View Full Version : Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
Pages :
1
2
3
[
4]
5
6
7
8
Oh, those silly Demoncrat hypocrites:
California state Sen. Leland Yee arrested in federal raid
SAN FRANCISCO -- State Sen. Leland Yee, one of the most powerful Democratic politicians in California, was arrested Wednesday morning in a major series of federal raids in the Bay Area targeting corruption and gang activity, CBS San Francisco reported.
Federal agents arrested Lee at his home in San Francisco Wednesday morning and drove him to the federal courthouse while his offices in Sacramento were raided as well.
An FBI affidavit in support of a criminal complaint against Yee and 25 other people reveals the lawmaker is accused of conspiracy to deal firearms and wire fraud.
Full article: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-state-senator-leland-yee-arrested-in-federal-raid/
Pat
And what is really hilarious, if he is in fact engaged in gun-running, is that this guy is notoriously anti-gun. He said, paraphrasing, "Nobody should have assault weapons. None. Nada."
Unless of course you buy them from him:D
Senate Bill 249 authored by California Senator Leland Yee. SB 249 would make hundreds of thousands of law-abiding California gun owners – and visitors, such as shooting sports competitors – into criminals and subject hundreds of thousands of personal property items to state-sponsored confiscation without compensation, an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Have fun in prison Leland! hahaha
Peregrino
03-27-2014, 19:57
From what they are saying about the corruption of this guy, from being willing to take bribes to telling investigators posing as gangsters that he "doesn't care" who gets the weapons, IMO he probably isn't really either anti-gun or pro-gun, he probably is literally the type of politician who will say and do whatever is needed to get elected. If he was in a pro-gun district, he'd probably be super pro-gun. But since he's in an anti-gun district, he's super anti-gun. The most common form of politician.
Fixed it for you! ;)
LOL, CA politician, Senator Leland Yee appears to share many of the spinal characteristics of Naegleria fowleri...he also inflicts a similar outcome on much of his loyal constituency.
mojaveman
03-28-2014, 12:25
LOL, CA politician, Senator Leland Yee appears to share many of the spinal characteristics of Naegleria fowleri...he also inflicts a similar outcome on much of his loyal constituency.
Talk about a hypocrite! He sure pissed a lot of people off in this state but now, like me, they're probably all rejoicing.
ddoering
03-30-2014, 18:40
He isn't out yet. He was probably framed for being a minority.
This article from Freedom Outpost made a very valid point about schools (and their so-called "experts") creating a climate of fear, so that in the minds of the young, guns are to be viewed not as the inanimate objects that they are, but as a source of fear.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/public-schools-deliberately-creating-culture-fear-setting-stage-tyranny/
This article from Freedom Outpost made a very valid point about schools (and their so-called "experts") creating a climate of fear, so that in the minds of the young, guns are to be viewed not as the inanimate objects that they are, but as a source of fear.
From the article Yesterday in Baltimore, some students saw a person carrying a tripod through the school. Frightened, they reported this to administrators, which resulted in an immediate lockdown:
I would like to know if they stated they saw a person with a tripod and if that is indeed what they reported how does that equate to an immediate lockdown?
to cbtengr: Not sure if your question is to me or not. I'm sure you read the article, which reads:
Yesterday in Baltimore, some students saw a person carrying a tripod through the school. Frightened, they reported this to administrators, which resulted in an immediate lockdown:
This morning, KIPP Ujima Village Academy and KIPP Harmony were placed in heightened security status, based on a report of a possible intruder. Police responded and secured the building, while police and school staff together ensured the safety of all children and staff. After a thorough investigation, police determined that there was no intruder in the building or on school grounds.
“As a precaution while the large school building was searched, students were taken by bus to the shared campus of Baltimore Polytechnic Institute and Western High School. Parents were contacted by phone and through local and social media channels, and were directed to pick up children from that location. (source)
As it turned out, the person carrying the tripod was a journalism student and the tripod was for his camera. However, a SWAT team descended on the school and children and parents alike were terrified after a 4 hour lockdown scenario.
Critical thought is not encouraged. Panic is praised.
Security ‘expert’ Rob Weinhold sums it up:
“It’s just not a time to use any judgment. Take the guesswork out. Lock down the school system. Make sure everyone is safe.”
It would seem that after Sandy Hook, these are the playbook rules to follow.
I did read the article, I just do not follow the logic of the lockdown regarding what someone saw that caused it. Does not take much to cause a panic does it?
Peregrino
04-06-2014, 14:19
The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
Henry Louis Mencken
Trumped fears and baseless promises of security. And that's why "inferior men" are as sheep led to slaughter. Complacent to the very doors of the abattoir, rising in panic only when the stench of blood and offal overwhelm their ability to further delude themselves. And their panic avails nothing, serving only to taint the meat - but not so much as to render it unfit.
