provided any formal or informal guidance to sellers on whether they could release firearms after the seven day waiting period. Marylanders were waiting months to obtain handguns they had purchased for protection in their homes.
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=p85wsocab&v=001cVDYB6QxH7x8b2x917z_q5TxyQ_VuDFVg8kYjSF2q_VTf y2kfx0R8bQQ76kzKBTT89muNYY8vDeIeRK1QRrra31RatvkbC7 PUUWMl0Qmk_NRwBaDiOXMTjVubCjNWIE4QfvHUTJyc-DJaw-KcKI7FHyRDsUtCSuwMrg3k3ErFjNBwdryirbAA-s-eTcK-2WlKESG7cb1KD4%3D#LETTER.BLOCK91
Based on the State of Maryland's official statements binding themselves before the Court in this lawsuit through the Maryland State Police and the Maryland Attorney General, we have accomplished our goal with this lawsuit.
One small legal battle won by Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association (MLFDA) and MSI.
I believe pcfixer is speaking above to the issue of simply being allowed to carry through a purchase and get the permission slip such that the buyer can legally own the firearm, not a carry permit process.
Correct! Maryland's law is a 7 day wait from purchase date at FFL.
After filling out a ATF 4473, the buyer fills out a Maryland form 77R.
From what I'm told the NICS check and backround check is done by MSP
in "7 days" for release on 8th day.
This all worked fine until lately with the SB 281 passed and will be signed into law on 1 Oct 2013.
This is what is new Maryland law. NRA WILL go to court as of 1 Oct I'm told.
http://marylandshallissue.org/share/SafetyActFAQ.pdf
psherlin
06-21-2013, 20:42
I had a license in MA when I was in the 10th GP. Was not a real problem to get it. In NY it sat in the Watertown Police department for 5 years as there was no time limit and they did not like the military.
This pass weekend in AR they caught a felon in possession of a fire arm with drugs, after he robbed a store and fled from the police. Under the Federal law its 5 years for the gun and each of the others are multipliers, for time without parole. Under state law he might get two. Every time the Feds get a case from the local, the liaison for the Feds emails me to let me know the got another one. The down side is the Maytag repairman gets more business them him. On the upside, its the first day of summer so I celebrated by giving myself 4 boxed of 325 gr. 50 cal AE and 4 boxes of 325 gr. S&W 50 cal.
Surgicalcric
06-21-2013, 22:04
...Most people would be surprised to know that your rights to own firearms is you only civil right not automatically restored if you have been convicted of a felony then given a pardon. It must state in your pardon that your right to own firearms have been reinstated.
That is not totally correct as it varies state to state. In SC once a person is "pardoned" all of the individual rights are restored including the right to bear arms. ;)
Past time for this thread to receive a well deserved bump.
Why Gun Owners Are Right to Fight Against Gun Control
The anti-gun crowd doesn't want "compromise." They want confiscation and control.
David T Hardy | July 18, 2013
Reason.com
In April, the Senate rejected the Toomey-Manchin gun control proposal. In the wake of its defeat many asked why gun owners and their organizations resisted so limited a measure. Granted, it would have had little but symbolic benefit. Its core was to require background checks at gun shows (which Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded involved a whole 0.8 percent of crime guns) and on Internet gun sales (a miniscule proportion, most of which probably go through licensed dealers anyway). But why not accept something so modest, in light of the draconian ideas then being floated as alternatives?
Understanding the rejection requires understanding gun owners’ shared experiences. Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun owners.
Back in 1976, Pete Shields, chairman of what is today the Brady Campaign, candidly laid out the blueprint for The New Yorker:
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.
The group’s first target was “Saturday Night Specials,” inexpensive small revolvers, alleged to be criminals’ preferred gun. When that approach gained traction, Shields shifted to a larger target, claim that criminals were now using “expensive, but small pistols,” so all small pistols had to be banned. “Concealability is the key,” he now explained.
As the years passed, it became apparent that this was going nowhere; a different first “slice” would have to be found. In 1990, Violence Policy Center (VPC) announced that it had found it. The debate must be switched from small handguns to large “assault rifles.”
Handguns, VPC explained, had become a media and political nonissue, while calls to outlaw “assault rifles” would benefit from mistaken impressions, i.e., “the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.” That rifles of all types were involved in about 300 homicides a year was beside the point. The search was for a target of opportunity, not a solution to crime.
The major gun control organizations bought the idea, to the point of changing their names to replace “handgun” with “gun.” Pete Shields’ group, Handgun Control, Inc., became the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns became the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.
The change underscored a lesson gun owners had already learned. Their opponents would go for any target of opportunity—if handgun restrictions didn’t fly, try to restrict rifles—and use that as a foundation to take more in the future. Any “reasonable compromise” would simply be a first step in a long campaign to make firearm ownership as difficult, expensive, and legally risky as possible.
Take the example of California. There, 1920s legislation required a permit for concealed carry of a firearm, required dealers to report handgun sales to the state, and imposed a one-day waiting period for handgun sales.
The one-day wait was meant to impede “crimes of passion,” but in 1955 it was increased to three days, in 1965 to five days, and in 1975 to 10 days.
Open carry of a firearm was initially allowed. In 1967, open carrying of loaded guns was prohibited. In recent years, open carrying even of unloaded guns was forbidden in incorporated areas. The mere sight of an unloaded gun was apparently too much for the California legislature to tolerate.
In 2001, dealers were forbidden to sell handguns that were not approved by the government, after rigorous laboratory testing, funded by the manufacturer. Every slight variation, even changes in color or finish, required a new certification. The tests actually had nothing to do with reliability or safety, as evidenced by the exemption of law enforcement firearms from them.
Along the way, the state banned “assault weapons,” magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and private gun sales that didn’t go through dealers. In 1999, “one gun a month” was enacted, for no discernible reason (why would a gun runner pick the most tightly regulated state in the West as his source?)
Today, the weapons regulation portion of the California Penal Code Annotated spans over 1,050 pages, yet at last count 68 more gun control measures are pending in the legislature. No matter how much the advocates of gun control get, it will never be enough.
(Page 2 of 2)
Or try New Jersey, which requires a license to own guns, plus a separate permit for each handgun. Carrying open or concealed is in practice forbidden (the legal standard for a permit is “urgent necessity”), carrying of hollow-point bullets is subject to complex rules, and magazines are limited to 15 rounds.
That’s not enough, apparently, since the New Jersey legislature is considering bills to cut the magazine limit to five rounds, and to require psychiatric evaluations and home inspections before issuance of the firearm ownership license. Recently three legislators had an embarrassing “hot mike” problem after a gun bill hearing, in which someone proclaimed, “We needed a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
Or try New York, long considered to have the strictest gun laws in the country, including requiring pistol possession permits (issued at the sole discretion of police, with application fees as high as $340), carry permits limited in some jurisdictions to government officials and celebrities, and a 10 round magazine limit. Then came the Newtown slayings, and the legislature decided it must do something more. The legislation it rushed through reduced the allowed magazine capacity to seven rounds (effectively outlawing the many firearms for which seven round magazines have never been made), required background checks to buy ammunition, and greatly broadened its “assault rifle ban.”
New York’s Attorney General described this as “modest first step.”
So much for compromise.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/18/why-second-amendment-supporters-are-righ
David T. Hardy is a Tucson, Arizona attorney and author. He has published 21 law review articles on the right to arms, two of which have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, and produced the documentary film In Search of the Second Amendment.
As I see there are too many judges, lawyers that do not read into the DC vs Heller case and the US Constitution and it's contextual meaning. One of this is in the text of the DC vs Heller opinion. Yes, I know it is an opinion 5-4 also.
page 34 of opinion.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf#page=48&zoom=100,0,754
In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential reatise, whichanalyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” Rawle 121–122.
.It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."
Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.
I would submit that AR's are protected and so are 20 or 30 round magazines for those firearms.
That opinion has also been used to show the idea that the NFA should have no bearing over weapons that are in common use by the military, such as machine guns, silencers etc.
Today that opinion may be contested as written because short barrel shotguns are in fact in use by the military.
The Reaper
07-25-2013, 17:29
Neither the accused, Miller, nor his attorney showed up to argue this case.
The government was the sole presenter.
I wish Mr. Miller had a Thompson or a BAR instead of a short-barrelled shotgun.
Then the government would have had to make a completely different argument, one that might not have been sustained.
TR
Ark. District Arming More Than 20 Teachers, Staff With Guns
By ANDREW DeMILLO Associated Press
CLARKSVILLE, Ark. July 30, 2013 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story/ark-district-arming-20-teachers-staff-19811385?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fsigforum.com%2Feve%2Ffor ums%2Fa%2Ftpc%2Ff%2F320601935%2Fm%2F4850013923
Massad Ayoob: The right carry gun (http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/05/massad-ayoob-the-right-carry-gun)
<snips>
For that matter, when the individual finds a single gun that seems best suited to him or her, even that isn’t always the best for all the time, in every place or season. We don’t wear the same clothing in a New Hampshire winter we’d wear in an Arizona summer. We don’t hunt woodchucks with the same guns we’d use to hunt moose. Why use one gun for every single time we carry?
The bottom line? It’s up to each of us to assess our own “threat profile.” Each of us has different body shapes and wardrobe selections for both workdays and “off-duty.” Each of us has different mixes of experience and habituation with guns. And all those things can change day-to-day, season-to-season, and situation-to-situation.
No one else decides for us. The choices are ours. And if you wind up with a “wardrobe of carry guns” just as you already have a wardrobe of clothing for different seasons and occasions… well, there just isn’t anything wrong with that.
The Reaper
08-06-2013, 16:28
Regarding the 1939 case, shotguns were used very extensively in World War I by the U.S. military. They were nicknamed "trench brooms" and the Germans wanted to try American soldiers who used them as war criminals. So they most definitely are "military weapons."
IIRC, Miller was sporting a sawed-off double barrel, not a trench gun.
TR
An interesting story - complete article at link below.
Virginia gun crime drops, as state's firearms sales soar
Published August 04, 2013
FoxNews.com
Amid calls nationwide for stricter gun control laws, Virginia is experiencing a unique trend: the state's gun-related crime is declining but firearms sales are increasing.
Firearms sales rose 16 percent to a record 490,119 guns purchased from licensed gun dealers in 2012, according to sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
During the same period, major crimes committed with firearms dropped 5 percent to 4,378.
"This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don't necessarily lead to more crime," said Thomas R. Baker, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University's L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs who specializes in research methods and criminology theory.
"It's a quite interesting trend given the current rhetoric about strengthening gun laws and the presumed effect it would have on violent crimes," Baker told the newspaper. "While you can't conclude from this that tougher laws wouldn't reduce crime even more, it really makes you question if making it harder for law-abiding people to buy a gun would have any effect on crime."
<snip>
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/04/virginia-gun-crime-drops-as-firearms-sales-soar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+(Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text)
That opinion has also been used to show the idea that the NFA should have no bearing over weapons that are in common use by the military, such as machine guns, silencers etc.
Today that opinion may be contested as written because short barrel shotguns are in fact in use by the military.
Even seen Detectives in the Bronx use the old sawed off double barrel side by side during raids.
Can't miss :D
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catosletterv11n3.pdf
Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute and co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller.
Levy spoke in the Institute’s F. A. Hayek Auditorium in June.
The right to bear arms, however, is not absolute. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, it’s subject to reasonable restrictions.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declared in both Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms is considered a “fundamental right.”
What does that mean? It means individuals enjoy a presumption of liberty. Government bears a heavy burden to justify any regulations that would compromise our right to bear arms.
That point was central to a ruling in December 2012 by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Moore v. Madigan, which overturned
the Illinois ban on concealed-carry of firearms. The state, said the court, failed to meet its burden of proof.
With that as a brief background, let’s look at some of the current gun control proposals that are pending before both Congress and state legislatures.
Take, for instance, highcapacity magazines. It’s not difficult to imagine multiple-victim killings—
like the ones in Newtown—where innocent lives might have been saved if we had an effective ban on highcapacity magazines. The key word, of
course, is “effective.” An ineffective ban is worse than useless because it deters only law-abiding citizens. So what restrictions should be allowed?
One point I seem to always hear from the anti-gun crowd is "The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute." Mr Levy uses that phrase here in this letter.
It's like the difference between weapon and firearm.
I am one who is in favor of the "presumption of liberty".
http://www.cato.org/blog/presumption-liberty
Reasonable is an extraordinarily subjective term and, IMHO, one courts and legislators should not use. What is reasonable to one person most definitely won't be to another.
1998 - July 2013 data for NICS background checks.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics-firearm-background-checks-1998_2013_state_monthly_totals-033113.pdf
1998 - July 2013 data for NICS background checks.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics-firearm-background-checks-1998_2013_state_monthly_totals-033113.pdf
Those folks in Kentucky are some gun buying fools...
They've been averaging 2 million+ background checks for the last 5 years or so...
Kentucky official state motto:
"United we stand, divided we fall"
Maybe, the KY state firearm should be the AR.
Some interesting news from OZ.
GUN CRIME 'OUT OF CONTROL' DESPITE STRICT AUSTRALIA LAWS
Breitbart
by AWR HAWKINS 21 Aug 2013
As former Australian politician Tim Fischer turns the shooting of Christopher Lane into an opportunity to push a travel boycott until the U.S. changes its gun laws, police in Sydney launched "a new plan to tackle out-of-control gun violence" there.
The new action against gun violence was launched on August 21 and will pull together various police-sponsored gun control operations into one. The name of the new effort is Operation Talon.
According to the Ballina Shire Advocate, "over 9,000 guns have been taken off New South Wales (NSW) streets and 3352 people have charged" during previous operations in the last 12 months alone.
NSW police commissioner Andrew Scipione explained: "There is no single source of gun violence... guns have fallen into the hands of organized crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs, mid-level crime groups and petty thieves and the lines are often blurred."
Not ironically, Australia implemented a massive purge of guns in 1996, which included bans on "assault weapons" and other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. They also did forced buybacks and then entered into a strict licensing and registration agreement where certain single-shot rifles and similar firearms could be owned but only if the owner provided justification for the possession of such a weapon.
Yet 17 years after the implementation of gun control schemes that are very similar in many ways to those being pushed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the NSW police department is launching a new operation to rein in gun violence.
The lesson: criminals do not pay attention to gun bans. They never have and they never will.
<snip>
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/21/Aussie-Politician-Complains-About-U-S-Gun-Laws-But-Gun-Crime-In-Sydney-Is-Out-Of-Control
Some interesting news from OZ.
GUN CRIME 'OUT OF CONTROL' DESPITE STRICT AUSTRALIA LAWS
Breitbart
by AWR HAWKINS 21 Aug 2013
As former Australian politician Tim Fischer turns the shooting of Christopher Lane into an opportunity to push a travel boycott until the U.S. changes its gun laws, police in Sydney launched "a new plan to tackle out-of-control gun violence" there.
The new action against gun violence was launched on August 21 and will pull together various police-sponsored gun control operations into one. The name of the new effort is Operation Talon.
According to the Ballina Shire Advocate, "over 9,000 guns have been taken off New South Wales (NSW) streets and 3352 people have charged" during previous operations in the last 12 months alone.
NSW police commissioner Andrew Scipione explained: "There is no single source of gun violence... guns have fallen into the hands of organized crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs, mid-level crime groups and petty thieves and the lines are often blurred."
Not ironically, Australia implemented a massive purge of guns in 1996, which included bans on "assault weapons" and other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. They also did forced buybacks and then entered into a strict licensing and registration agreement where certain single-shot rifles and similar firearms could be owned but only if the owner provided justification for the possession of such a weapon.
Yet 17 years after the implementation of gun control schemes that are very similar in many ways to those being pushed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the NSW police department is launching a new operation to rein in gun violence.
The lesson: criminals do not pay attention to gun bans. They never have and they never will.
<snip>
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/21/Aussie-Politician-Complains-About-U-S-Gun-Laws-But-Gun-Crime-In-Sydney-Is-Out-Of-Control
I remember the change in gun laws in Australia, was right after the Port Arthur massacre. From that point on my father and I were suppose to mount our rifles in a locked cabinet with the bolts kept separate and also the ammo stored separately.
In an emergency guess I could have used the rifle as a club while I rooted around in the dark putting it all together.
And yes I completely agree the crims don't ever obey gun laws anyways.
This is an interesting turnaround. Because there has been no major news coverage regarding the many who have been seriously hurt - or killed - by this "knockout game", it is interesting to hear about when the criminal thugs target someone who does not choose to be a victim.
Yes, this is from WND; but Colin Flaherty is perhaps the only one covering this issue on a "national" format. (The crimes are sometimes reported on local news; but are always "played-down"; and generally there is no mention of just who the thugs are.)
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/intended-knockout-game-victim-shoots-back/
Not much new here, but it can be interesting to read the enemy's playbook...so much focus on making emotional arguments.
PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING
PREPARED BY:
FRANK O’BRIEN | OMP
JOHN NEFFINGER AND MATTHEW KOHUT | KNP COMMUNICATIONS AL QUINLAN | GREENBERG QUINLAN ROSNER RESEARCH
There is a 'gun control playbook' versus Washington gun owners
Examiner.com
August 1, 2013
The firearms community has long quipped about gun control strategies from a “playbook,” but yesterday a major gun rights group discovered that advice from a genuine guide to waging a politically-savvy gun control campaign – produced in part by Washington, D.C.consultants who did research for a Washington State gun control group – is part of that group’s political effort.
The 70-plus page guide, produced last year and posted on-line as a pdf by Temple Beth El though a link no longer appears on the TBE website, is titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging.” It offers tips on everything from using effective rhetoric to dividing National Rifle Association members from NRA leadership. One of the people who prepared the guide was Al Quinlan, a principle of the Washington, D.C.-based firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR), which also has offices in London and Buenos Aires.
<snip>
http://www.examiner.com/article/there-is-a-gun-control-playbook-versus-washington-gun-owners
Link to document below:
PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING
PREPARED BY:
FRANK O’BRIEN | OMP
JOHN NEFFINGER AND MATTHEW KOHUT | KNP COMMUNICATIONS AL QUINLAN | GREENBERG QUINLAN ROSNER RESEARCH
http://86262a2d5a8678610839-0d14e49ee6aa00b4013e3b6293913ee7.r99.cf1.rackcdn.c om/Gun%20ViolenceMessaging%20Guide%20PDF-1.pdf
miclo18d
08-31-2013, 10:14
SB374, which redefines as "assault weapons" all semiautomatic centerfire rifles with detachable box magazines and thus outlaws any further purchases of them, just passed the committee, along with a number of other gun control measures, in California. Here is a website to send a letter to Jerry Brown: LINK (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/askbrown/)
This is important, IMO, because California has a history of "pioneering" new gun control laws. Thus far, no state has tried to go so far as redefining "assault weapon" to constitute any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine period. If this passes and the courts fail to shoot it down, then other courts around the country might see Cali's legislation as "reasonable gun control" and other states that lean Left will be very tempted to try something like this at some point IMO.
And just also California is a big state, we don't want a complete crackdown on gun rights there. If this was in Rhode Island or something, I wouldn't care as much. But as goes Cali on guns, so may go many other states and/or localities. And whatever you write to Governor Brown, be polite and professional.
Please reread what you wrote here and edit appropriately.
If I wrote something like "I wish California would just sink into the ocean and take their silly gun laws with them!", I think you might get offended. Ya think?
I would bet that people in RI that believe in the 2A probably care A LOT about ther rights too!
And each state that goes left of Cali affects us ALL!
Well I said I wouldn't care as much, not that I wouldn't care. But I mean there's a difference between a small entity going anti-gun versus a large one. For example, the anti-gun policies of New York, Washington D.C., etc...although I despise them, I can live with them being confined to those cities. But expanded to the state levels, that would be very bad. Similarly, with states, a tiny state with a small population going very anti-gun is one thing, but a massive state, that is a much bigger concern.
All the "reasonable" gun laws are unconstitutional with the exceptions of mentally ill and felon restrictions without a constitutional amendment that states otherwise. No state or locality should be allowed to circumvent any right, small or large. It does affect all of us sooner or later.
powers to ban the further re-importation of surplus M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from South Korea
Seem to recall there was a gov program that encouraged the use of the Garland in competitive shooting...wanker order.
Signed it...Good link
Peregrino
09-01-2013, 11:16
Seem to recall there was a gov program that encouraged the use of the Garland (????) in competitive shooting...wanker order.
Signed it...Good link
Fascinating. I'm familiar with traditions including bestowing a garland on the winner of a competitive event but I've never actually heard of competing with them.
(The reference you're searching for is www.odcmp.org.)
Fascinating. I'm familiar with traditions including bestowing a garland on the winner of a competitive event but I've never actually heard of competing with them.
(The reference you're searching for is www.odcmp.org.)
Thanks for that, yes Garand...glad it's still going
Team Sergeant
09-01-2013, 19:44
So in the wake of Newtown, Obama has used one of his Executive Order powers to ban the further re-importation of surplus M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from South Korea (because we all know how so many people are being shot by people using those each year). A real kicker to this though is that out of all the various guns Senator Feinstein sought to ban with her proposed Assault Weapons Ban, the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine were both exempted.
A petition has been filed at the White House website asking to rescind this EO. You can sign it here: LINK (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/retract-executive-order-against-re-importation-us-military-firearms/Gw1Pc64d) The White House has raised the number of signatures needed on a petition to garner an official response (up to 100,000). The petition has until September 28 to get about 95,000 additional signatures. Don't know if that is doable or not, but we should try! Spread this to all gun people.
This Executive Order could also possibly set a dangerous precedent. For example, if the President can just ban the import of guns because they are considered "military-style" guns, does this mean they could then ban the import of various other guns arbitrarily labeled as such? Some America gun manufacturers manufacture their guns overseas. Could the President ban the import of those? Plus whether the gun is military or not is irrelevant.
In light of the Teleprompter Reader of the United States giving this "order" I purchased x2 more AR-15 lowers. (And when I make a purchase in Arizona of a pistol or rifle it doesn't get called into NICS because I have an Arizona CCW permit. ;))
Arizona of a pistol or rifle it doesn't get called into NICS because I have an Arizona CCW permit. ;))
Was pricing some high end 1911's at a place called C2 Tactical on Friday, have to wait until house closes though before I can enjoy the perk I've missed (DPS/DL change) :D
Interesting opinion piece by Emily Miller...
Mayor Bloomberg is the best friend of 2nd Amendment advocates
Mayor Bloomberg is the best friend Second Amendment advocates could hope for — his billions have only strengthened gun rights and sales
By EMILY MILLER
Last Updated: 11:32 AM, September 1, 2013
Posted: 10:56 PM, August 31, 2013
NYPost
No one has done more for gun rights in the past two years than Mayor Bloomberg.
Oh, he didn’t mean to. Bloomberg has used his political clout and a significant amount of his fortune to try to chip away at the Second Amendment. He is never more self-righteous and condescending than when he talks about guns.
Yet at every step, he’s failed. But more than that, Bloomberg’s presence actively strengthens the NRA’s position. He’s sparked fundraising booms for politicians he disagrees with and may wound Democrats in 2014. Meanwhile, he’s pushed gun sales to record heights.
Bloomberg’s most high-profile campaign was spending $12 million to get the Senate to vote his way on expanding background checks for gun purchases. After Sen. Harry Reid was forced to pull the gun control bill, Bloomberg went ballistic. His shocking rhetoric indicated the type of attack ads he would be funding leading up to the 2014 election. “Children lost. They are going to die and the criminals won. I think that’s the only way to phrase it. This is a disgrace,” he told reporters on April 18.
By the weekend, Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), had organized protests with the theme “Shame on You” at the congressional offices of the senators it determined to be vulnerable for voting against the expanded background checks amendment.
Typical was his campaign against Republican Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. He spent more than $2 million on TV ads in New Hampshire and neighboring Boston. Ayotte, who voted to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System instead of the flawed background-check bill, refused to bow to the pressure.
Bloomberg’s deliberate misleading of the public was obvious from the content of the ads. In one, a police chief named Scott Knight, says that Ayotte is “making us less safe.” Unmentioned is the fact that he’s actually the police chief of Chaska, Minn., far from New Hampshire.
While Ayotte’s poll numbers dipped in the immediate aftermath of the ads airing, they rose back up soon after. “I don’t see any effect on Kelly,” GOP party chairman, Reince Priebus, told me in mid-June. “What is the state motto? ‘Live free or die.’ ”
Bloomberg also goes after Democrats, much to the consternation of Sen. Chuck Schumer. His attacks on Republicans don’t stick, but he could get enough liberals to vote against moderate Dems to flip their races — and the Senate itself in 2014.
Unlike most elected officials, Bloomberg doesn’t even pretend that there’s a wall between his official and political activities. City Hall employees have been caught lobbying for gun control in other states.
Before the bodies are buried or the families have grieved, Bloomberg pounces to exploit the tragic murders of innocent people to advance his political agenda. One of the job duties of the mayor’s taxpayer-funded staff is to jump all over a shooting anywhere in the country as a publicity hook to call for more restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
Jesse Hathaway of Media Trackers Ohio uncovered e-mails between Bloomberg’s mayoral staff and gun-control organizations seemingly trying to exploit the deaths of three high school students in Chardon, Ohio, in February 2012.
One hour after that shooting, MAIG director Mark Glaze e-mailed a CNN story about it to the official government e-mail addresses of three city staffers and other anti-gun activists. An hour later, Lance Orchid, national organizing director of Gun Violence Prevention, e-mailed, “Perhaps this is the perfect time to push out the new micro-site petition around guns on campus.”
That afternoon, Janey Rountree, whose official New York City government title is Firearms Policy Coordinator, asked the group to find out how shooter T.J. Lane got his gun and asked, “Are reporters working on this or planning to push the question?” She later wrote, “It may still make sense to talk about guns on college campus in the wake of this shooting.”
Despite the ghoulish PR response, all the rhetoric from Bloomberg and Obama simply has spurred more people to buy guns.
Forty-seven percent of Americans self-report having a gun in the home, according to a Gallup poll released in October 2011. That number was up from 41% a year earlier and the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993.
The firearms industry is one of the few that has been growing and investing during the Obama economic malaise. The companies in the US that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment had a direct economic impact of $14 billion in 2012.
When you take into account the supplier and ancillary industries, the total economic activity was a whopping $33 billion.
“I’ve been trying to figure out the power of the NRA,” Schumer told Time magazine in June. “It’s not the money they give out: they give out $3 million, $4 million a year. There are many groups that give much more. It’s not even their membership. They say 5 million — let’s say it is. There are tons of groups with more than 5 million members. It’s that they have a core group of active members who translate what’s going on to the average person — who are sympathetic to them because they’re part of their milieu.”
What Schumer and Bloomberg don’t understand is citizens believe strongly in the right to bear arms, as enshrined in our Constitution. And all the money in the world won’t change that.
“We’ll never match Bloomberg dollar for dollar, but we don’t have to,” said the NRA’s Chris Cox. “The hearts and minds of the American people certainly aren’t for sale to a billionaire mayor from New York City.”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/backfire_pxCm5btPSChn6PsnFmkFxI
Emily Miller is a senior opinion editor at the Washington Times. Excerpted with permission from her new book, “Emily Gets Her Gun . . . But Obama Wants to Take Yours” (Regnery Publishing), out this week.
Team Sergeant
09-12-2013, 10:25
This is for those that don't think there's a link between children's behavior and violent video games. Time to ban violent video games from the children of democrats......:munchin
'Training simulation:' Mass killers often share obsession with violent video games
By Mike Jaccarino
Published September 12, 2013
FoxNews.com
A decade after Evan Ramsey sneaked a 12-gauge shotgun into his Alaska high school, where he gunned down a fellow student and the principal and wounded two others, he described how playing video games had warped his sense of reality.
“I did not understand that if I…pull out a gun and shoot you, there’s a good chance you’re not getting back up,” Ramsey said in a 2007 interview from Spring Creek Correctional Center, in Seward, Alaska. “You shoot a guy in ‘Doom’ and he gets back up. You have got to shoot the things in ‘Doom’ eight or nine times before it dies.”
Since Ramsey’s 1997 rampage, several other mass killers, including Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, have been linked to violent video games. And some experts worry that as the games get more violent and more realistic, so does their power to blur the line between fantasy and reality in alienated gamers.
"Doom," the computer video game Ramsey described, was all the rage in the 1990s, but primitive by today’s standards, where gamers can play first-person shooters with movie-like graphics on high definition televisions.
“More than any other media, these video games encourage active participation in violence,” said Bruce Bartholow, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, who has studied the issue. “From a psychological perspective, video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior. Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence.”
Harris and Klebold, who killed 12 fellow students and a teacher in 1999, were reportedly obsessed with “Doom.” Seung-Hui Cho, the 23-year-old who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University in 2007, was, according to the Washington Post, a big fan of violent video games, specifically “Counterstrike.”
Three more recent killers, Aurora, Colo., movie theater gunman James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, who killed six and injured 13, including Rep. Gabby Giffords, in a 2011 Arizona shooting, and Breivik, who killed 77 people in Oslo, all were active video game players.
Adam Lanza, the troubled 20-year-old behind last December’s school shooting in Connecticut which left 20 children and six adults dead, was an avid player of violent video games.
In some cases, murderers appear to have been reenacting specific video game episodes when they killed in real life.
“Anders Breivik said he actually used his video game ‘Call of Duty’ to train for mass murder,” Dr. Paul Weigle, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Joshua Center, in Enfield, Conn., told FoxNews.com. “He called it training simulation. And certainly there were some reports Adam Lanza saw Breivik as a rival, and he was also engaged in shooting games and even the same one.”
Wiegel also cited the case of Devin Moore, an Alabama teen with no history of violence when he was brought in by police on a minor traffic violation. Once inside the police station, he took a gun from a police officer and shot three officers, then stole a police cruiser to make his escape.
"Life is a video game,” Moore, who said he was inspired by the game ‘Grand Theft Auto,’" told police later. “Everybody's got to die sometime."
“It’s quite possible that playing this script out numerous times in the game influenced his decision-making, and that is, in fact, what he said,” Wiegel said.
Advocates of victims of mass shootings have taken aim at the companies turning profits in the multibillion-dollar gaming industry. The parents of the victims killed or injured by Michael Carneal, a 14-year-old who fired upon a group of classmates at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., in 1997, filed suit against a host of video game manufacturers in relation to Carneal’s obsession with violent games including “Doom” and “Mortal Kombat.”
Cont:
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/12/training-simulation-mass-killers-often-share-obsession-with-violent-video-games/#ixzz2ehEFVBCD
RUSSIA HAS FEWER GUNS, MORE HOMICIDES THAN THE U.S.
The Blaze
Sep. 23, 2013 9:43am Meredith Jessup
If the number of firearms in society is directly correlated to the number of gun deaths each year as gun control advocates would like us to believe, how do you explain this?
According to Gunpolicy.org, Russians have far fewer guns than Americans — and far more homicides.
There are fewer than 13 million firearms in circulation in Russia, compared with an estimated 300 million in the United States. That works out to about 9 guns per 100 people in Russia and closed to 100 guns per 100 people in America.
The most recent homicide statistics for Russia show that there were 21,603 killings in 2009.
According to the FBI, the United States had 13,636 homicides in 2009 with a population that is more than twice as large. More than 80 percent of those killings were gun-related.
And oddly enough, Russia’s gun laws look a lot like those being proposed in the U.S. these days…
Russia has tough gun laws on the books.
<snip>
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/09/23/russia-has-fewer-guns-more-homicides-than-the-u-s/
Are Guns the Problem?
Walter E. Williams
10/02/2013
TownHall
Every time there's a shooting tragedy, there are more calls for gun control. Let's examine a few historical facts. By 1910, the National Rifle Association had succeeded in establishing 73 NRA-affiliated high-school rifle clubs. The 1911 second edition of the Boy Scout Handbook made qualification in NRA's junior marksmanship program a prerequisite for obtaining a BSA merit badge in marksmanship. In 1918, the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. established its own Winchester Junior Rifle Corps. The program grew to 135,000 members by 1925. In New York City, gun clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. With so many guns in the hands of youngsters, did we see today's level of youth violence?
What about gun availability? Catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, '50s and '60s were full of gun advertisements directed to children and parents. For example, "What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun" was published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The 1902 Sears mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. For most of our history, a person could simply walk into a hardware store, virtually anywhere in our country, and buy a gun. Few states bothered to have even age restrictions on buying guns.
Those and other historical facts should force us to ask ourselves: Why -- at a time in our history when guns were readily available, when a person could just walk into a store or order a gun through the mail, when there were no FBI background checks, no waiting periods, no licensing requirements -- was there not the frequency and kind of gun violence that we sometimes see today, when access to guns is more restricted? Guns are guns. If they were capable of behavior, as some people seem to suggest, they should have been doing then what they're doing now.
Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The benefit of having customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. In other words, it's morality that is society's first line of defense against uncivilized behavior.
Moral standards of conduct, as well as strict and swift punishment for criminal behaviors, have been under siege in our country for more than a half-century. Moral absolutes have been abandoned as a guiding principle. We've been taught not to be judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another. More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws are needed to regulate behavior.