I did read the article, I just do not follow the logic of the lockdown regarding what someone saw that caused it. Does not take much to cause a panic does it?
A local elementary school was evacuated a couple weeks back in an area more 'country' than most California areas. Several kids reported seeing a man with a rifle on campus. Seems everyone is on heightened alert nowadays, even in gun friendly areas. Hard to tell what the reaction would have been before Sandy Hook; there was a range nearby years ago.
The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
Henry Louis Mencken
Trumped fears and baseless promises of security. And that's why "inferior men" are as sheep led to slaughter. Complacent to the very doors of the abattoir, rising in panic only when the stench of blood and offal overwhelm their ability to further delude themselves. And their panic avails nothing, serving only to taint the meat - but not so much as to render it unfit.
Very well said - teaching the little ones to swim and tell them everyone gets scared but that in order to figure out what you need to do you have to relax and 'think'.
The quote and these posts also illustrate that there ain't much thinkin' goin' on - just a lot of panic..which 'helps' no one except maybe the evil (as noted above)
miclo18d
04-08-2014, 06:00
Florida is a mixed bag. On one hand you have George Z and the douche that shot the guy at the theater for no reason, then you have the beauty queen that used her pink gun to shoot a home invader. You also have this family. "The family that shoots together..."
-------------------------------
Man Who Broke Into Florida Family’s Home Really Had No Idea What Was Waiting for Him, Apr. 7, 2014 6:42pm, Jason Howerton
An armed Florida family banded together and fought back against a man who police say broke into their home early Monday morning. After the intruder ignored a warning shot, at least two of the family members shot the suspect, killing him.
A mother, father and son living in the Winter Haven, Fla., home reportedly woke up just before 7 a.m. to the sound of an unknown person trying to break in through a porch door. Police later identified the suspect as 40-year-old Mitchell Large.
One of the family members first tried to scare away the intruder with a warning shot. Large apparently did not heed the warning, a decision that would cost him his life.
The intruder managed to make his way into the kitchen — but by that point, three members of the Pena family were armed and ready to defend themselves and their home.
Police Chief Gary Hester said “at least two family members fired in defense of themselves and their property.” Though police say Large likely wasn’t armed, Hester said it appears the family was still within their rights to shoot the man.
“It’s not a very far reach to assume that if someone’s forcing their way into your residence early in the morning, they’re not there to wish you well,” the police chief said. “That’s your castle that a reported intruder is coming into, so whether he was armed or not armed, when he failed to retreat, they certainly had a right — if it turns out this way — would have a right to defend themselves.”
The Pena family told police they did not know Large.
-------------------------------
On a side note, The Florida Senate passes the "Warning Shot Law" (obviously a name to denigrate the law by the media)
House Bill 89 by Representative Neil Combee and Senator Greg Evers is on its way to the Governor.
Yesterday, April 3, 2014, HB-89 passed the Florida Senate by a vote of 32-7
In the Senate, 6 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against the bill.
Republicans voting against the bill were: John Legg (R-Lutz)
Democrats voting against the bill were: Oscar Braynon (D-Miami Gardens), Dwight Bullard (D-Cutler Bay), Arthenia Joyner (D)-Tampa), Gwen Margolis (D_Miami), Jeremy Ring (D-Margate), Chris Smith (D-Ft. Lauderdale)
Having previously passed the Florida House by a vote of 93-24, the bill is now making its way to the Governor's desk.
HB-89 is a bill to stop abusive prosecutors from using 10-20-LIFE to prosecute people who, in self-defense, threaten to use deadly force against an attacker as a means to stop an attack.
Some anti-gun, anti-self-defense prosecutors have been abusing the 10-20-LIFE law to prosecute average citizens who displayed a weapon or gun in self-defense to make an attacker back off.
Average citizens who never would have been in the system if they had not been attacked and in fear for their own safety, are being persecuted and prosecuted for defending themselves.
Because citizens took responsibility for their own safety, some prosecutors treat them like criminals and make them victims of a judicial system.
10-20-Life was passed to stop prosecutors and judges from slapping gun-wielding criminals on the wrist so they could quickly clear cases.
The 10-20-Life law was never intended to be used against citizens who, in an act of self-defense, threatened the use of force to stop an attacker, including the unwise use of a warning shot. Yet, that's what some prosecutors are doing. They are willfully and knowingly violating the intent of the law.
Sig filing suit for relief on use of muzzle break.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217525302/Sig-Sauer-v-ATF-Complaint
Sig filing suit for relief on use of muzzle break.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217525302/Sig-Sauer-v-ATF-Complaint
Too bad a suit and press coverage are the only things that seem to work these days.