What's worse is that instead of trying to return to what worked, progressives want to replace what worked with what sounds good or what seems plausible, such as more gun locks, longer waiting periods and stricter gun possession laws. Then there's progressive mindlessness "cures," such as "zero tolerance" for schoolyard recess games such as cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians, shouting "bang bang," drawing a picture of a pistol, making a gun out of Lego pieces, and biting the shape of a gun out of a Pop-Tart. This kind of unadulterated lunacy -- which focuses on an inanimate object such as a gun instead of on morality, self-discipline and character -- will continue to produce disappointing results.
<snip>
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/10/02/are-guns-the-problem-n1713220/page/full
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2013/10/03/mcnaughtons-latest-painting-depicts-american-standing-up-for-gun-rights/
Badger52
10-03-2013, 13:25
“The man in this painting can be any American who is patriotic, responsible, well-trained, and won’t back down to any kind of aggressor,” McNaughton noted.Given his previous work I'll take the implied "...foreign or domestic."
ddoering
10-03-2013, 14:11
Works for me. That is the oath.
mojaveman
10-11-2013, 18:55
Today was an important day for California gun owners.
Bills signed by Governor Brown:
AB48 Bans all high capacity magazines, even the ones you bought 20 years ago. :mad:
AB170 Expands assualt weapons restrictions.
AB231 Requires home defense firearms to be properly secured.
AB500 More requirements on firearm storage.
AB711 Bans the use of lead ammunition in California. :mad:
SB683 Safety certificate required for any firearm purchase.
Bills vetoed by Governor Brown:
SB374 Assualt weapons ban. :D
SB474 Bans gun shows at the Bay Area Cow Palace.
SB567 Revises definition of a shotgun.
SB755 Expands list of misdeameanors banning purchase of firearms.
AB169 Bans private party purchase or transfer of handguns.
AB 180 Allows the city of Oakland to make Constitution independant firearm laws.
Today was an important day for California gun owners.
Bills signed by Governor Brown:
AB48 Bans all high capacity magazines, even the ones you bought 20 years ago. :mad:
AB170 Expands assualt weapons restrictions.
AB231 Requires home defense firearms to be properly secured.
AB500 More requirements on firearm storage.
AB711 Bans the use of lead ammunition in California. :mad:
SB683 Safety certificate required for any firearm purchase.
Bills vetoed by Governor Brown:
SB374 Assualt weapons ban. :D
SB474 Bans gun shows at the Bay Area Cow Palace.
SB567 Revises definition of shotgun.
SB755 Expands list of misdeameanors banning purchase of firearms.
AB169 Bans private party purchase transfer of handguns.
AB 180 Allows the city of Oakland to make Constitution independant firearm laws.
Your State's politicians are assholes :D
mojaveman
10-11-2013, 20:53
Your State's politicians are assholes :D
What else is new? :p
mojaveman
10-13-2013, 11:53
Gabby Giffords and husband Mark Kelly have taken up a crusade against the NRA.
http://news.yahoo.com/gabby-giffords-gun-control-group-hopes-head-head-130025535--abc-news-politics.html
Badger52
10-13-2013, 15:22
A tool and, sadly, his prop.
Firearms Owner Pocket Card
mojaveman
10-20-2013, 11:39
Gun rights activists hold rally at the Alamo in support of open carry laws in Texas.
http://news.yahoo.com/armed-gun-rights-activists-rally-alamo-181856390.html.
Thank Heaven for the Second Amendment.
(NEW YORK) -- INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald Noble said on Monday that the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya -- and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
Exclusive: After Westgate, INTERPOL Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'
ABC News
Monday, October 21, 2013 at 3:20PM
Read On ABC News Radio:
(NEW YORK) -- INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald Noble said on Monday that the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya -- and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."
Noble's comments came only moments after the official opening of the 82nd annual gathering of the INTERPOL's governing body, the General Assembly. The session is being held in Cartagena, Colombia, and is being used to highlight strides over the last decade in Colombia's battle against the notorious drug cartels that used to be the real power in the country.
The secretary general, an American who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department, told reporters during a brief news conference that the Westgate mall attack marks what has long been seen as "an evolution in terrorism." Instead of targets like the Pentagon and World Trade Center that now have far more security since 9/11, attackers are focusing on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people.
At least 67 were killed over a period of days at the Westgate mall; more than 60 of the dead were civilians. The Somalia-based al Qaeda-allied terror group al-Shabab claimed responsibility for the attack as it was ongoing but investigators are still trying to determine exactly who planned the strike, where they are and what is next for them. U.S. authorities in Uganda, fearing another similar incident in Africa, issued a warning late last week.
Citing a recent call for al Qaeda "brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups," Noble said law enforcement is now facing a daunting task.
"How do you protect soft targets? That's really the challenge. You can't have armed police forces everywhere," he told reporters. "It's INTERPOL's view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we're trying to do is to establish a way for countries…to screen passports, which are a terrorist's best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we're able to share more info about suspected terrorists."
In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.
"Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed."
"For me it's a profound question," he continued. "People are quick to say 'gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: 'Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'"
Prior to the Westgate attack, the gun control debate has been ignited time and time again in the U.S. in the aftermath of a series of mass shootings, including one in a movie theater in Aurora, Col., a suburb of Denver.
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/world-news/exclusive-after-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citize.html
Copyright 2013 ABC News
Prior to the Westgate attack, the gun control debate has been ignited time and time again in the U.S. in the aftermath of a series of mass shootings, including one in a movie theater in Aurora, Col., a suburb of Denver.
Which just happens to be a gun free zone. Thus allowing the shooter (I refuse to mention his name and give him any publicity) to fire at will, knowing that there was no one there to stop him, just as with the shooters at the Westgate mall.
Trapper John
11-04-2013, 06:45
I should live so long to see a President deliver an address to Congress like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_T-F_zfoDqI?rel=0
...the Constitution is weak with this one, too.
Firearms must be locked away...better tell the FBI...
Fits here as well as 4th Amendment threads - comments to article interesting.
MA POLITICIAN WANTS UNANNOUNCED HOME SEARCHES BY POLICE TO ENFORCE GUN LAW
Breitbart
by AWR HAWKINS 11 Nov 2013
Swampscott, Massachusetts Selectman Barry Greenfield is pushing a measure to give police the authority to conduct home searches to check proper storage of firearms.
Greenfield said "state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable." There are "600 registered gun owners in [Swampscott]," and the selectman wants police to be able to drop in unannounced, enter the homes of each gun owner, and verify compliance.
According to the Swampscott Patch, Greenfield has spoken with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about this issue, and has spoken with other selectmen. At least one of the selectmen--Glenn Kessler--said he wants all parties, including citizens, brought together for a discussion on this topic before any action is taken.
Kessler also pointed to civil liberty concerns inherent in allowing police to enter homes unannounced and without first securing a warrant.
<snip>
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/11/Massachusetts-Pol-Pushes-Random-Warrantless-Searches-To-Verify-Proper-Gun-Storage
The Reaper
11-12-2013, 20:29
Illegal drugs are in people's homes as well.
Can we suspend the Bill of Rights and conduct no-knock, warrantless searches of everyone's home for them too? Should the firearms owners have to prove their innocence under the presumptive guilt of the state?
How about those pesky mattress tag removers?
Unlicensed pets?
Do these idiot politicians not understand the rights this country was built upon?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TR
ddoering
11-12-2013, 21:34
They will after a bunch of cops get shot trying to do their dirty work......
They will after a bunch of cops get shot trying to do their dirty work......
Just what I was thinking...and probably sued afterwards.
Also makes me wonder if the ACLU should change their name to something more appropriate...
...There are "600 registered gun owners in [Swampscott]," and the selectman wants police to be able to drop in unannounced, enter the homes of each gun owner...
Yet, another reason to oppose any type of firearm registration requirement.
Team Sergeant
11-13-2013, 09:42
They will after a bunch of cops get shot trying to do their dirty work......
If a bill like this actually passed it would be time to neutralize the politicians, not the cops.......
ddoering
11-13-2013, 18:29
True but I doubt there would be easy access to them.
slimsflyfishing
11-13-2013, 22:36
Illegal drugs are in people's homes as well.
Can we suspend the Bill of Rights and conduct no-knock, warrantless searches of everyone's home for them too? Should the firearms owners have to prove their innocence under the presumptive guilt of the state?
How about those pesky mattress tag removers?
Unlicensed pets?
Do these idiot politicians not understand the rights this country was built upon?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TR
Exactly.
Spiffav8
11-13-2013, 23:03
They will after a bunch of cops get shot trying to do their dirty work......
I've got a few friends with our local police department and my wife is a dispatcher for them (large department). More than a few have brought up this topic and they all say theirs no way they will be apart of something like that.
I pray they aren't stupid enough to put anything like that into law. I have no doubt it would lead to blood shed.
Spiffav8
11-14-2013, 01:48
That politician has since backed off from that statement from what I've read, as it caused a hailstorm. He said he was just making a suggestion or something like that.
He should be thrown out of office for even thinking that way. Preferably from the window of his office.
That politician has since backed off from that statement from what I've read, as it caused a hailstorm. He said he was just making a suggestion or something like that.
The follow up story to that idiot in Swampscott, MA.
The fact that an elected official actually floated this trial ballon is not surprising but is disturbing.
Town Nixes Home Gun Safety Inspection
The town's lawyer said the town would need the homeowner's consent or a valid search warrant with probable cause to inspect for safe gun storage. DUH ! Crack legal work rat there !
Posted by Terry Date (Editor) , November 13, 2013 at 10:25 PM
“At the November 6th, 2013 Board of Selectmen’s meeting, it was requested by Selectman Vice-Chairman Barry Greenfield, through the Board of Selectmen, to Town Counsel that he review the enforceability of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140, Section 131L regarding the storage of firearms in homes within a locked container, by mechanical lock or safety device based on the concern of children accessing them. Upon review by Town Counsel, the Town would need to obtain either the homeowner’s consent or have a valid search warrant based on probable cause. The Town will not take any further action regarding this law and further reconfirms their support for the laws of our Commonwealth and the rights under the United States Constitution.”
<snip>
http://swampscott.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/no-action-on-gun-inspection-idea-town-would-need-warrant-or-consent
ddoering
11-14-2013, 16:19
He should be thrown out of office for even thinking that way. Preferably from the window of his office.
We need a like button.
theis223
11-14-2013, 17:03
^^------ Something like that;):D?
If the moderators add a like button, then also perhaps.....
If the moderators add a like button, then also perhaps.....
Liked
A quick vid reminding some of us about the difficulty in exercising one's Second Amendment rights in NYC (and other socialist enclaves):
(Purely rhetorical)...
Do criminals go through this process...?????
Then, who are the bureaucrats and political elites actually controlling?
Yup, more feel good, costly and ineffective regulation. Unless, of course, they really want to control the law abiding...
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2842780332001/stossel-special-war-on-the-little-guy-sat-on-fnc/
DescriptionOn FNC at 9 p.m.: Will FBN’s John Stossel get his gun? The answer, plus more outrageous regulations on your home, car, business...
DateNov 16, 2013
Duration1:47
PersonalitiesJohn Stossel
The Reaper
12-01-2013, 22:19
Isn't ammo metallic?
Not much good having an undetectable gun without undetectable bullets.
TR
We should create a ban on undetectable brains - but then Congress would probably exempt themselves...
A study that supports what many have suggested for some time - passing restrictive firearms laws to control virtually the entire population when only a very small subgroup participates in gun crime - is inefficient and just does not work to control gun crime. Targeting the criminal is a much better approach.
This study did not address whether being a member in good standing of a lawful concealed carry cohort results in substantially less illegal gun violence. I think I know the answer...
Links contained in the story and comments are always interesting.
From the article...
"Overall, the community's five-year homicide rate was 39.7 per 100,000 people, which was still much higher than the averages of other areas of Chicago (14.7 per 100,000). But being a part of that network of co-offenders, essentially just being arrested, raised the rate to by nearly 50 percent, to 55.2 per 100,000. What's more, being in a network with a homicide victim increased the homicide rate by 900 percent, to 554.1 per 100,000.
"You're at a risk for living in this [certain] community, but if you're in the network, your risk is astronomical," Papachristos says. "That rate is beyond epidemic proportion, that's actually scary."
Gun Violence Significantly Increased by Social Interactions
Being arrested and knowing a homicide victim could increase a person's risk by 900 percent
USNews
By ALLIE BIDWELL
November 14, 2013
It turns out that who you know and spend time with may have more of an influence on your risk of becoming a gun homicide victim, than race, age and gang affiliation, according to a new study from a team of sociologists at Yale University.
Andrew Papachristos, an associate professor of sociology at Yale, analyzed police and gun homicide records from 2006 to 2011 for people living in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He found that 41 percent of all gun homicides occurred within a network of less than 4 percent of the neighborhood's population, and that the closer one is connected to a homicide victim, the greater that person's chances were for becoming a victim. Each social tie removed from a homicide victim decreased a person's odds of becoming a victim by 57 percent.
"What the findings essentially tell you is that the people who are most at risk of becoming a victim are sort of surrounded by victims within a few handshakes," Papachristos says. "These are young men who are actively engaged in the behaviors that got them in this network."
The network in question consists of more than 3,700 high-risk individuals – young, African-American males from a poor neighborhood – who were clustered into a network by instances of co-offending, meaning each person in the group had been arrested with another person.
Overall, the community's five-year homicide rate was 39.7 per 100,000 people, which was still much higher than the averages of other areas of Chicago (14.7 per 100,000). But being a part of that network of co-offenders, essentially just being arrested, raised the rate to by nearly 50 percent, to 55.2 per 100,000. What's more, being in a network with a homicide victim increased the homicide rate by 900 percent, to 554.1 per 100,000.
"You're at a risk for living in this [certain] community, but if you're in the network, your risk is astronomical," Papachristos says. "That rate is beyond epidemic proportion, that's actually scary."
Typically, Papachristos says, there are traditional factors that put a person at a higher risk of becoming a victim of gun violence homicide - African-Americans are more likely to be killed than whites; men more likely than women; gang members more likely than non-gang members; and those who come from low-income neighborhoods more likely than affluent individuals.
But even more than any of those factors, Papachristos says, a victim's social network was a better indicator.
"What you see, which is what drives the finding, is precisely that the victims cluster in the network. They're not randomly distributed," Papachristos says. "The opposite, however, is also interesting, which is there are lots of parts of the networks where there aren't any victims."
Papachristos says it makes sense to look at the spread of gun violence like the spread of a disease or an epidemic, comparing it to how people contract HIV. Much like the roles needle sharing and unprotected sex play in the spread of HIV, a person's behaviors and personal associations play a role in the spread of gun violence homicides, he says.
"It's the behavior of sharing needles that puts you at risk for contracting HIV, not simply being poor and black and living in a certain neighborhood," Papachristos says. "The same is true with violence. It's who you hang around with that gets you in trouble."
<snip>
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions
mojaveman
12-03-2013, 18:13
A gun manfacturer's ad designed for the Super Bowl won't be run during the big game because it doesn't meet the NFL's standards for advertising.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/nfl-declines-permit-pro-gun-as-during-super-224250020--nfl.html
Team Sergeant
12-03-2013, 18:19
A gun manfacturer's ad designed for the Super Bowl won't be run during the big game because it doesn't meet the NFL's standards for advertising.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/nfl-declines-permit-pro-gun-as-during-super-224250020--nfl.html
But allowing brutal dog killing convicted felon to play is OK with the NFL.
Yeah all the "real" men should send the NFL a message and not watch the game. I don't watch the National Felon's League anymore.
Right on cue, this shows up in an email from a friend:
National Movement to Boycott NFL Launched (http://www.infowars.com/national-movement-to-boycott-nfl-launched/)
TrapLine
12-04-2013, 07:16
But allowing brutal dog killing convicted felon to play is OK with the NFL.
Yeah all the "real" men should send the NFL a message and not watch the game. I don't watch the National Felon's League anymore.
I quit watching the NFL several years ago and don't miss it all. The celebrations for routine midfield tackles were just too much. Throw in the gangsta culture and I will happily pass.
This young lady's video will piss off many liberals.
Why Good People Should Be Armed.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/20RoAfflGCM?wmode=transparent&hl=en&modestbranding=1&iv_load_policy=3&showsearch=0&theme=dark
I quit watching the NFL several years ago and don't miss it all. The celebrations for routine midfield tackles were just too much. Throw in the gangsta culture and I will happily pass.
I still watch the NFL because I enjoy a hard-fought football game (preferably a defensive one, which seems to be more of a rarity now given the rule changes). But I completely agree with you all that the silliness and look-at-me culture has poisoned the league, perhaps to a point of no return. :rolleyes:
I know who my heroes are, and they sure as heck aren't egotistical professional athletes or Hollywood celebrities...
Team Sergeant
12-05-2013, 10:05
MOLON LABE
It begins and you LEO's said you'd never enforce this sort of law. I guess we know the truth now.