82 Anti-gun House Democrats ask Obama to expand import ban
Posted By NRA ILA On 10:35 AM 04/12/2014 In | No Comments
On Wednesday, 82 members of the United States House of Representatives sent President Barack Obama a letter asking him to have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) expand its ban on the importation of semi-automatic firearms and parts for such firearms (see related story).
As reported by the Washington Times on Thursday, “The letter asks that the administration ban the import of high-capacity weapons (sic), as well the frame or receiver of military-style weapons and the practice of importing the guns in parts and then assembling them in the country, among other items.”
While obviously a desperate attempt to cast attention away from the administration’s many problems, the request for an expanded firearm importation ban should not be taken lightly. Severe, politically-driven firearm importation restrictions have been imposed several times over the last 25 years without the consent of Congress, and President Obama has said that he intends to impose gun control with or without Congress’ consent during the remainder of his time in office.
In this instance, Obama’s authority to restrict firearm importation rests in Title 18, Section 925(d)(3) of the U.S. Code, a provision enacted by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Amended by the NRA-supported Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 to require, rather than merely allow, the administration to approve the importation of firearms, that provision states that “the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition . . . is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes . . . .”
For the record, the NRA doesn’t believe that the importation of firearms should be limited to those that have a relation to sports. The right to arms has always been about having arms for defensive purposes, and in 2008, in District of Columbia, v. Heller, the Supreme Court agreed. The Heller opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” which includes “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
However, the BATFE doesn’t even interpret the law’s so-called “sporting purposes” test correctly. On several occasions over the last 25 years, it has deliberately changed its reading of the law, for political reasons, to prohibit the importation of semi-automatic firearms gun control supporters wanted banned.
In 1989, the BATFE (then BATF) concocted the theory that “sporting purposes” did not include practical-skills-based rifle competitions, which are dominated by semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifles. It admitted that the National Rifle Trophy Matches and NRA National Rifle Championships are sporting, but ignored the fact that semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifles dominate those events too. Further, it entirely ignored the law’s provision for firearms that are “readily adaptable” to a sporting purpose. It then banned the importation of 43 makes and models of semi-automatic rifles that it had previously approved for importation, including the exceptional Galil, HK-91/93/94 series, Fabrique Nationale FN and FNC, Steyr A.U.G, Valmet and, of course, the Kalashnikov series.
For years, the BATFE used Handgun Factoring Criteria which allow for the importation of handguns that get enough points on the basis of their size, caliber, safety features, sights and other physical attributes. In 1993, however, the agency ignored its own criteria and banned the importation of “assault pistols” that met the criteria, and that BATFE had previously approved.
In 1998, the BATFE expanded its 1989 ban by prohibiting any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, on the grounds that Sen. Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban included a provision prohibiting the importation of newly-made such magazines. The BATFE simply ignored the fact that magazine capacity had nothing to do with whether firearms themselves were defined as “assault weapons” in Feinstein’s law.
Get 82 anti-gun members of Congress to sign onto something and you can bet there will be at least one lie or preposterous exaggeration, and this letter is no exception to that rule. The letter asks for a ban on the importation of AK-47-style pistols, claiming that they are the “top weapons of choice for international gun smugglers.” Yet it contradictorily identifies them as a “new breed of pistol” that has been “newly developed.” Maybe that’s what the letter’s authors, Rep, John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) had in mind when they referred to their letter as “a no-brainer.”
The letter focuses on Kalashnikov-style firearms because they are so obviously a type of firearm that the Second Amendment protects under the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. In Heller, the Court said that the amendment protects the right to have firearms that are useful for defensive purposes and that are “in common use.” Millions of Kalashnikov-series rifles have been bought in America during the last quarter-century, making them among the most common of our time, and they are obviously among the rifles that are most useful for defensive purposes.
This latest request, however out of step with the prevailing sense of Congress, demonstrates a firearm importation law in severe need of revision, particularly when considered in the light of BATFE’s illegitimate, agenda-driven misinterpretations of that law in the past.
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/12/82-anti-gun-house-democrats-ask-obama-to-expand-import-ban/
Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the N.R.A.
By JEREMY W. PETERSAPRIL 15, 2014
Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence, an organization he hopes can eventually outmuscle the National Rifle Association.
Mr. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, said gun control advocates need to learn from the N.R.A. and punish those politicians who fail to support their agenda — even Democrats whose positions otherwise align with his own.
“They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”
He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.”
The considerable advantages that gun rights advocates enjoy — in intensity, organization and political clout — will not be easy to overcome. Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg has already spent millions of dollars trying to persuade members of Congress to support enhanced background check laws with virtually nothing to show for it.
What is more, for many gun owners, the issue is a deeply personal one that energizes them politically, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who dismissed the mayor’s plans.
“He’s got the money to waste,” Mr. Pratt said. “So I guess he’s free to do so. But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”
The N.R.A. had no comment.
Mr. Bloomberg’s blueprint reimagines the way gun control advocates have traditionally confronted the issue. Rather than relying so heavily on television ad campaigns, Mr. Bloomberg will put a large portion of his resources into the often-unseen field operations that have been effective for groups like the N.R.A. in driving single-issue, like-minded voters to the polls.
Women, and mothers in particular, will be the focus of the organizing and outreach, a path that he and his advisers have modeled after groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
The plans call for a restructuring of the gun control groups he funds, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. They will be brought under one new umbrella group called Everytown for Gun Safety.
The strategy will focus not on sweeping federal restrictions to ban certain weapons, but instead will seek to expand the background check system for gun buyers both at the state and national levels.
The $50 million could be significant: In recent years, the N.R.A. has spent only $20 million annually on political activities. The political groups affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, who are seeking to help Republicans take over the Senate, have spent about $30 million in the last six months.
The group will zero in on 15 target states, from places like Colorado and Washington State, where gun control initiatives have advanced recently, to territory that is likely to be more hostile like Texas, Montana and Indiana. They have set a goal of signing up one million new supporters this year on top of the 1.5 million they already have.
Previous efforts by Mr. Bloomberg to push gun control have touched off tensions with national Democratic leaders, because he has run negative ads against incumbent Democrats whom he views as insufficiently supportive of gun control. The Democratic leaders argue that Mr. Bloomberg threatens to hand control of the Senate to Republicans, which they say would doom any hope of passing gun control legislation.
Mr. Bloomberg dismissed those fears, saying he was concerned only with the long term.
“You can tell me all you want that the Republicans would be worse in the Senate than the Democrats,” he said. “Maybe they would. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.”
Underscoring his desire to work with both parties, Mr. Bloomberg is bringing on a new advisory board with prominent Republican and Democratic figures. Tom Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security secretary under President George W. Bush; Eli Broad, the philanthropist; Warren Buffett, the investor; and Michael G. Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under both Mr. Bush and President Obama, will all be board members.
Mr. Bloomberg acknowledged that his new efforts would require a dedication not just of money but also of time — two things he now has in abundance.
“You’ve got to work at it piece by piece,” he added. “One mom and another mom. You’ve got to wear them down until they finally say, ‘Enough.’ ”
He was also dismissive of skeptics who might question whether he could ever build an organization that rivaled the N.R.A. And he seemed unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the ways in which his own persona — of a billionaire, Big Gulp-banning former mayor of New York — could undercut his efforts, especially in rural, conservative states.
“I don’t know what your perception is of our reputation, and mine, the name Bloomberg around the country,” he said. But every place he goes, he added, “You’re a rock star. People yelling out of cabs, ‘Hey, way to go!’ ”
His financial commitment to reducing gun violence could grow. When asked how much he was willing to spend, he tossed out the $50 million figure out as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.
“I put $50 million this year, last year into coal, $53 million into oceans,” he said with a shrug, describing his clean energy and sustainable fishing initiatives. “Certainly a number like that, $50 million. Let’s see what happens.”
The key to whether they can be effective, the mayor and his advisers said, will be turning out female voters, the sought-after swing bloc that has been pivotal in recent elections.
“Right now, women, when they go to the polls, they vote on abortion, they vote on jobs, they vote on health care,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “We want one of those things to be gun violence prevention.”
Mr. Bloomberg was introspective as he spoke, and seemed both restless and wistful. When he sat down for the interview, it was a few days before his 50th college reunion. His mortality has started dawning on him, at 72. And he admitted he was a bit taken aback by how many of his former classmates had been appearing in the “in memoriam” pages of his school newsletter.
But if he senses that he may not have as much time left as he would like, he has little doubt about what would await him at a Judgment Day. Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, he said with a grin: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html?src=twr
Badger52
04-18-2014, 06:05
Outstanding.
Barbarian
04-18-2014, 08:39
Police arrested a 65-year-old man in Milford, Conn., after he allegedly shot a squirrel in his yard on Monday. Upon further investigation, officers recovered an unregistered “assault rifle” and three “large-capacity magazines.”
“As the investigation progressed the officers seized several firearms from the home for safe keeping,” Officer Jeffrey Nielsen said in a press release. “That included the assault riffle and the three high capacity magazine he did not have registered.”