MOLON LABE
Multi-clip gun owners sent packing as NYPD begins to enforce 2010 law
By Edmund DeMarche/
Published December 05, 2013/
FoxNews.com
The New York City Police Department is taking aim at owners of certain shotguns and rifles, telling them all long guns with a five-round or more capacity must be turned in, altered or taken out of town.
An estimated 500 recipients of the notices, which were mailed on Nov. 18, were given the options to surrender their gun, permanently move the gun out of city jurisdiction or employ a licensed gunsmith to modify the weapon to get into compliance with the law. Rifles and shotguns with a capacity of five or more rounds are affected.
An NYPD spokeswoman told FoxNews.com the initiative has been in practice since 2010, but this year is the first time critics say the notices were so widely dispersed. The notice was first reported on the website TheTruthAboutGuns.com.
cont:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/
Badger52
12-05-2013, 11:25
"Sorry, it's not here."
"You registered it. Therefore, we have reasonable suspicion that it should be with you, yet you have not advised us of its disposition. So we will now come inside to have a look around."
"I don't consent to that."
"We don't need your consent."
"But..." :boohoo
I saw a movie where only the military and the police had guns: Schindler’s List.
Team Sergeant
12-12-2013, 23:10
I saw a movie where only the military and the police had guns: Schindler’s List.
Those that do not learn from history are dammed to repeat it....
And most Jews in NY vote democrat/progressive/socialist.....
When it happens again, I'll be fishing.
It's just a game if it isn't racing...Senna is my hero
It's like a subtle cancer isn't it...not surprised about the police nor my once home state that's become a police state.
Enjoy the knockout (or murder) games, the punks have nothing to fear
http://bearingarms.com/gun-grabbing-notre-dame-philosopher-successfully-resisting-tyranny-is-fantasy/
In a citizen control op-ed in the New York Times strung together with logical fallacies, rhetorical faults, and broken philosophical proofs, he chucked in a howler suggesting that our modern military would simply steamroll over American gun owners, so we may as well turn in our guns.
"Finally, there’s the idea that citizens need guns so they can, if need be, oppose the force of a repressive government. Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy. The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy."
If Professor Gutting isn’t familiar with the Green Berets, perhaps it is worthwhile to point out now their primary mission:
The main mission of the Special Forces was to train and lead unconventional warfare (UW) forces, or a clandestine guerrilla force in an occupied nation.
They train insurgencies to overthrow oppressive regimes. Their motto de oppresso liber is understood to mean to liberate the oppressed. How do the Green Berets feel about heavy-handed regime tactics toward gun control and confiscation like those favored by Professor Gutting? 1,100 of them sent a letter to President Obama earlier this year, warning the President in no uncertain terms that they would not sit quietly by if the government sought to undermine the Second Amendment. The language was measured, but unmistakable.
Molon Labe, Professor.
Fool. 270 million firearms, 3 million National Firearms Act Registered weapons. 50% of Americans own firearms. Add to that the advantage of knowing where the military is and them not knowing where you are, not to mention there are less than a million of them, and you would have a recipe for a bloodbath.....and not the way he thinks.
Fool. 270 million firearms, 3 million National Firearms Act Registered weapons. 50% of Americans own firearms. Add to that the advantage of knowing where the military is and them not knowing where you are, not to mention there are less than a million of them, and you would have a recipe for a bloodbath.....and not the way he thinks.
:D :munchin
What about mass defection? I can't imagine American soldiers carrying out orders to seize weapons from Americans if they didn't comply with some rich politicians dream to disarm the populace. Come at me Obama, because you and the suits can come get them, bro. Never gonna happen that way.
They're going to take our guns through disinformation over time in my opinion. PS.com should have its own TV network, so Americans can learn from the best America has, rather than a liberal controlled media.
I apologize but I'm going to go OT for a minute to prove a point. I sent an email to foxnews (Bill OReilly) several weeks ago, detailing a problem the California National Guard created by 'overpaying' soldiers. Close to 100 million dollars was 'overpayed' and the soldiers are being told they may have to pay their enlistment bonuses back! As far as I can tell, foxnews never aired it. The local news covered the story, but this needs national attention. The one outlet I bet would air it, hasn't. Americans sit hypnotized, impatiently waiting for the next wave of worthless gossip, and that indifference will cost us our freedom.
What about mass defection? I can't imagine American soldiers carrying out orders to seize weapons from Americans if they didn't comply with some rich politicians dream to disarm the populace. Come at me Obama, because you and the suits can come get them, bro. Never gonna happen that way.
They're going to take our guns through disinformation over time in my opinion. PS.com should have its own TV network, so Americans can learn from the best America has, rather than a liberal controlled media.
I apologize but I'm going to go OT for a minute to prove a point. I sent an email to foxnews (Bill OReilly) several weeks ago, detailing a problem the California National Guard created by 'overpaying' soldiers. Close to 100 million dollars was 'overpayed' and the soldiers are being told they may have to pay their enlistment bonuses back! As far as I can tell, foxnews never aired it. The local news covered the story, but this needs national attention. The one outlet I bet would air it, hasn't. Americans sit hypnotized, impatiently waiting for the next wave of worthless gossip, and that indifference will cost us our freedom.
Like your avatar says, there are many that feel the same.
Just remember there are plenty working with and for the 'fools', many whom you'd never guess. Others you think are, aren't; not willingly. The data and patterns computers and other high grade hardware generate doesn't lie. It's there if you look.
The truth is good and always comes out eventually, many sheep are starting to realize it; at least parts of it...
And hey, you got Indiana Jones on your side, just keep him away from the liquor cabinet - he looks funny otherwise :D
Badger52
12-16-2013, 10:57
People cannot have long guns in NYC that hold five rounds or more? Isn't five rounds like the minimum sized magazine unless you have a hunting rifle. That is alot of Rem 742/762-based deer rifles as well as bolt guns if the one that can be in the chamber is counted.
So anytime someone says "we're not after grampa's deer rifle" take appropriate action and, only then, call the paramedics. Maybe.
Commies.
Just remember there are plenty working with and for the 'fools', many whom you'd never guess. Others you think are, aren't; not willingly. The data and patterns computers and other high grade hardware generate doesn't lie. It's there if you look.
Can you elaborate?
The truth is good and always comes out eventually, many sheep are starting to realize it; at least parts of it...
I hope there's a silver lining but I believe our society is too dependent to become disenchanted with 'hand out' government. Like others have said, a large percentage of our population has a 'what can you do for me now' mentality, but all good things must come to an end. I don't think a large portion of our population would understand the truth if it hit them in the face, and if they did, I don't think they would care until it affected their quality of life.
Can you elaborate?
Sorry, no. Use your judgement. If you're in Phoenix in the future pm me.
From a 'very limited' perspective look at some of the big internet companies, which one is and has been making it consistently difficult for the 'fools' to gather data; which one(s) do you hear crickets or slight rumbles from? Which one stands to lose the most from pissing off the 'fools'? You should have one or maybe two good company(s) and one big bad one in your answer.
I hope there's a silver lining but I believe our society is too dependent to become disenchanted with 'hand out' government. Like others have said, a large percentage of our population has a 'what can you do for me now' mentality, but all good things must come to an end. I don't think a large portion of our population would understand the truth if it hit them in the face, and if they did, I don't think they would care until it affected their quality of life.
Agree, that's why I said partly...common sense and going by what folks do and not what they say (or how they say it) are not that common. Neither is knowing history as several of the QP's have pointed out. The Affordable Care Act has and definitely will wake up 'some' of the dumber ones or those too wrapped up in themselves.
I try to be hopeful that our exceptional country will wake up despite all those with clouded judgments in Washington and else where.
...but yeah, they ain't gettin' my firearms regardless of how many rounds they can hold. The morons missed the whole point of the Second Amendment. Hunting rifles back then weren't military weapons they just shot straighter.
How is it that progressives argue that America is not an exceptional country in the world, yet, said progressives also argue that the notions that America could ever fall prey to serious disruptions in the rule of law, coups, etc...is paranoia? :munchin
Beautiful example of clouded as well as self serving logic - lack of character, diginity, honesty, and few other things.
Frankly I don't know how they like what they see in the mirror.
Another good year...now, if ammo supply would just catch up with demand...
Total NICS Background Checks November 30, 1998 - December 31, 2013 at link below:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-123113.pdf
Team Sergeant
01-07-2014, 21:23
Another good year...now, if ammo supply would just catch up with demand...
Total NICS Background Checks November 30, 1998 - December 31, 2013 at link below:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-123113.pdf
Again, in Arizona if you have a CCW permit there is no NICS Background Check. Add another 500k to those numbers. ;) 6 of those purchases are mine......:munchin
Again, in Arizona if you have a CCW permit there is no NICS Background Check. Add another 500k to those numbers. ;) 6 of those purchases are mine......:munchin
...it appears that a good year for the 2A might have just got a bit better.
:lifter
A video and an article on recent gun control research.
Study: Gun control laws do not reduce violent crime
Jan. 06, 2014 - 7:24 - Professor Mark Gius explains research
Fox News vid at link below
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3018466403001/study-gun-control-laws-do-not-reduce-violent-crime/#sp=show-clips
More gun laws, more murder? Quinnipiac prof’s study suggests it
By Joe Amarante, New Haven Register
Days after a new Connecticut gun-control law spurred long lines of people trying to register firearms deemed to be “assault weapons,” a study from a Quinnipiac University professor has found that bans on assault weapons on the state level had no significant effect on murder rates around the country. And it also found that states with more restrictive concealed weapons laws had higher gun-related murder rates on average than states with less restricted concealed weapons.
But the study’s author says more research is needed on the issue before lawmakers run with its conclusions.
Mark Gius, an economics professor at Quinnipiac for two decades, admitted he was a little bit flabbergasted Monday at the response his study has been getting since it was published in the November issue of the academic journal, “Applied Economics Letters.” He had just returned Monday afternoon from Hartford, where he appeared in a segment on Fox News Channel about the study.
“I’ve actually done other research on gun control and gun ownership,” Gius said. “So it’s kind of amazing that, for some reason, this article really took off.”
Gius, a 51-year-old Democrat, said economics professors often do research on policy issues and laws on crime and guns “to see if they have the desired impact.” His topic was his own idea, not funded by any company, he said. But he said he’s half-regretting it, given the number of media people who want to talk about it.
<snip>
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140106/more-gun-laws-more-murder-quinnipiac-profs-study-suggests-it
Again, in Arizona if you have a CCW permit there is no NICS Background Check.
Montana too, with an average of 20-27 weapons per household depending on your stats source and 40k+ CCW holders, add some more.
Stiletto11
01-11-2014, 19:30
The issue isn't about crime so don't try to rationalize the argument. It's about government control and the registration/confiscation of arms. Why? Because they can't control the population without seizing the arms. I can't believe the NRA still doesn't get it. They constantly prop up the argument of crime and blah blah blah of the law abiding citizens who will do what the government tells them to do based on being lawful citizens. What if nobody stood in line to register their arms? You want to be policed? Then go get in line, you will also get a free shower and warm meal. Oh but I have too much to lose so I must comply. Anyone heard about the Colonist standing in line to register their weapons? Neither did I. Crazy ain't it?:D
Crazy ain't it?:DIt would appear exactly the opposite of it. Behaviors indicate your statements are quite sane if the current direction continues.
The Second Amendment is Not Enough! (GUNS 10.1, Jan64)
mojaveman
01-13-2014, 11:13
Having failed in an earlier effort to bar federal agents from enforcing gun regulations in Missouri, conservative lawmakers are trying a new tack this year: banding together with other like minded states to defy certian federal laws at the same time.
This I like.
http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-plot-strategy-defying-gun-laws-175122394--politics.html
This I like.
Me too - good post.
Stiletto11
01-13-2014, 15:52
If Federal laws are superior to state laws then why is Colorado allowing the sale of pot when it is a federal crime? Pick and choose what law you want to enforce.
Having failed in an earlier effort to bar federal agents from enforcing gun regulations in Missouri, conservative lawmakers are trying a new tack this year: banding together with other like minded states to defy certian federal laws at the same time.
This I like.
http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-plot-strategy-defying-gun-laws-175122394--politics.html
In a 3 hour interview on Book TV's In Depth program, Mark Levin addressed Nullification with 3 different callers. Searching "nullification" in the Text Timeline below the video player will pull up clickable links that will jump the video to the sections. If you want to do it manually, they are at: 1:48:11, 2:29:57, and 2:45:06. Total, they are probably less than 10 minutes.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/MarkLev
Watch it and see if you still agree.
Pat
mojaveman
01-14-2014, 21:04
Watch it and see if you still agree.
Good post and very informative.
Nullification happened once before in this country and it can happen again. ;)
The issue isn't about crime so don't try to rationalize the argument. It's about government control and the registration/confiscation of arms. Why? Because they can't control the population without seizing the arms. I can't believe the NRA still doesn't get it. They constantly prop up the argument of crime and blah blah blah of the law abiding citizens who will do what the government tells them to do based on being lawful citizens. What if nobody stood in line to register their arms? You want to be policed? Then go get in line, you will also get a free shower and warm meal. Oh but I have too much to lose so I must comply. Anyone heard about the Colonist standing in line to register their weapons? Neither did I. Crazy ain't it?:D
No disrespect meant by this statement: I believe the NRA gets it and has for a long, long time. Any Association that is that large, powerful and filthy rich, and spends as much time in D.C. as they do? C'mon, they understand it all.:munchin
Stiletto11
01-15-2014, 13:30
No disrespect meant by this statement: I believe the NRA gets it and has for a long, long time. Any Association that is that large, powerful and filthy rich, and spends as much time in D.C. as they do? C'mon, they understand it all.:munchin
None taken, but money corrupts and the NRA in my opinion plays chess with the political hacks in DC. Gun Owners of America is, again in my opinion, an organization that will stand fast on the Constitution and not waiver. If you give them an inch they take a mile. We have already seen it the encroachment over the years since the Firearms Act (forgot the year). What defines "Infringement?" BTW, I am a Life Member of the NRA and I do hope they win their cases, the issue is there shouldn't be any cases.
From The American Rifleman (Nov40)
From The American Rifleman (Nov40)
An interesting article and great reminder.
Compare and contrast the British experience described in the subject article to our American experience - one of a gun culture...
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
ETA although the quote above is often attributed to Yamamoto there seems to be some discrepancy whether Yamamoto said this...I don't know. But, I do know that there is unquestioned pragmatism in such an observation.
Stiletto11
01-16-2014, 12:24
I guess the Brits already had their version of the Firearms Act of 1968, the SAFE ACT, Save the Children in Theaters Act, The Get in Line and Register Your Gun Act and Australia's Turn in Your Gun or Else Act. Don't forget the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Get On The Train Act. OK I'll put it in pink.
mojaveman
01-16-2014, 21:41
An anti-NRA movie is being planned by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and will star Meryl Streep.
I am a Meryl Streep fan no longer.
And Weinstein? He said that if he would have been alive during the Holocaust he would have armed himself against the Nazis. What a hypocrite.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/anti-nra-movie-harvey-weinstein-meryl-streep/2014/01/16/id/547460
The following is an excellent article. I must admit I was thrown off a bit by the title; but when I read the entire article and the author's rationale, I couldn't help but agree.
Why I Cannot Support Concealed Carry Weapons Permits (And Why You Shouldn’t Either!)
Posted By Mac Slavo on Jan 17, 2014
John Filippidis is a Concealed Carry Weapons permit holder, which means he can carry his firearm on his person or in his car legally. He followed all applicable laws in the State of Florida to obtain his permit, and has been a lawful citizen since being “given the right” to retain a firearm when in public.
Recently he was driving through the State of Maryland on a family vacation when he was stopped, for no apparent reason, by a law enforcement officer who had trailed his car for at least ten minutes.
According to his family, this is how the stop went down:
The officer was from the Transportation Authority Police. ??? :confused:
He asked Filippidis for his license and registration. Around ten minutes later, he returned and asked John to exit his vehicle.
“You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”
Filippidis told the officer his gun was at home in his safe.
Apparently the officer didn’t believe Filippidis, because he began questioning his wife, Kally, next:
“Your husband owns a gun. Where is it?”
First Kally said, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later to the Tampa Tribune, she said, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove... Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”
That’s when things escalated. The officer confronted Filippidis:
“You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”
Of course a gun could not be produced, since it was home in Filippidis’ safe.
Because Mrs. Filippidis told a different story from her husband, the officer said he had probable cause to search the vehicle. And he did just that. He called for backup and they literally took the vehicle apart in an effort to find the weapon that Mr. Filippidis left in his safe back at home in Florida.
The gun, of course, was never found. After 90 minutes of having their personal property violated, the Filippidis family was released without charge or citation. Since Mr. Filippidis was driving according to all traffic laws, there was absolutely no reason to pull him over. And this is where our problem starts. Why did he get pulled over in the first place?
It turns out that when you register your weapon as a CCW holder you get flagged and tagged in the system. And, apparently this crosses over state lines, because the Transportation Authority Officer who pulled Mr. Filippidis over did so because he suspected there was a firearm in the car. That’s it – there was no probable cause of wrong doing and no other possible reason this car should have been pulled over.
Remember that whole ridiculous argument about registration of guns eventually leading to confiscation like it has in so many other countries in the past? Turns out there may be something to that. Mr. Filippidis and his family were, by all accounts, considered as, and treated like, criminals for legally owning a firearm, even though that firearm was not in their possession.
The chief of TAP has apologized to the Filippidis family, but no action has been taken against the officer that, in no uncertain terms, illegally detained and violated the rights of this family and did so at gunpoint.
As noted by Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker, this illegal stop highlights the key problem with CCW permits and gun registration initiatives in general, and he argues why such registration requirements need to be repealed.
Denninger: Why I Cannot Support CCW Permits
There is only one solution to this problem folks — it’s none of the government’s damned business if you’re carrying a weapon or not. It’s none of the government’s damned business right up until you do something unlawful with it, at which point it becomes both reasonable and appropriate to search, arrest, charge, whatever — for the unlawful act.
But the bottom line here is that the fact that this individual registered his ownership and intent to carry for personal protection of himself and his family in the places where it is lawful to do so with the government meant that he was unlawfully stopped, detained and searched by a ****head who has faced no penalty for the violation of peoples' Constitutional right to be left alone absent evidence of, or probable cause to suspect, actual unlawful activity.
The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry. That is, you have the right under the 2nd Amendment to carry, either openly or concealed, a firearm without applying for any sort of permit or asking for permission from the government first. It is only if and when you commit a crime with a weapon present and in some way related to the offense that the government gains the ability to intervene in yourpersonal decision to not be a victim and protect both yourself and others near you, most-particularly your family.
There is no means to solve this problem any other way, as despite whatever sanctions Florida may apply to its peace officers for abusive acts of this sort, the very act of registration exposes you to abuses by other political subdivisions in the United States. Therefore, the only means of stopping this crap is in fact to get rid of any such requirement of registration — period.
We’ll repeat that again in case you missed it: The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry.
Can we all agree that a criminal who intends to do harm to others will never register their firearm? They will be carrying concealed regardless of the laws of the state in which they reside. So, if the intent of these CCW laws is to prevent gun crimes instigated by gangs and others, then it is a total failure.
What these laws do in actuality is restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to own self defense weapons and, as the case in Maryland shows, to track those citizens across the country. Of course, the government would never overstep its bounds like the peace officer in Maryland did. That was just an isolated incident, right?
They’ll have us believe that officials having knowledge of every gun owner in their state, city or neighborhood poses no danger to the freedom of American citizens. Perhaps today it doesn’t (unless of course you’re John Filippidis on a family vacation). But consider what will happen should more restrictive legislation be passed – or if the President of the United States signs an Executive Order outlawing the ownership of certain types of firearms or their accessories.
It should be crystal clear: Gun registration in any form, even CCW Concealed Carry Weapons permits, pose an immediate and distinct danger to the liberty of the American people.
Editor’s Note: If you want to voice your concern over this illegal search and seizure, even though there was an apology (and I suggest firing the officer since he is supposed to know the law), here is the contact information for Maryland Transportation Authority:
2310 Broening Highway, Suite 150 – Baltimore, MD 21224
Local: (410) 537-1000 – Out of Area: 1 (866) 713-1596
mdta@mdtransportationauthority.com
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/support-concealed-carry-weapons-permits-shouldnt-either/
A two sentence federal law would take care of that BS. Any legal owner could carry ccw anywhere. No it won't happen, and not for the right reasons - for control (attempt to).
The protect the children statement you hear from political and t.v. folks is a cop out
. Simple generalized statement to give them a 'winning' fallback for those disagreeing with their views. They have similar ones for being racist or being against women. Hearing these should turn a light on.
Anyone see Wiener on the Kelly File? He's a real nut ...:)
Remember the people put in office are supposed reflect and support your beliefs and morals, what they do also reflects on you and your judgment or lack thereof.
Amazing & Eloquent Constitutional Law & Our History Shows Federal gun Control Is Unlawful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FasYi_vqdWY#t=375
Snaquebite
01-23-2014, 12:01
Amazing & Eloquent Constitutional Law & Our History Shows Federal gun Control Is Unlawful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FasYi_vqdWY#t=375
I really like this lady....
I really like this lady....
So do I.
Snaquebite
01-23-2014, 13:21
She should be recruited by every attorney arguing for the 2nd Amendment.
Amazing & Eloquent Constitutional Law & Our History Shows Federal gun Control Is Unlawful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FasYi_vqdWY#t=375
Can I get an Amen !
She is a quite articulate speaker.
Stiletto11
01-23-2014, 16:55
Right to the point, most men today have no balls.
Well, you "nullification" guys must have no problem with what O and Holder are doing, then. How about what CA, NY, and IL will do if we ever get control back? In fact, lib judges use nullification every day. Prop 8 in CA, voted in by the "people", was tossed by a judge. Why have laws? Heck, why have a constitution if you are just going to ignore the parts you don't like?
Pat
Javadrinker
01-23-2014, 17:41
Well, you "nullification" guys must have no problem with what O and Holder are doing, then. How about what CA, NY, and IL will do if we ever get control back? In fact, lib judges use nullification every day. Prop 8 in CA, voted in by the "people", was tossed by a judge. Why have laws? Heck, why have a constitution if you are just going to ignore the parts you don't like?
Pat
I'm confused, we still have Our Constitution? Oh! My bad you are talking about one those documents that are under glass in the National Archives. :cool:
ddoering
01-23-2014, 20:32
I'm confused, we still have Our Constitution? Oh! My bad you are talking about one those documents that are under glass in the National Archives. :cool:
You know, the one written by the old, dead white guys...........
Stiletto11
01-24-2014, 07:39
Look up the New States Constitution.
Well, you "nullification" guys must have no problem with what O and Holder are doing, then. How about what CA, NY, and IL will do if we ever get control back? In fact, lib judges use nullification every day. Prop 8 in CA, voted in by the "people", was tossed by a judge. Why have laws? Heck, why have a constitution if you are just going to ignore the parts you don't like?
Pat
I'll quote part of email that an constitutional attorney sent to me.
Considering the root problem corrupting the Republic, we need to give Citizens the truth about their rights and their "public servants' " duties. Truth delayed is truth denied.
We can ill afford allowing the citizens to be misinformed about the reality of "nullification" and to be encouraged to support bills that allow the governments and the state and local officers under oath to support the Constitution to shirk their obligations.
The Constitution is not a smorgasbord that we or our public servants get to pick and choose from. The oath to support the Constitution requires the Constitution be followed in its entirety, every time in every situation.
The attitude that we can restore the Constitution and the Republic by supporting parts of it and conceding parts of it or ignoring parts of it is an immoral violation of one's oath to support the Constitution. It is like negotiating with cannibals on how much of you they are going to eat for dinner. You will always come out on the short end of that deal.
For the sake of Liberty,
Richard D. Fry
General Counsel
Patriot Coalition
Revitalizing the Second Amendment(RT2A
I'll quote part of email that an constitutional attorney sent to me.
I’ve read the email you posted several times and I can’t really tell which side of the nullification issue he comes down.
Now this Publius Huldah person, who is she? I can’t find a real name for her. Her bio on her blog:
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers(Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following:
There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus.
OK, fine. So, a “strict constructionist” is saying that we need to ignore a provision of the Constitution that may help solve the problems we face to solve those problems? Where is nullification mentioned in the Constitution?
I’m not against nullification, per se. When we moved here to SE AZ, after the Monument Fire, Tombstone’s aqueduct from the Huachuca Mountains had been damaged and they needed to repair it. The Feds said that they could only repair it using the methods that were used to build it in the 1800s. At the time, Sheriff Dever was still alive and I felt that he should have challenged (nullification of law or policy), with a posse if necessary, the Forrest Service and allowed the repairs to the water system for a city in his county. He did not and local citizens went up with shovels and sidearms to repair it.
That said, why is she throwing out the Constitutional provision rather than adopting both options? The Constitutional provision is explained, and amendments offered, in Mark Levin’s book. He started The Landmark LegalFoundation (http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=7) in 1976 fighting against abuses of the Constitution and worked in the Reagan Administration. Publius Huldah has done what, exactly?
…for we are all one person in Christ Jesus.
I'm sure Mr. Levin would love to know that.
This guy does a pretty good job of saying what I wanted to: http://www.redstate.com/roguepolitics/2013/10/11/a-response-to-publius-hildahs-critique-of-mark-levin-and-the-article-v-convention-process/
In the end, both courses are probably a fool’s errand. Then what?
Pat
I’ve read the email you posted several times and I can’t really tell which side of the nullification issue he comes down.
Now this Publius Huldah person, who is she? I can’t find a real name for her. Her bio on her blog:
OK, fine. So, a “strict constructionist” is saying that we need to ignore a provision of the Constitution that may help solve the problems we face to solve those problems? Where is nullification mentioned in the Constitution?
I’m not against nullification, per se. When we moved here to SE AZ, after the Monument Fire, Tombstone’s aqueduct from the Huachuca Mountains had been damaged and they needed to repair it. The Feds said that they could only repair it using the methods that were used to build it in the 1800s. At the time, Sheriff Dever was still alive and I felt that he should have challenged (nullification of law or policy), with a posse if necessary, the Forrest Service and allowed the repairs to the water system for a city in his county. He did not and local citizens went up with shovels and sidearms to repair it.
That said, why is she throwing out the Constitutional provision rather than adopting both options? The Constitutional provision is explained, and amendments offered, in Mark Levin’s book. He started The Landmark LegalFoundation (http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=7) in 1976 fighting against abuses of the Constitution and worked in the Reagan Administration. Publius Huldah has done what, exactly?
I'm sure Mr. Levin would love to know that.
This guy does a pretty good job of saying what I wanted to: http://www.redstate.com/roguepolitics/2013/10/11/a-response-to-publius-hildahs-critique-of-mark-levin-and-the-article-v-convention-process/
In the end, both courses are probably a fool’s errand. Then what?
Pat
Now this Publius Huldah person, who is she?
I asked Richard Fry that question. His answer is the name is a, quoted "Her pseudonym is Publius Huldah. Publius is the pseudonym for Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist papers and Huldah is prophet mentioned in 2 Kings 22, and 2 Chronicles 34. " Sorry if that doesn't help.
Where is nullification mentioned in the Constitution? Not being an attorney, I'd say most of this is found in the 10th Amendment.
"Michael Boldin is the founder and leader of the TAC, a national group. He is the number-one spokesperson on behalf of TAC. Boldin believes he and TAC are the leading entity and spokesperson educating and promoting "state nullification".
The Legal Basis for Nullification
First, "nullification" as espoused by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 is in fact constitutionally based. Jefferson said of it:
“. . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force..."
So in Jefferson's view nullification is predicated on an unconstitutional act, i.e., an act outside the general government's enumerated authority as delineated in the Constitution. Madison also had this belief.
Another way to say "unauthoritative, void, and of no force" is to say "null," which legally speaking means “having no legal validity.”
Five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the same principle in a formal holding. Chief Justice John Marshall said for the Court:
"... a law repugnant to the Constitution is void...."
Chief Justice Marshall made it clear that this was a general principle of constitutional law, not just of the U.S. Constitution. Marshall did rely upon specific language in the Constitution as part of the Court's support for this holding. Marshall noted:
"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank." (Emphasis added.)
Marshall was quoting Article VI clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution also known as the Supremacy Clause. Subsequently the Court in addressing unconstitutional enactments has stated:
"An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment."
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371,376-77 (1879)
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 426 (1886)
These cases tell us that an unconstitutional enactment is ipso facto (by that fact itself) null and void, and not enforceable.
I like your story about rebuilding the dam. Maybe some nullify effects in that The People took care of business.
To make this more a layman's term, I'd say nullification is that which the government, state, local cannot enforce because those laws are not ethical or not moral as to the Oath we all took when held up our right hand. I think also part of this is the pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States. Just my thoughts.
Our rights are from our Creator not the government.
In the end, both courses are probably a fool’s errand. Then what?
As an SF soldier you would rather the enemy die for his country than you die for yours!
"the Forrest Service and allowed the repairs to the water system for a city in his county. He did not and local citizens went up with shovels and sidearms to repair it."
True American spirit...
The fed land managers in southern az are a good bunch too. Let me drive deep into one of the wilderness areas down their once to track a bad lion.
"the Forrest Service and allowed the repairs to the water system for a city in his county. He did not and local citizens went up with shovels and sidearms to repair it."
True American spirit...
The fed land managers in southern az are a good bunch too. Let me drive deep into one of the wilderness areas down their once to track a bad lion.
To be honest, the sidearms were not to intimidate the FS personal. It's pretty much daily wear wherever you go here and defiantly when going into wilderness areas. Then again... ;)
Pat
To be honest, the sidearms were not to intimidate the FS personal. It's pretty much daily wear wherever you go here and defiantly when going into wilderness areas. Then again... ;)
Pat
I believe you, there are some Bob Munden(rip) types here that need special single actions. Actually getting in the market pretty soon myself for a 3 1/2 birds head - mine broke in Montana (blew up - nice scar on left side of face too) - don't have a few thousand to spend on a new one yet - gettin' alittle out of practice %^#. A good single can shoot faster than a 1911 - for me two at a time - Munden types scary fast. Good for critters :D
Love Arizona!
Crap ten of the Worlds best shooter's are in New River alone - Whoever said don't mess with Texas?
As an SF soldier you would rather the enemy die for his country than you die for yours!
I missed this the first time. I am not, and was not, SF. But, as a former Soldier, I agree.
Pat
GratefulCitizen
02-03-2014, 18:26
Printz v US may prove to be quite significant.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1294p.pdf
This bill has teeth:
D. ANY AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHO KNOWINGLY VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS DEEMED TO HAVE RESIGNED ANY COMMISSION FROM THIS STATE THAT THE PERSON MAY POSSESS, THE PERSON'S OFFICE IS DEEMED VACANT AND THE PERSON IS FOREVER AFTER INELIGIBLE TO HOLD ANY OFFICE OF TRUST, HONOR OR EMOLUMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.
E. ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION THAT PROVIDES SERVICES TO OR ON BEHALF OF THIS STATE AND THAT VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS FOREVER INELIGIBLE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF, OR PROVIDE SERVICES TO, THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/tens-of-thousands-of-connecticut-gun-owners-may-be-staging-a-massive-act-of-civil-disobedience/)
On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.
Molon Labe!
California ban on concealed weapons overturned by 9th Circuit appeals court
By Paul Elias, Associated Press
POSTED: 02/13/14, 12:25 PM PST | UPDATED: 56 SECS AGO
SAN FRANCISCO — A divided federal appeals court has struck down California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that California is wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens are entitled to carry concealed weapons outside the home for self-defense purposes.
The divided three-judge panel disagreed with two other federal appeals courts that have upheld permit rules similar to California’s.
The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that law-abiding citizens can keep handguns in the home for self-defense purposes, but didn’t address whether that right extends outside the home.
http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20140213/california-ban-on-concealed-weapons-overturned-by-9th-circuit-appeals-court
Did hell freeze over and I missed it? :confused:
Pat
Did hell freeze over
Interesting...it must have
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that law-abiding citizens can keep handguns in the home for self-defense purposes, but didn’t address whether that right extends outside the home.
Morons! 'Bear' means: (of a person) carry. bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug...pretty straight forward to a dumb ass like myself.
Do they really need the Supreme Court to figure that out :eek:
Peregrino
02-13-2014, 18:12
California ban on concealed weapons overturned by 9th Circuit appeals court
Did hell freeze over and I missed it? :confused:
Pat
Sorry, I'm a pessimist; especially WRT the 9th Circuit. We live in troubled times and this does not follow the established pattern. Given that it conflicts with two other Federal Circuit decisions it might be a strategy to force the Supreme Court to review the case law. That concerns me.
Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/tens-of-thousands-of-connecticut-gun-owners-may-be-staging-a-massive-act-of-civil-disobedience/)
On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.
Molon Labe!
The middle finger was given to an overreaching government...civil disobedience has often played a very important roll in the evolution of this nation.
Molon Labe!
Don't know where I could of put it, did I sell it at a gun show, honey where's my rifle - did you throw it out again?
Don't know where I could of put it, did I sell it at a gun show, honey where's my rifle - did you throw it out again?
I hear boating accidents are not uncommon...even in AZ.
I hear boating accidents are not uncommon...even in AZ.
Lol, that's a good one.
The Reaper
02-14-2014, 09:44
There's no going back now for all of those people either, as now if you change your mind and decide to register, you will be busted. I hope the Connecticut state government has no way to trace ownership of those rifles.