To reiterate, police confiscated “several” of the man’s other firearms, even though Nielsen admitted the majority of them were registered and legal.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/16/he-may-be-first-person-charged-under-conn-gun-registration-law-but-police-also-seized-several-of-his-legal-firearms-for-safe-keeping/
I'll be interested to see where this goes.
Interesting read on Buckeye Firearms Association page..
Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston
by Author Unknown
7:00AM MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2014
Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19 by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices.
The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily."
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans.
During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.
Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.
And this, fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, in April, 1775.
On July 4th, 1776 these same extremists signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other and their countrymen their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, including their families and their lives over the course of the next few years.
Lest we forget!!
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/seventy-two-killed-resisting-gun-confiscation-boston
...imagine if Barry opens his mouth again publicly about gun control...
Bloomberg must be pissing himself.
Firearms applications surge, swamp registration system
Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY12:29 a.m. EDT April 25, 2014
WASHINGTON — A record surge in recent firearms production and transactions have swamped the federal government's automated registration system for select weapons, including machine guns.
In a notice earlier this month to the firearms industry, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it was temporarily suspending parts of its computerized system to shore up capacity in part to process the required registration and transfer of National Firearms Act covered weapons, which also include silencers, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and some explosive devices.
Between 2005 and 2013, firearms act-related applications "skyrocketed by more than 380%'' to nearly 200,000, according to the April 16 memo issued by ATF Deputy Assistant Director Marvin Richardson. The surge has contributed to a backlog of more than 70,000 applications.
Richardson's memo states that the ATF is "immediately'' hiring 15 people to assist with the application processing and deploying 15 current employees to the task.
The application deluge tracks a record annual increase in overall firearm production to more than 8.5 million guns in 2012, the most recent year for which the ATF collects such data. In 2011, there were 6.5 million firearms produced.
The increase was aided by a spike in the manufacture of rifles and pistols, continuing a trend that has been highlighted by industry representatives for the past several years.
"We have seen dramatic, unprecedented ... growth in the firearms and ammunition industry as the direct result of consumer demand for our products in the last five years,'' the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry's trade association, said on its website. "Not surprisingly, growth has placed added demand on the (ATF's) Office of Enforcement Programs and Services.
"Today, the office simply does not have the funding or personnel it needs to serve the industry and, by extension, our customers.''
The foundation estimated that the ATF's office needed $10 million in additional funding to "provide the level of service our industry needs to remain in compliance with federal law.''
According to ATF records, a total of 512,790 machine guns were registered across the country in 2014, more than 571,000 silencers, 2.2 million so-called destructive devices (which include grenades and other explosives), 137,201 short-barreled rifles and 131,951 short-barreled shotguns.
The automated ATF processing system was launched in 2013, but grew exponentially from 673 users last year to 10,000 today.
"Since January 2014, approximately 50% of firearms act applications have been submitted via'' the automated system, Richardson said in the memo. "This surge in demand has created the need to temporarily scale back ... submissions while the system is enhanced to handle greater capacity in the future."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/24/atf-guns-registration/8115273/
Combat Diver
04-27-2014, 16:32
Imagine how much we could save the tax payer if we just abolish the GCA 34' and 68'!
CD
A recent article relevant to this thread. Excerpts below with complete article at the link. First and Second Amendment analogies can prove interesting...if you listen to some Statist's interpretation of the the Second Amendment and apply it to the First Amendment...the NYT should still be using that little number designed by Gutenberg.
Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce?
Defending the right to sell and trade arms
Commentary by David B. Kopel
APR 11, 2014
127 Harv. L. Rev. F. 230
The First Amendment protects both book buyers and booksellers. Does the Second Amendment protect only people who buy guns, or does it also protect people who sell guns? Though this question has divided the federal courts, the answer is quite clear: operating a business that provides Second Amendment services is protected by the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller1 teaches that regulation of how firearms are commercially sold enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, which does not extend to prohibitions of firearms sales.
In terms of the original meaning of the Second Amendment, the right to engage in firearms commerce is clear. It is one of the most important reasons why America’s political dispute with Great Britain turned into an armed revolution.
In the fall of 1774, King George III embargoed all imports of firearms and ammunition into the thirteen colonies.38 The Americans treated the embargo on firearms commerce as evidence of plain intent to enslave America, and the Americans redoubled their efforts to engage in firearms commerce. For example, the Patriots in South Carolina were led by the “General Committee,” which declared: “[B]y the late prohibition of exporting arms and ammunition from England, it too clearly appears a design of disarming the people of America, in order the more speedily to dragoon and enslave them.”39 Writes one early-nineteenth-century historian, “[I]t was therefore recommended, to all persons, to provide themselves immediately, with at least twelve and a half rounds of powder, with a proportionate quantity of bullets.”40
The British and the Americans agreed that the reimposition of London’s rule in the United States required the prohibition of the firearms business. In 1777, with British victory seemingly within grasp, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitledWhat Is Fit to Be Done with America? To prevent any future rebellions, Knox planned that the Church of England be established as the official religion throughout America; that Parliament have power to tax America domestically (although there were no Americans in Parliament); and that a hereditary aristocracy be created in America. Another part of the plan was that “the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence.”41
The opposite of What Is Fit to Be Done with America? is the Constitution of the United States of America. No national religion.42 The tax power solely in the hands of a representative Congress.43 No titles of nobility.44 And a guarantee of the right to buy, sell, and manufacture arms.45
http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/does-the-second-amendment-protect-firearms-commerce/
http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-wasnt-serious-about-second-amendment
While the media attention will focus on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway – the legislative-prayer case – the more interesting (and consequential) decision issued today was the Court’s denial of review in Drake v. Jerejian, the Second Amendment case I previously discussed here. In Drake, the lower federal courts upheld an outrageous New Jersey law that denies the right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense – just like the D.C. law at issue in District of Columbia v. Heller denied the right to keep arms inside the home – and today the Supreme Court let them get away with it.
Although the Supreme Court in Heller declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual constitutional right, lower federal courts with jurisdiction over states like Maryland and New York have been “willfully confused” about the scope of that right, declining to protect it outside Heller’s particular facts (a complete ban on functional firearms in the home).
Yet each time, the Supreme Court has denied review.
In Cato’s amicus brief in Drake, we posed an alternate “question presented” (legalese for the issue that a brief asks a court to resolve):
Was this Court serious in District of Columbia v. Heller when it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms?
Team Sergeant
05-22-2014, 10:45
I find it very difficult to believe that the criminal did NOT respect the signage and the "GunFree" zone! (He must have been from Chicago.)
Restaurant with 'No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms' Sign Robbed at Gunpoint
by AWR Hawkins 22 May 2014, 7:53 AM PDT
A Durham, North Carolina restaurant with a sign on its front door reading, "No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms," was robbed at gunpoint on May 19.
Gunsnfreedom.com published a photograph of the sign on May 21, making "The Pit" restaurant a self-declared gun free zone--the same kind of zone Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America pressure other restaurants into becoming.
According to Durham's ABC 11, around 9 PM "three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor." The armed men "also assaulted two employees during the crime."
The suspects are still on the loose.
cont:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/22/Restaurant-With-No-Weapons-No-Concealed-Firearms-Sign-Robbed-At-Gunpoint
It just wasn't this guy's day. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsVCHE7ayPE
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/06/supreme-court-affirms-narrow-reading-of-gun-straw-purchase-rules/
Abramski v. United States
Supreme Court Affirms Conviction In Gun “Straw Purchase” Case
Scalia acknowledges that certainly one purpose of the Act was to increase the difficulty for ineligible persons to acquire guns, but that purpose was not an absolute. Indeed, he notes numerous circumstances under which both Government itself acknowledges that one person can buy, through an FFL transfer, a firearm with the full intent of promptly delivering that firearm to a third person who was no part of the FFL transaction, including
Guns Intended as Gifts. In the government’s view, an individual who buys a gun “with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person” is the gun’s “true purchaser.” The Government’s position makes no exception for situations where the gift is specifically requested by the recipient (as gifts sometimes are). So long as no money changes hands, and no agency relationship is formed, between gifter and gifteee, the Act is concerned only with the man ["buyer"] at the counter.
Guns Intended for Resale. Introducing money into the equation does not automatically change the outcome. The Government admits that the man at the counter is the true purchaser even if he immediately sells the gun to someone else. And it appears the Government’s position would be the same even if the man at the counter purchased the gun with the intent to sell it to a particular third party, so long as the two did not enter into a common-law agency relationship.
Intended as Raffle Prizes. The Government considers he man at the counter the true purchaser even if he is buying the gun “for the purpose of raffling [it] at an event”–in which case he can provide his own information on Form 4473 and “transfer the firearm to the raffle winner without a Form 4473 being completed or a [background] check being conducted” on the winner.
He wonders:
Why is the majority convinced that a statute with so many admitted loopholes does not contain this particular ["straw purchase"] loophole? . . . What the scenarios described above show is that the statute typically is concerned only with the man at the counter, even when that man is in a practical sense a “conduit” who will promptly transfer the gun to someone else.