I think you are wrong. Unless each weapon was registered to a specific owner and previously required notification of ownership changes, the only way to find these weapons is a 4473 search of the original purchasers, which would require Federal assistance and IMHO, should be illegal. All the owner has to say is that he has disposed of the weapon(s) and no longer owns them.
They will offer several amnesty periods and make dire threats, much as the Canadian government did. Our own government did this with Class 3 items.
In the end, most owners will choose not to register them, as this is clearly an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. The owners problem will be that the weapon will only be secure from legal attention as long as it is kept out of sight. No more range days, gun shows, etc. Even driving around in the car with it will be risky. And disgruntled spouses and ex-spouses have a new, very heavy weapon of their own.
But the state has now created, overnight, tens of thousands of well-armed felons.
TR
Stiletto11
02-14-2014, 15:27
TR, Better to have and not need than to need and not have. If you read the full story you will see they are amazed that there would be civil disobedience and even claimed ignorance on behalf of the gun owners not knowing the law was passed. Is that arrogance or what?
GratefulCitizen
02-14-2014, 17:14
Connecticut gun owners opinion on the law:
"We can do whatever we want."
Turnabout is fair play...
Connecticut gun owners opinion on the law:
"We can do whatever we want."
Turnabout is fair play...
Isn't that what the politician @ 1600 Penn. Ave pretty much said too? Now how does that shoe feel on the other foot pols?
Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/tens-of-thousands-of-connecticut-gun-owners-may-be-staging-a-massive-act-of-civil-disobedience/)
On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.
Molon Labe!
The Hartford Courant editorial page is calling for aggressive enforcement of the recently passed CT registration requirement.
NY and CT represent the current front line on an undeniable assault on otherwise lawful firearm ownership.
<snip>
"And have they considered what having their bluff called will do to produce an epiphany, and embolden gun owners everywhere, when it suddenly becomes clear to all who holds the true power in this country if they would only first realize and then exercise it?"
<snip>
Courant demands on gun enforcement present dilemma for state
February 15, 2014
David Codrea
Gun Rights Examiner
Decrying estimates that “scores of thousands of Connecticutresidents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31,” The Hartford Courantpublished an editorial Fridaydeclaring “State Can't Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook.
Aware that “willful noncompliance ... is doubtless a major issue,” The Courant floated the wishful thinking “that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.
“But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law,” The Courant concluded, calling on the state to use the “background check database” to identify who has not obeyed, and to go and get them.
"If ever there was proof that citizen disarmament demanders are lying when they scoff at legitimate fears that background checks providing a registration capability, this is it. And if ever there was further corroboration that they intend using that registration to enable confiscation, The Courant just removed all doubt."
“If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences,” they pronounce.
Perhaps The Courant's editors and those they’re egging on would do well to also consider consequences those who want to enforce the law should be prepared to face, as Mike Vanderboegh explained in an open letter to the Connecticut State Police posted this morning on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.
Citing a Feb. 10 article in which The Courant estimated “as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals -- perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000,” Vanderboegh went on to note “CSP currently has around 1,248 troopers.”
Simply as a matter of resources and logistics, the state will be hard-pressed to allocate the manpower, budget, jail facilities and court case load capabilities to do more than scratch the surface to try to frighten everyone by making examples of a few. If The Courant is going to demand they apply those resources to all, perhaps the editors would flesh out what compliance with their call to action consists of, starting with realistic costs to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate every noncompliant gun owner, the number of total hours and dedicated personnel needed to execute that plan, how many decades it will take to accomplish, how many businesses will be disrupted by losing valuable employees, how much tax revenue the state will lose by taking productive taxpayers out of circulation and turning them into dependents, how many families will be forced into dependency to further burden assistance rolls, and what violent criminals who prey on victims are going to be doing while the state dedicates all those resources to destroying all those principled citizens their edicts turned into overnight “felons.”
Logistical considerations aside, have The Courant editors got an estimate for how many heretofore law-abiding gun owners the state will need to actually kill before their demands can be met? And that’s all assuming those defying the edict on principle are willing to allow a force they so demonstrably outnumber to destroy their lives. When faced with utter financial ruin, the effects of punishment extracted on themselves and their families, the lifetime criminal record, the lifetime ban on a right that supposedly “shall not be infringed,” and the prospects of being locked up for years with psychotic and dangerous violent criminal scum in institutions where terrifying brutality, prison rape, head-busting guards and total loss of personal freedom are all daily realities, it’s not unreasonable to ask why would anyone go gentle into that good night.
Well, they could just surrender and save themselves all that, some will no doubt answer.
True, and some no doubt will. But then, what good would the Second Amendment be if Americans just surrendered their guns when ordered to? The lesson of Captain Parker is not lost on some.
Has The Courant got a plan for when a percentage of Connecticut gun owners -- and it needn’t be more than, say three percent -- meets the order to surrender or be destroyed with defiance? Have they, along with Gov. Malloy and his enforcer Mike Lawlor, considered what their next move will be when that determined minority answers back that the state is going to need to do things the hard way?
And have they considered what having their bluff called will do to produce an epiphany, and embolden gun owners everywhere, when it suddenly becomes clear to all who holds the true power in this country if they would only first realize and then exercise it?
<snip>
http://www.examiner.com/article/courant-demands-on-gun-enforcement-present-dilemma-for-state?CID=examiner_alerts_article
Not that it matters to them, but wouldn't it be illegal to use the background database to do that kind of search? Before everyone says it, I know that it doesn't matter, and that they wouldn't hesitate to do it legal or otherwise, I'm just curious.
My understanding is that background check info is required by law to be destroyed - but 4473's must be kept for years.
Gun control zealots would never infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.
And the IRS would never target conservative groups.
Team Sergeant
02-16-2014, 13:11
And if you want to disobey the Constitution of the United States you should be prepared to face the consequences. :munchin
In which state will it begin???
Gun Registration: Break the law, pay the price
February 14, 2014|Editorial, The Hartford Courant
Connecticut has a gun problem.
It's estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31.
That's the deadline imposed by a tough bipartisan gun-safety law passed by the legislature last year in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
Widespread noncompliance with this major element of a law that was seen as a speedy and hopefully effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook creates a headache for the state.
The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.
Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.
First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.
Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.
But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.
A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.
If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-14/news/hc-ed-gun-registration-20140214_1_new-law-gun-registration-military-style-assault-weapons
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2014, 13:24
And if you want to disobey the Constitution of the United States you should be prepared to face the consequences. :munchin
In which state will it begin???
Hopefully, it will begin in Arizona.
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/gop-to-cities-uphold-nd-amendment-or-else/article_24bed12a-92e5-11e3-8e88-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1294p.pdf
ddoering
02-16-2014, 16:13
And if you want to disobey the Constitution of the United States you should be prepared to face the consequences. :munchin
In which state will it begin???
http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-14/news/hc-ed-gun-registration-20140214_1_new-law-gun-registration-military-style-assault-weapons
Imagine the influx of patriots into Connecticut to help those patriots resist. Those who violate the Constitution should be prepared to face the consequences.
Imagine the influx of patriots into Connecticut to help those patriots resist. Those who violate the Constitution should be prepared to face the consequences.
Not all that far from Lexington and Concord. Just saying...
Pat
Some unfortunate citizens (safe targets) might be made example of early. These unfortunate folks may need (among other things) legal help and legal defense fund raising.
If the state of CT continues down this path -- then escalation is on them.
The Hartford Courant does not realize the flames that they are fanning.
The POTUS has already set a precedent on obeying the letter of the law, with his disregard for implementing certain aspects of the Affordable Health Care Act as it was written. What is there two sets of rules out there?
Team Sergeant
02-17-2014, 09:26
Imagine the influx of patriots into Connecticut to help those patriots resist. Those who violate the Constitution should be prepared to face the consequences.
Bingo..... if the liberals want a war this is how it starts.
Molon Labe
I found this from 2013 interesting in that it appears that CT is more concerned with registration (and its enforcement) rather than SENTENCING those convicted of other crimes while carrying a weapon.
Guess it makes for better window dressing to target lawful citizens, who by nature comply, than unlawful "scofflaws".
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0186.htm
ddoering
02-17-2014, 17:13
You really think that would happen? Would be incredible if something like it did.
I would encourage and support it.:lifter
The Reaper
02-17-2014, 17:43
You really think that would happen? Would be incredible if something like it did.
BS:
Do you actually own a firearm?
TR
BS:
Do you actually own a firearm?
TR
For the record sir, I lost them in a fishing accident...
ddoering
02-18-2014, 04:21
While neat to think about, I think that outcome of such an event would be very bad.
It is not "neat" by a long run. It is deadly serious. People asserting their rights is not new in this country or in others. Look at Syria, Libya, Egypt etc... The people in those places thought they were being held down by abusive leaders. They did something about it. Are we so different?
Barbarian
02-18-2014, 11:58
IMO, one should never resort to violence in a liberal democracy against the government. Peaceful civil resistance and voting are the methods of resistance used.
The purposeful non-registration of ARs IS the peaceful resistance that you are referring to. Are you suggesting gun owners should hand over their weapons to the government, at a request?
." What IMO would be a much more sound way for gun owners in and from out of state to resist such a situation would be MASSIVE peaceful protests. If you can raise an army of gun owners from out of state to come fight the government there, why not just have them come in and peacefully resist? Form say a wall of people around the capital government and not let the government function, etc...what are they going to do, arrest tens of thousands of people, or shoot them? And if they DID try shooting them, imagine how that would come across to the rest of the country? .
That would be neat, but that sort of thing only works really well for left leaning individuals like the OWS crowd. You have to remember that those of us who lean to the right you know the "bitter clingers" work for a living. Somebody has to pay taxes in this country.
No, but I do not see violent resistance as any wise solution either.
So then you would rather live on your knees, than die on your feet ....
You might want to look at changing your user name to Ba-Ba-Ba-Broardsword.
:munchin
Team Sergeant
02-18-2014, 13:21
No, but I do not see violent resistance as any wise solution either.
George Washington would disagree, so would I.
No, but I do not see violent resistance as any wise solution either.
Shays' Rebellion seemed to be a good teachable moment.
Stiletto11
02-18-2014, 13:36
Anyone here live in a "Liberal Democracy?" Just checking.
Anyone here live in a "Liberal Democracy?" Just checking.
Last I heard, it was a "constitutional Republic", though looking at it you may or may not be able to tell....
No, but I do not see violent resistance as any wise solution either.
Shays' Rebellion seemed to be a good "teachable moment".
Let's not forget The Battle of Athens.
http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31808.php
:munchin
The Reaper
02-18-2014, 14:42
If you have time to fight the government you have time to protest instead.
The soapbox comes before the cartridge box.
Has it not been tried already?
TR
The time for protest ended when Obama got re-elected.
mojaveman
02-18-2014, 15:42
Apparently Nancy Grace doesn't like Englishman Piers Morgan commenting on 2nd Ammendment issues in the U.S. I don't either. I thought her comment about British soldiers and armed Patriots was spot on. :D
The Limey can go home any time he wants to. :p
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/nancy-grace-rips-piers-morgan-not-brit-lecture-150835400.html
ZonieDiver
02-18-2014, 16:39
The time for protest ended when Obama got re-elected.
So... are you going in with the first wave?
ddoering
02-18-2014, 17:58
But Sir, the difference I'd say is that Washington was fighting against a government in which the colonists had no representation. We have representation with our government.
Seems like we re almost there again. Do you really trust our elections? Dead people voting, undocumented people voting..... At what point do the people draw the line?
As I read this thread over the past couple of days...I am simultaneously reminded of the striking and important title of this thread, the content of the influential, heartfelt and well written letter in the OP and the content of the recent OP-ED piece in the Hartford Courant which stands in stark contrast to both.
Thus, I do not read this thread as one calling for insurrection...unless, of course, you perhaps take the editorial board of the Hartford Courant at their word...
The editorial board of the Hartford Courant is calling for registration and prosecution...not of gang bangers or felons...but of otherwise law abiding folks - overwhelmingly good citizens - who became criminals overnight.
The passion illustrated in some posts in this thread strongly suggests just what is at stake...knowing full well that registration leads to confiscation...
We are undeniably in a clash of cultures - we are currently in the protest phase - protests may or may not succeed.
But, if the advocates for the 2A fail - make no mistake - those who advocate for the "fundamental transformation" of our great country...will succeed.
Molon Labe!
ddoering
02-18-2014, 18:21
Its not the people who are in insurrection when they are standing up for their God-given rights. I believe it is oppressive government that is in insurrection.
Its not the people who are in insurrection when they are standing up for their God-given rights. I believe it is oppressive government that is in insurrection.
Absolutely.
Oppressive government and many in the lap dog media are standing in opposition to the people and their unalienable right to self defense.
The insurrection, the escalation in rhetoric in CT is being fomented by folks who buy ink by the barrel against otherwise law abiding folks - who overwhelmingly just wanted to be left alone.
No, but resorting to violence would only get a bunch of people killed at best. What is the planned outcome of fighting in something like this? You think the authorities would just say, "Okay, we've had enough of the fighting, let all the gun people head home..." no, they'd seek to arrest as many as they could, and there might well be a military response.
I'm sorry, but that has to be the silliest thing I have read in awhile. I am sure people said the EXACT same thing to our founders.
Team Sergeant
02-18-2014, 18:35
Absolutely.
The insurrection, the escalation in rhetoric in CT is being fomented against otherwise law abiding folks who overwhelmingly just wanted to be left alone.
And what was it, 100,000 said no to registering their "assault" rifles......
I think that's a "special kind of NO". I want to see the public officials that passed that "law" go and take away those evil rifles from those folks.
The Reaper
02-18-2014, 19:07
Remember also that the Founders did not believe in insurrections. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution says,
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Also read this portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Jefferson was an admirer of Tacitus and Tacitus wrote about the dangers of what happens when a representative system of government breaks down, i.e. despotism is usually the result. So while the Founders did believe in resistance to a tyrannical government, they meant when the government becomes really, truly tyrannical. They also recognized the danger in that many people who feel shorted by the political process might try staging a violent resistance, i.e. insurrection, and hence there is the provision in the Constitution to use the militia to suppress insurrections.
So the Founders I believe would think that resistance to the representative system of government doing something like trying to confiscate guns should mostly be peaceful, not violent. If our government becomes a variant of the Assad regime, then that is when violence would probably be needed.
I think you mistake Thomas Jefferson for some sort of pacifist.
Thomas Jefferson, January 30, 1797: "....I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government....."
Jefferson, November 13, 1787:....God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. — You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers...."
Personally, I think your positions are too easily taken, as you have no skin in this game, so to speak.
TR
ddoering
02-18-2014, 20:40
I think our elections (putting aside the IRS) are overall pretty trustworthy right now. The GOP won big-time in 2010 remember.
And I don't. Our electoral system is as corrupt as a Chicago politician. Why do they fight so hard to keep people from showing ID to vote? Elections are decided by 1-2% of the vote.
ddoering
02-18-2014, 20:42
The Founders were fighting a war for independence against the English though. The goal was literally to throw the British off and form a new independent country. What would be the goal here? Also remember that the Founders took a HUGE risk, as the English were fighting another war at the time and thus couldn't devote their full strength to the war in America and also the colonies received help from the French.
And why were they fighting? Because they felt that government didn't represent them. They were fighting to remove that government and to form one that would represent them.
Perhaps you should ask Bloomberg for your nuts back.
Having a representative system of government in place already is a huge accomplishment. If it encounters problems, then IMO you work to fix those problems, not upend the system. If you upend the current government, replacing it with one that is just as good or better is extremely difficult and usually doesn't happen. But let's say a revolution happened where we overthrew the current federal government and managed to put a brand-new democratic government in place. You think it wouldn't be just as corrupt? All democratic systems of government will be corrupt to some degree with power-hungry politicians that seek to infringe on rights in various ways.
Also, corruption in the elections is nothing new. When you read about some of the stuff that used to go on in the earlier times of our country regarding elections, it makes one's head spin. The mob played a role in getting JFK elected for example.
"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. " - Thomas Jefferson
Why do you think he said that?
That you resort to force when you have an "absolute tyranny," i.e. where there are no other options except force.
You can't have an "absolute tyranny" until the people are disarmed and can't fight back.
Pat
Not an expert on Thomas Jefferson, but I would interpret it that what he was referring to were countries without representative systems of government for the most part. Remember, the United States was the first republic since Rome. And the idea of representative government that the U.S. pioneered was viewed by the European elites at the time as an experiment that would end in grand failure. The beauty with representative government is that if enough people to stage an armed resistance become severely displeased with the government, that likely is enough people to just vote the politicians out of office.
Ever hear of the 3% ?
Broadsword2004
To quote Josh Waitzkin in Searching for Bobby Fischer, "You've lost; you just don't know it yet." ;)
Pat
Not familiar with that term.