Constant
06-27-2014, 16:51
Solidifies me not returning to Colorado when I retire (bought land when stationed there). Looks like home will be Missouri for now (born/raised). Idaho is looking promising as well.
ddoering
06-28-2014, 15:14
Colorado Judge upheld Colorado's fifteen round magazine limitation and universal background checks today. She determined that no one "needs" more than fifteen rounds to protect themselves.
How did she determine that? What if I show her I have 16 enemies?
drivfast
07-29-2014, 18:29
How did she determine that? What if I show her I have 16 enemies?
Ha, Someone should explain to her honor what "shoot to stop the threat" means. 1 round per target with a 5.56 carbine? in what universe does that happen? I guess she is assuming getting hit means instant incapacitaion. With all due respect to her honor, she has seen too many movies imho. Reading the Team Sergeant's post on the 2nd Amendment further confirms the lack of logic commonly used by the anti-2nd Amendment crowd. This Colorado judge's remark is a perfect example.
Team Sergeant
07-30-2014, 10:29
Colorado Judge upheld Colorado's fifteen round magazine limitation and universal background checks today. She determined that no one "needs" more than fifteen rounds to protect themselves.
That "judge" is a moron.
Had I been the defense attorney in her court room I would have asked for 5 armed court police to appear in her courtroom immediately, then ask them each how many rounds are each carrying.
My guess would have been 45 or more rounds each. Then I'd ask them why so many rounds?
F**king socialist judges.....
drivfast
07-30-2014, 13:40
That "judge" is a moron.
Had I been the defense attorney in her court room I would have asked for 5 armed court police to appear in her courtroom immediately, then ask them each how many rounds are each carrying.
My guess would have been 45 or more rounds each. Then I'd ask them why so many rounds?
F**king socialist judges.....
Roger that. Perfect analogy.
I recall members of this board citing similar statistics for both Florida and Texas in a discussion years ago. Additional information via links embedded in the actual article.
Hard Truth for Gun-Control Advocates: Permit Holders Extremely Law-Abiding
Sarah Jean Seman | Aug 06, 2014
TownHall.com
Guns can be frightening, particularly for those individuals who have no idea how to use a firearm. In a recent Townhallvideo, one man reasoned that concealed carry in Washington D.C. was dangerous because "more people carrying guns means more opportunity for those guns to be used."
Individuals employing the “more guns more crime” logic are using shoddy research as the basis for their claim.
“If you look at information from the Justice Department, they have something called the National Crime Victimization survey. What you find is that guns are used in crime about 250,000 times a year.” John R. Lott Jr., economist, Yale professor, and president of Crime Prevention Research Center, told Townhall.
“If you look at similar surveys of people who use guns defensively, it’s about two million times a year. So basically people are using guns defensively to stop crimes about four to five times more frequently each year than guns are used to commit a crime. Most people don’t realize that.”
The truth is that individuals with gun-permits are extremely law-abiding. Less than one percent of licensed firearm holders have had their permits revoked due to misdemeanors.
The Crime Prevention Research Center reported on statistics from Florida, Texas, and Michigan (the three states where more than 2.5 million of the United States’ 11 million handgun permits are held):
During almost three decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida issued permits to almost 2.66 million people. These permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations at an annual rate of only 0.0003 percent. For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent.
The numbers are similarly low in Texas. In 2012 (the latest year that crime data are available), there were 584,850 active license holders. Out of these, 120 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.021 percent. Only a few of these crimes involved a gun.
Revocations and suspensions occur when people are charged with a crime, but only about 5 percent or less of these cases result in conviction and thus people are eligible for having their licenses reinstated.
While 120 were convicted of a crime in 2012, 905 people had their permits revoke, for a total rate of 0.15%.
Over the last five years that revocation data is available (2009 to 2013), the rate is slightly lower, 0.13%.
For Michigan, overall revocation rate for the five years from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014 is slightly higher but still low, at 0.26%.
News agencies rarely report prevented crimes, Lott pointed out. After all, the newsworthy aspect of the tale never occurred.
“Almost all of defensive gun uses don’t require a shot to be fired; it’s like 95 percent simply brandishing the gun. Attackers are killed less than one out of a 1,000 times a gun is used defensively. And those are basically about the only stories that are going to get news coverage anyway.”
Yet people with the right to carry are stopping crimes and saving lives. Here are just a few examples reported on Townhall: In Washington state, a bus passenger carrying a concealed weapon brought down a gunman. In Texas, an armed citizen prevented a man from mugging a woman’s purse. In New York, a pizza delivery man potentially saved his own life by being armed when thugs jumped him at night.