Goggle it - simple to find info but basically refers to the fact that the American Revolution was fought (by about 3% of the population) against the King with a number of patriots - far less than a number sufficient to "vote" him out of office...the phrase has taken on a modern life of its own - alluding to the perhaps small number of firearms owners not willing to ever surrender to oppressive governmental regulation of what many consider a God-given right.
The state of CT and the Hartford Courant are forcing a confrontation with a percent, perhaps even a small percent, of otherwise law abiding people willing to fight in defense of the Constitution.
I do hope that the State of CT does the right thing and repeals the registration requirement and that the Hartford Courant retracts their call for registration and prosecution of ordinary, law abiding citizens.
Ahhh, well in any resistance, you will probably have a fraction of the population that is doing the actual war fighting, at least due to logistical issues. But that doesn't mean it's only 3% that would support the resistance. 3% of the American population would be about nine million people, that would be a pretty sizeable force. And it could be larger in terms of people who carry out things like sabotage and so forth but don't engage in direct fighting.
Anyway, don't drill too deep or you may miss the forest for the trees.
This thread is basically about protecting a right - long revered - and enshrined in the Constitution.
The most recent flurry of posting activity has been in relation to CT's hastily passed and ill-advised legislation requiring the registration of arms currently in everyday use.
The people of CT (or most of the people, who own such weapons - reportedly not an insubstantial number) in an act of defiance have spoken - peacefully - in a widespread act of civil disobedience.
In response, the "big" newspaper in town has essentially called for prosecution of otherwise law abiding folks who basically just wanted to be left alone.
The lines of conflict have been drawn. The sides are clear - and history has shown that registration leads to confiscation.
The state of CT and the Hartford Courant are forcing a confrontation with respect to supporters of the Second Amendment...otherwise law abiding citizens who became "criminals" overnight...can't you see the relationship between this situation, the current political environment and the quotes provided to you?
The state, the media and other enablers are poking the people in the eye...not to mention running afoul of the Consitution.
Tempers gonna run hot.
ddoering
02-19-2014, 06:46
It comes down to whether you believe the Constitution is the supreme document that established and continues to be a guide for our country or if it is an old, outdated document written by and for old white men and is not relevent in the modern world. I know at least one of the SC justices thinks the later.
Stiletto11
02-19-2014, 08:42
It comes down to whether you believe the Constitution is the supreme document that established and continues to be a guide for our country or if it is an old, outdated document written by and for old white men and is not relevent in the modern world. I know at least one of the SC justices thinks the later.
Read The Tempting of America by Judge Robert Bork and you will understand why the SC Justices believes the later.
As this thread's initial subject was the "Protecting the Second Amendment" letter, that letter and this discussion raise a question that I've been pondering here.
1,100 "current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers " signed that letter, and more certainly would have. Are the principles stated in the letter representative of the majority of currently serving SF personnel?
I think that SF soldiers would be more likely to make a career-ending stand on principle than the average troop, particularly in the officer and senior NCO ranks. But I don't know y'all intimately, and I do know human nature makes it much harder to make a decision like that.
Not familiar with that term.
3%'s "Mike Vanderboegh The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters"
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-men-and-women-of.html
Supposedly this email was sent out to all the Connecticut State Police
3%'s "Mike Vanderboegh The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters"
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-men-and-women-of.html
Supposedly this email was sent out to all the Connecticut State Police
This guy is very articulate.
We will just have to agree to disagree :)
Loser. ;)
Team Sergeant
03-07-2014, 13:37
Ahhh, well in any resistance, you will probably have a fraction of the population that is doing the actual war fighting, at least due to logistical issues. But that doesn't mean it's only 3% that would support the resistance. 3% of the American population would be about nine million people, that would be a pretty sizeable force. And it could be larger in terms of people who carry out things like sabotage and so forth but don't engage in direct fighting.
You do realize that only 1% of Americans actually protect our nation.
I would never expect anything more from the 99%, why do you think we call them sheeple?
You do realize that only 1% of Americans actually protect our nation.
and approximately 0.04% with the highest ratio of effect (pun intended).
Dusty: LOL!
The Reaper
03-07-2014, 18:03
A couple of interesting articles on the topic.
"Dear Mr. Security Agent,
Federal, state, or local. You, the man or woman with the badge, the sworn LEO or FLEA and those who inhabit the many law enforcement niches in between and on all sides. This essay is directed to you, because in the end, how this turmoil about gun control turns out will depend largely upon your decisions and actions over the coming months and years.
I sincerely wish that members of Congress—who may soon be voting on new gun control measures—would read this essay, but I realize that’s a pipe dream, considering the impenetrable bubbles around those exalted entities. So I’ll settle for you, Mr. (or Ms.) Security Agent, since you already gobble up everything on the internet, and I don’t have to seek you out.
A decade ago I wrote the novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic, a tale about how tragic events involving the misuse of firearms can be used by an evil administration to misinform and mold public opinion to support its malign anti-freedom policies...."(cont. at link)
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/bracken-dear-mr-security-agent/
"An Open Letter to the Men and Women of the Connecticut State Police: You are NOT the enemy (UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO BE.)
The following letter was sent via email to members of the Connecticut State Police, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. There are 1,212 email addresses on the list. There were 62 bounce-backs.
15 February 2014
To the men and women of the Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection:
My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights. Some of you, if you read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre. We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle, we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out an unconstitutional agenda under color of law. If we have any model, it is that of the Founding generation. The threat to public order and safety, unfortunately, comes from the current leaders of your state government who unthinkingly determined to victimize hitherto law-abiding citizens with a tyrannical law. They are the ones who first promised violence on the part of the state if your citizens did not comply with their unconstitutional diktat. Now, having made the threat (and placed the bet that you folks of the Connecticut State Police will meekly and obediently carry it out) they can hardly complain that others take them seriously and try by every means, including this letter, to avoid conflict...."(cont. at link)
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-men-and-women-of.html
Very interesting reads.
TR
Paper Wins Gun-Permit Information Suit Against Putnam; Suit Filed
Against Rockland
The acting Rockland County Attorney will review the decision.
Posted by Lanning Taliaferro (Editor) ,
March 07, 2014 at 02:43 PM
A New York state judge has ruled that Putnam County must give public information on names and addresses of pistol-permit holders
to The Journal News.
Now Rockland officials must decide how they'll respond to a similar lawsuit that the Gannett newspaper filed against the county last
week. The Journal News filed new Freedom of Information requests after a statewide moratorium expired in May 2013.
"Both Putnam and Rockland counties denied the second information request, prompting the newspaper's lawsuit against Putnam in
October and, last week, a similar filing against Rockland," The Journal News said in a March 6 article.
After the state court's ruling, Rockland County Executive Ed Day said in a statement, "in light of the court's ruling, the acting county
attorney will review the situation and advise the county clerk accordingly."
Meanwhile, Putnam County is seeking a stay pending appeal.
"Warning, our worst nightmare has come true...Putnam County is being denied the right to protect our citizens against an
unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy," County Clerk Dennis Sant and Deputy County Clerk Michael C. Bartolotti said in a
March 7 press release. "We are fighting the good fight on this and will do everything in our power to oppose this crusade by The
Journal News to get their hands on your personal information."
In a news article when it filed the suit, lohud.com said the paper did not plan to release the names of individuals holding permits as it had done when it published information about gun-permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties.
The state's penal law has deemed the information public for years. The paper's original act at the end of 2012 had caused a storm of controversy that overtook horror about the Newtown, CT school shooting, which had happened a few weeks previously.
The issue so infuriated Sant that he made a special trip to Westchester County to endorse County Clerk Tim Idoni's opponent Mary Beth Murphy in the 2013 election—and staged a press conference with a poster of The Journal News' gun map.
Sant's stand made him a national hero in some eyes—and got him a new parking space. He announced in January that he would not
seek re-election. He and Bartolotti urged everyone to mount a massive campaign to get the state's penal law changed.They also urge all Putnam gun-permit holders to sign and submit an Opt Out form, created after New York passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act in response to the controversy. It provides specific exemptions allowing some gun-permit holders' identities to be withheld from the media.
.
http://http://pearlriver.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/speak-out-putnam-county-clerks-call-to-action-pearlriver (http://pearlriver.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/speak-out-putnam-county-clerks-call-to-action-pearlriver)
Perfect example of the media intentionally making a tense dangerous situation worse. Its insane
scratching head, "and why do I keep renewing my permit in a state that doesn't require one?"
Those kind of acts garner trust and loyalty
Perfect example of the media intentionally making a tense dangerous situation worse. Its insane
It'll sell more papers (Advertising).
Of course they're going to stir the pot.
:munchin
scratching head, "and why do I keep renewing my permit in a state that doesn't require one?"
Those kind of acts garner trust and loyalty
Because, without one, you can't carry in other states.
Pat
An interesting 2010 article describing one possible path for legislative pushback that might now get some legs in response to the registration, publication and eventual confiscation dynamic currently taking place in NY and CT.
"Enormous police effort that could be going directly toward reducing crime is instead being diverted into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent."
Constitutional Carry
The right to discreetly bear arms should not require government-issued permission slips.
It's time for "Freedom To Carry" to replace "Right To Carry"
http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarry.htm
Because, without one, you can't carry in other states.
Pat
You're right...
Looking forward to the day that the courts use a dictionary on the word "Bear" (the verb). Would sure hate to have to carry a bear around :D
GratefulCitizen
03-08-2014, 00:04
You're right...
Looking forward to the day that the courts use a dictionary on the word "Bear" (the verb). Would sure hate to have to carry a bear around :D
http://youtu.be/gHJWofb5M_k
:D
http://youtu.be/gHJWofb5M_k
:D
I'll have to use that one in future...who could possibly misconstrue such a simple word?
Here comes my new year's word, Mor..., nope it speaks for itself.
A couple of interesting articles on the topic.
"Dear Mr. Security Agent,
Federal, state, or local. You, the man or woman with the badge, the sworn LEO or FLEA and those who inhabit the many law enforcement niches in between and on all sides. This essay is directed to you, because in the end, how this turmoil about gun control turns out will depend largely upon your decisions and actions over the coming months and years.
I sincerely wish that members of Congress—who may soon be voting on new gun control measures—would read this essay, but I realize that’s a pipe dream, considering the impenetrable bubbles around those exalted entities. So I’ll settle for you, Mr. (or Ms.) Security Agent, since you already gobble up everything on the internet, and I don’t have to seek you out.
A decade ago I wrote the novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic, a tale about how tragic events involving the misuse of firearms can be used by an evil administration to misinform and mold public opinion to support its malign anti-freedom policies...."(cont. at link)
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/bracken-dear-mr-security-agent/
Very interesting reads.
TR
His YELLOW, RED and DEAD LINES I totally agree with. We can all see this happening across America. The chipping away of freedom in a subversion and sabotage style that in under the radar for most.
I think Switzerland and Israel or better examples of nations that have good gun-control and citizens that understand the use of guns.
Combat Diver
03-08-2014, 08:30
Switzerland been moving in the other direction lately. More restirctions on FA and you can not carry period so my friend there tells me.
CD
Looks like someone took a page from our book.
http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws
Gun design evolves a little every year...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24b4hMMrq90
In reference to Examiner article.
When all this started many of the Sheriffs in Montana got together and went on all the local News to let everyone know "we won't enforce any gun law that 'infringes' on the 2nd Amendment". It was the wisest thing to do there.
Hmm there's some other simple words...
"Shall not be infringed" wtf
Proud of you Connecticut, very.
I'm curious if any Staties signed it, and how many of them feel?
Javadrinker
03-10-2014, 09:04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24b4hMMrq90
interesting ...in this recording the Conn. St. Police Lt. Vance says the letter was sent basically saying "that we know you have the weapon". But we do not have weapon registration, really?
Team Sergeant
03-11-2014, 13:03
http://www.infowars.com/conn-cop-i-will-kick-down-doors-to-confiscate-guns/
First, I don't like Infowars but I've no doubt that any other MSM would not have run this story. If you read the exchange you'll see that Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson is quite overzealous in his comments and his lack of understanding concerning the 2nd Amendment.
What Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson (and the Connecticut leadership) doesn't understand is the bigger picture and what is actually at stake. You see Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson once you start physically confiscating guns of law abiding Americans you will start a war and one that you and your liberal/progressive/socialist puppet masters will not win.
When you Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson (and those like you) decide to take action by confiscating weapons of law abiding Americans so will I take action, but unlike you I can wait and I will be planning. You see officer Joseph Peterson it's been stated that only 13% of the firearms owners of Connecticut have complied, they are the sheep. But that 87% that did not comply, they will stand with me and I with them.
This is not about income inequality or the redistribution of wealth, it's not about corporate greed, greenhouse gasses or global warming, its defiantly not about race, creed or gender, it all about individual human Freedoms. A concept that is too difficult for most to understand, until they lose it and why we have a 2nd Amendment in our Constitution to protect our citizens against government tyranny.
You see Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson, when the confiscating of guns of law abiding Americans begins I will continue to fulfill my obligations as a soldier and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Badger52
03-11-2014, 13:24
...but unlike you I can wait and I will be planning. All very well-written Team Sergeant.
And the moment the door begins to move off its hinges Officer Joseph Peterson and his fellow lackeys have lost all standing and will own whatever follows.
Funny, I see the Linkedin profile of Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson is no longer available as referenced in the article. Hmm.
The Reaper
03-11-2014, 13:31
1st US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]."
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
TR
Stiletto11
03-11-2014, 13:40
III%
Roger
I'll leave the light on for them....
Stiletto11
03-11-2014, 19:43
No worries, his address and phone numbers have been posted on the net.
Stiletto11
03-13-2014, 19:58
There have been reports that Navy veteran John Cinque has been receiving threats because of his stance on the issue of Connecticut's gun registration law. Apparently those reports are due to a misreading of a piece by the New Haven Register in which Cinque said, "There have been threats made — that I found out about today." Freedom Outpost reached out to John Cinque, who spoke with us this morning and confirmed that the threats he was speaking about were towards the Branford Police, not towards him.
"The cops are having the threats…. they are scared," he told us.
According to Cinque, Officer Joseph Peterson, who made comments in interaction on Facebook while off duty that he would "give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun…" has been placed on 24-hour guard due to threats on his life. This information came directly from Police Chief Kevin Halloran.
Mr. Cinque told us that he had a two and a half hour "sit down" with the Branford Police Department on Tuesday. He said that the Branford PD was supposed to come out with an apology for Peterson's comments and wanted Cinque's endorsement of the apology in an attempt to cool things down.
"The first words out of the police chief's mouth… were 'How can you help us with this?'" Cinque said. "They're getting killed over there. They said they can do nothing but deal with this."
Cinque's endorsement would not be automatic. "There are some things here that need to be addressed before I endorse the apology," he said. "Don't make the apology to me. The apology has to be to the residents of Branford and to the citizens of the State of Connecticut."
"If we are looking to tamp this thing down…none of us need violence here," Cinque continued.
"We're winning this thing; we're winning this thing hard here," Cinque said, referring to the efforts to ignore unconstitutional and unlawful legislation that seeks to have citizens register their semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
"That's the last thing we need," he added, referring to violence.
"We're going to try to throw water on this thing and get it calmed down ..." Cinque said. "The whole premise of where Joe's coming from has to be addressed, and now it has been ... Now it's time to calm it down ...
"The problem now is, we have a forest fire burning, and we've got to see how we can go about extinguishing it," he said.
John Cinque stressed that threats and violence on both sides is not what will win the day. "None of us wants violence anyway."
Cinque also pointed out that no ex post facto laws or retainers can be instituted, and that doesn't apply to just guns.
For his part, Cinque said there would have to be several things in the apology before he would endorse it. One of those things would be remedial training in the United States Constitution for Officer Joseph Peterson and the other officers of the Branford Police Department. Another would be a stand that the Police Department would not be involved in the enforcement of the gun registration law.
Branford Police as scheduled to contact John Cinque today. At the time of the writing of this article, they have not done so. The purpose of the contact, according to Mr. Cinque, is to get his approval of their apology, which they will seek to have broadcast via television with Mr. Cinque lending his approval to the apology.
While Mr. Cinque has been thrown into a whirlwind of news publicity in the past week, he is confident that cooler heads will prevail and wants to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. That solution is to have constitutionally educated law enforcement officers, who also understand the history of gun registration / confiscation, and a citizenry who elect lawmakers who understand the same.
Mr. Cinque has said that he will update us on any progress of the Branford Police apology. If, and when, it becomes public, we will provide our readers with that information.
This is a lesson in how to deal with this issue in your own town, county and state. The people must be vocal and they must not back down. Threats of violence are not the way to go about things. Citizens are to remain vigilant, and the only proper use of force would be defensively. I applaud the efforts of patriots like John Cinque and others who have drawn a line in the sand, and unlike a certain occupant of the White House, don't blink when the line is crossed.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/threats-connecticut-police-escalate-following-connecticut-cops-gun-confiscation-comments-pro-gun-veteran-asked-help-cool-things/#GQXOF2zo7jwYAgeZ.99
Badger52
03-14-2014, 05:09
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3
...
Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
Stilletto, thanks for posting.
Stiletto11
03-14-2014, 06:42
It appears they are stuck in the OODA Loop, confused as how to proceed.
...While Mr. Cinque has been thrown into a whirlwind of news publicity in the past week, he is confident that cooler heads will prevail and wants to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. That solution is to have constitutionally educated law enforcement officers, who also understand the history of gun registration / confiscation, and a citizenry who elect lawmakers who understand the same.
I have been racking my brain to come up with a viable solution to this issue (2A encroachment), and other issues plaguing our way of life as Americans. That is why I am a member of this forum, because I am interested in the SF way of life, and from what I understand, problem solving is a big part of that way of life. As I see it, we have some enormous problems that need solving.
In regard to the highlighted portion of the article, I am having a difficult time understanding the phrase “cooler heads will prevail". From my view of outside looking in, voting and educating haven't done squat but allow the powers that be to further diminish our Constitutional rights by way of the death by a thousand cuts method to satisfy greed. So how do we, as a Nation, either regain our rights, or cease the actions being taken to whittle down those rights? Judging from the last two Presidential elections and other elections across the board, the vast majority of people in America don't give two pennies about what happens to the Nation as a whole, so long as it doesn't interfere with their TV reception. So how will you convince millions of sheeple to wake the hell up? I don't have the answers, and that is why I pose these questions. It just seems apparent that being the cooler head gets you pissed on to warm it back up.
Americans have short attention spans. You can give the best speech or show the best TV ads and two minutes later, after that trip to Wendy's, all is forgotten. I saw this country band together for the most part right after 9/11, and it stayed that way for a few years. Is that what it will take? Will it take another outside attack that destroys American lives and families for people to realize just how precious our liberty is? I certainly and sincerely hope that does not happen again, so what can we do? There are enough great minds on this board to come up with alternative solutions that we can maybe forward to elected officials and get real results instead of empty promises.
The letter in the original post of this thread is a great start, but outside of a few websites, I haven’t seen it mentioned by anyone it was directed to anywhere else. So now what? How can we get our elected officials to really listen? The dissent shown in Connecticut is also a great start, but those individuals who defied their leaders are now felons. Will America get up in arms when they start kicking in doors and dragging these newly minted criminals out to the patty wagon? I doubt it.
A compilation of ideas has led me to a solution, albeit it may get me arrested for thoughtcrime. Here goes the "what if...?". What if, we had a person or a handful of intelligent, charismatic, and articulate people who hold a "Million man march" rally of sorts in DC while Congress is in session? While having personnel in the crowd to self-police, we move the crowd to the U.S. Capitol. We then physically open the doors, and with a list of those seated who are blatantly opposed to the Constitution, start systematically offering the ultimatum of either "get out, or we'll throw you out".
With sufficient numbers, I believe this could be a solution without a shot being fired. We would keep those who have the core beliefs this Nation was built on to aid in the reconstruction of Congress, and hold emergency elections in each district not represented any longer to repopulate the empty seats. The voting tickets would have no party affiliations listed, just a limited number of candidates who have 48 hours to state their case via televised town hall style forums.
This would be an "action" that Americans would pay attention to, while simultaneously reverting back to the way business should be conducted according to the provisions outlined in the Constitution. It sounds crazy, but I'm just spitballing here to see what others think.
Stiletto11
03-14-2014, 07:15
First of all, a person is not a felon unless tried by his peers and found guilty. There is no such thing as a expost facto felon or paper felon. Secondly, I can't agree with the idea of marches, letter writing, hearings, phone calls etc. It was already done and didn't work. The legislature and Governor of CT got their marching orders from DC. Gun Control is an agenda that does not include rational thinking. It is put in place for a reason and the reason is one of disarmament and disarmament alone. Do not be fooled. The line has been drawn and the actors will take their course. Not a rant just some thoughts on the subject.
Do not - for a second - think that the vast majority of LEO's subscribe to this Barney Fife's sheeple mentality. At least in the very large group I associate with, the day that we turn our backs on the Constitution and begin putting yellow Juden stars on gun owners is the day we have lost everything.
I sometimes feel as if we are watching our own decline into nation of cowards - or I guess I'm just shocked at the lack of outrage. Laws are changed on whims and checkpoints are set up for DNA sampling?? And now you want to take away Joe Citizens right to defend themselves?
I will choose to follow established and historical precedents - unregistered weapons are NOT illegal - they are simply undocumented.............
"So at this point, what difference does it make".........
Stiletto11
03-14-2014, 07:34
The propaganda campaign rolls on and gun owners and guns in general are being characterized as evil and the sheep eat this stuff like its candy. Connecticut politicians thought that everyone would just obey and that was a miscalculation based on arrogance and a thirst for power. There are plenty of keyboard warriors who talk tough until it is time to go to the fight. I saws them in line registering mags and rifles. Time will tell but I hope that all freedom loving individuals gun owners or not will band together for a common cause....Freedom. We live in precarious times.
Team Sergeant
03-14-2014, 11:23
Do not - for a second - think that the vast majority of LEO's subscribe to this Barney Fife's sheeple mentality. At least in the very large group I associate with, the day that we turn our backs on the Constitution and begin putting yellow Juden stars on gun owners is the day we have lost everything.
I sometimes feel as if we are watching our own decline into nation of cowards - or I guess I'm just shocked at the lack of outrage. Laws are changed on whims and checkpoints are set up for DNA sampling?? And now you want to take away Joe Citizens right to defend themselves?
I will choose to follow established and historical precedents - unregistered weapons are NOT illegal - they are simply undocumented.............
"So at this point, what difference does it make".........
I think that when the confiscations begin you'll see outrage not seen in this country since the civil war.....
Politicians are not above the law as they seem to think.
I think that when the confiscations begin you'll see outrage not seen in this country since the civil war.....
Politicians are not above the law as they seem to think.
Then can we put them on boats and planes to Europe and take away their f'in computers? :@-;&%:(*
Stiletto11
03-14-2014, 20:36
I think that when the confiscations begin you'll see outrage not seen in this country since the civil war.....
Politicians are not above the law as they seem to think.
I hope you're right.
Oldrotorhead
03-18-2014, 08:35
I hope the Supreme Court supports the 2A on this one. The ONLY thing I miss that NJ has is their beaches.
Case to Watch: Drake v. Jerejian
by Allen Thompson, Esq.
By Allen Thompson, Esq.
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided not to hear several important firearms rights cases this year, setting aside such issues as: whether a concealed carry permit-holder residing at a house creates an exigent circumstance in which police do not have to announce their presence, and whether a 10-round magazine, deemed protected by the Second Amendment, can be prohibited as a safety measure. However, one case is still standing and the Supreme Court is still receiving briefs on the merits.
Drake v. Jerejian, Docket No. 13-827 (which started out life as Drake v. Filko), challenges New Jersey’s impossibly restrictive carry permit requirements. In order to gain a carry permit in New Jersey, one must first demonstrate “justifiable need.” To many people’s surprise, one can only show “justifiable need” in one of two ways: a specific threat against the person, or a significant enough history to demonstrate that need. In addition, one must show that carrying a firearm is the only way to prevent harm from the attack. Once local law enforcement signs off on the permit, an applicant still needs approval from the New Jersey Superior Court. And, as Mr. Drake found out, even if the local law enforcement authorities grant the permit, the New Jersey State Police is still likely to appeal.
John Drake, Gregory Gallaher, Lenny Salerno, and Finley Fenton, along with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, filed suit challenging the essential ban on carrying in New Jersey. John Drake, who operates a business restocking and servicing ATM machines, necessarily carries large amounts of cash on him and desired to carry a firearm for protection. After initially being approved by the local law enforcement agency, the New Jersey State Police appealed and the Superior Court reversed the LEO’s approval. The current lawsuit was then filed and the denial was eventually upheld by the Third Circuit. Petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case currently sits, awaiting its fate.
To date, numerous heavy hitters have entered the arena as amici, or third-parties with some interest in the outcome of the case. The NRA, the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the Cato Institute have all filed briefs in support of the challenge to New Jersey’s law. Nineteen states* also filed to support the challenge, as well as the Judicial Education Project. A single brief was filed on behalf of the following: Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Policy Analysis Center. Members of Congress submitted a brief, as well, urging clarification on firearms laws.
Respondents (those defending New Jersey’s law) had until March 14 to file a response. Although nothing has been posted on the docket as of yet, it is quite possible that, because March 14 was a Friday and Monday saw inclement weather in Washington, D.C., the docket simply does not reflect the submission yet. We will keep you posted as this case progresses.
*The following states joined Wyoming in filing the amicus brief in support of the Petitioners: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
New post on Prince Law Offices, P.C.
Snaquebite
03-21-2014, 06:36
The letter is in the news again
http://madworldnews.com/green-berets-open-letter-second-amendment/
This comment was interesting... How would you respond?
"Interesting read. I did find it odd, considering the source, that they chose to include this quote, which would seem to undermine the value of the very existence of the group writing the letter: "It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace... "
Pericles
03-21-2014, 12:45
The letter is in the news again
http://madworldnews.com/green-berets-open-letter-second-amendment/
This comment was interesting... How would you respond?
1. That decision is made by Congress, not the military itself.
2. Contrary to Washington's wishes, the US has a number of treaty commitments for the defense of allies around the world. As the militia is limited by the Constitution to repelling invasions, suppressing insurrections, and enforcing the laws of the union, those defense commitments must be met with the use of regular and volunteer forces.
Badger52
03-24-2014, 04:33
Thanks for that link BS; a perusal of the comments also yielded a more diverse group that read it than I would have supposed.
FlagDayNCO
03-24-2014, 07:22
I hope the Supreme Court supports the 2A on this one. The ONLY thing I miss that NJ has is their beaches.
Case to Watch: Drake v. Jerejian
by Allen Thompson, Esq.
Drake v. Jerejian, Docket No. 13-827 (which started out life as Drake v. Filko), challenges New Jersey’s impossibly restrictive carry permit requirements. In order to gain a carry permit in New Jersey, one must first demonstrate “justifiable need.” To many people’s surprise, one can only show “justifiable need” in one of two ways: a specific threat against the person, or a significant enough history to demonstrate that need. In addition, one must show that carrying a firearm is the only way to prevent harm from the attack. Once local law enforcement signs off on the permit, an applicant still needs approval from the New Jersey Superior Court. And, as Mr. Drake found out, even if the local law enforcement authorities grant the permit, the New Jersey State Police is still likely to appeal.
John Drake, Gregory Gallaher, Lenny Salerno, and Finley Fenton, along with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, filed suit challenging the essential ban on carrying in New Jersey. John Drake, who operates a business restocking and servicing ATM machines, necessarily carries large amounts of cash on him and desired to carry a firearm for protection. After initially being approved by the local law enforcement agency, the New Jersey State Police appealed and the Superior Court reversed the LEO’s approval. The current lawsuit was then filed and the denial was eventually upheld by the Third Circuit. Petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case currently sits, awaiting its fate.
New post on Prince Law Offices, P.C.
A major influence in New Jersey is that the NJSP and other Police Agencies bellieve only they as LEOs have the authority and right to carry a firearm. They are so indoctrinated that any Citizen that owns a firearm is suspect.
The other angle on this is that if the ATM Technician needs protection, the NJSP believe he should hire an off duty Police Officer. Some towns have local laws specifying that you must hire an On Duty Police Officer, using their Office of Outside Employment or such thing. What a small business owner can do as part of his/ her business costs, now shoots through the roof. Many of these towns charge hundreds of dollars PER HOUR for services.
A major influence in New Jersey is that the NJSP and other Police Agencies bellieve only they as LEOs have the authority and right to carry a firearm. They are so indoctrinated that any Citizen that owns a firearm is suspect.
The other angle on this is that if the ATM Technician needs protection, the NJSP believe he should hire an off duty Police Officer. Some towns have local laws specifying that you must hire an On Duty Police Officer, using their Office of Outside Employment or such thing. What a small business owner can do as part of his/ her business costs, now shoots through the roof. Many of these towns charge hundreds of dollars PER HOUR for services.
Shocking, NJ has a racket going. Take away citizens rights, so LE can make more money. Ridiculous
MARCH 21, 2014 4:34 PM
Hawaii Now a 'Shall-Issue' State
By Charles C. W. Cooke
Hawaii, a state that has long been disgraced by some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country, now has “shall-issue” concealed-carry — for now, at least. Per Guns.com:
In a decision released Thursday by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Baker v. Kealoha, the court followed the lead of the recent Peruta case to declare Hawaii’s restrictions on firearms carry unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The case was heard by the same trio of judges who sat on the earlier Peruta and Richards cases in California, which challenged the state’s restrictive ‘may issue’ policies that required concealed carry permit applicants to show “good cause” to warrant a permit. The judges, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Sidney Thomas and Consuelo Callahan, heard Baker in December 2013 and issued their findings Thursday.
“In Peruta, we concluded that the Second Amendment provides a responsible, law-abiding citizen with the right to carry an operable handgun outside the home for the purpose of self-defense,” wrote O’Scannlain for the two-judge majority decision in a memorandum.
“In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity.”
If you’re wondering how big a deal this is for Hawaiians, note how infrequently permits were granted:
Hawaii has some of the strictest concealed carry laws in the country. In 2012, just four private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in the city and county of Honolulu, while one applied in Maui County, and all five were denied at the discretion of the respective county police chief.
Nevertheless, there is likely a rough road ahead:
“Hawaii’s Attorney General and law enforcement leaders will oppose shall issue as will our current liberal Legislature,” Dr. Max Cooper, president of the Hawaii Rifle Association told Guns.com Friday. “It is time for more people to apply for permits and another hearing on a shall issue bill in the 2015 Hawaii Legislature.”
“There is still politics in this, so people need to be pushing their issuing authorities to adopt the Peruta decision and start issuing permits and people should go on down and apply,” explained Michel.
The rest here.
http://http://www.guns.com/2014/03/21/aloha-federal-court-strikes-hawaiis-may-issue-practice-unconstitutional/ (http://www.guns.com/2014/03/21/aloha-federal-court-strikes-hawaiis-may-issue-practice-unconstitutional/)
It looks as if this is Common Core's version of the 2nd Amendment. If this is their version of the 2nd, I'd hate to see what their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 14th and 16th look like.
The Reaper
03-24-2014, 20:42
Yep, the gun blog The Truth About Guns finds these every once in awhile, of elementary school textbooks that have some twisted version of the Second Amendment. There was one, for example, that listed the amendments in more plain English for the students to understand. So the Second Amendment was listed something like, "You have the right to keep and bear arms in a militia."
You certainly do.
What is the original definition of a militia?
TR
I beg pardon if I intrude, but the original idea of a militia was that the entire body of people be well-armed and well-trained. (This because the very idea of standing armies was abhorrent to our founding fathers.) Switzerland understood this message very well for a long time.
Some very good quotes from said founding fathers here:
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm
David Zuniga has some very interesting points here:
http://www.americaagainnow.com/support_our_troops
Stiletto11
03-26-2014, 10:21
The states are supposed to raise the militia (we the people) and then send them to to fight. For example in the civil war you had 15th Vermont Regiment etc. The founders viewed a standing army as a threat. The militia is all able-bodied men 18-45 ( correct me if I'm wrong on the ages).
Just got an Email from Hornady about Feinstein’s new moronic demands:
Her lengthy list of prohibitive demands is outlined below.
"Prohibit importation of all semi-automatic rifles that can accept, or be readily converted to accept, a large capacity ammunition magazine of more than 10 rounds, regardless of the military pedigree of the firearm or the configuration of the firearm's magazine well;
Prohibit semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds;
Prohibit the importation of the frame or receiver of any prohibited rifle, regardless of whether it is incorporated into a fully manufactured firearm.
Prohibit the practice of importing assault rifles in parts and then constructing the rifles once they are in the United States by adding the requisite number of American-made parts;
Prohibit the use of a "thumbhole" stock as a means to avoid classification of a rifle as an assault rifle; and
Prohibit the importation of assault pistols, in addition to assault rifles."
The ban would target attributes like “thumbhole stocks” and “semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds” which would prohibit tube-fed .22 rimfire rifles.
Additionally, rifles and “assault pistols” capable of accommodating detachable magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds would be banned “regardless of the military pedigree of the firearm or the configuration of the firearm’s magazine well.”
She must be stopped. Please join us in an email campaign to all senators, voicing support against this attack on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Send a note to your respective Rep's please..you can do it through Hornady here:
http://www.hornady.com/in-the-news/political-action