It is no wonder that President Obama has a misconstrued theory on gun control, since he seems to hear about everything through the media. It is essential for policy makers, however, to recognize the full range of unintended consequences that could ensue from disarming citizens.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahjeanseman/2014/08/06/hard-truth-for-guncontrol-advocates-permit-holders-extremely-lawabiding-n1875089?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Federal judge upholds Maryland’s ban on ARs; Calls them ‘dangerous and unusual’
http://www.guns.com/2014/08/13/federal-judge-upholds-marylands-strict-gun-control-laws-calls-ar-15-dangerous-and-unusual/
In upholding Maryland’s strict new gun control laws, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that AR-15 style rifles and others “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”
The ruling, in the case of Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al, pitted a number of plaintiffs including both local and national gun rights groups against Maryland in a challenge to the state’s 2013 assault rifle ban. Filed last September, the case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland who denied the plaintiffs’ request and found for the state.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kolbe-v.-OMalley_Order-Granting-Defendants-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-and-Denying-Plaintiffs-Cross-Motion1.pdf
"Another socialists Judge"!
...In upholding Maryland’s strict new gun control laws, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that AR-15 style rifles and others “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”
Yep, that's how I interpret the 2nd Amendment as well..."All weapons deemed fitting for the proles which WE will decide; Shall not be infringed; Not even a smidgeon" :mad:
Streck-Fu
08-14-2014, 06:01
I still want my Mk19.....
Ask, and ye shall receive...:D
ddoering
08-14-2014, 09:55
Perhaps she would change her mind if she found her neighborhood in the middle of a riot zone.
The Judges Conclusion: Federal Judge Catherine C Blake.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which represents the considered judgment of this State’s legislature and its governor, seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Accordingly, the law is constitutional and will be upheld.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kolbe-v.-OMalley_Order-Granting-Defendants-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-and-Denying-Plaintiffs-Cross-Motion1.pdf
I don't and have never understood how the "STATE" can assert that 'public safety' and 'government interest' is or ever overrules an enumerated right. These judges skirt the actual plain use of legal language that is to be read 'in context' (many judges use partial phrase or sentence from USSC) by use of semantic or use of rationalized thinking due to politics.
The Reaper
08-16-2014, 09:30
In Miller, the SCOTUS ruled that he had no right to possess an unregistered short-barreled shotgun because it was NOT a commonly used military weapon.
Shouldn't that, and the original intent and wording of the founders, mean that every land-owning male not a felon should be provided an M-16 or M-4 for their own use?
TR
In Miller, the SCOTUS ruled that he had no right to possess an unregistered short-barreled shotgun because it was NOT a commonly used military weapon.
Shouldn't that, and the original intent and wording of the founders, mean that every land-owning male not a felon should be provided an M-16 or M-4 for their own use?
TR
TR, Absolutely! Also with at least a basic load of ammo and 30 round PMAG's. :D
Militia: "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. From US vs Miller.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
TOMAHAWK9521
08-30-2014, 10:49
One of my uncles just sent me this little article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries”.
By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. HOORAY.
This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around... reloading.
Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legis..traitors”… vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Notice too, which party ALL of those who voted to give away our constitutional rights belong to.
King and Sanders, have an (I) behind their names, but in their hearts, they are nothing but D's in my book.
:munchin
And, Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a self-described Socialist - a democratic socialist, to pick nits.
It appears that Bernie is the rare "honest" socialist in that bunch.
It's amazing the number of Udall's in government. But, what's more amazing is that they are Mormons, probably the most conservative religion in the country. I got to know Mo Udall when I was working in television production and he was nothing like the current family of elected officials.
Pat
Even if the government can ban "dangerous and unusual" arms, what exactly is a "dangerous and unusual" arm?
Beats me. Any functional firearm is considered dangerous when loaded, and I have no idea what would constitute "unusual". Maybe a M249 with a bag of dildos dangling where the magazine should go? That would indeed be unusual.
The Reaper
09-05-2014, 10:00
Beats me. Any functional firearm is considered dangerous when loaded, and I have no idea what would constitute "unusual". Maybe a M240 with a bag of dildos dangling where the magazine should go? That would indeed be unusual.
The M240 is belt fed and has no magazine.
TR
Oh wow, I've been out of the game for too long. I had to double check the COEI and BII lists in the -10, and sure enough it's only the SAW that has the mag bag :o
The Reaper
09-05-2014, 15:40
That's a belt bag for the SAW, or AR with belt feed conversion.
Exactly.
TR
Peregrino
09-05-2014, 19:39
The whole "unusual" bit about arms is a nonsense because a person has a right to possess unusual arms. A genuine war hammer and battle axe are unusual weapons, but they most definitely would qualify as arms. But I mean they are not arms found in the average home. Most people don't have a medieval war hammer or battle axe lying around.
Speak for yourself. There's nothing unusual about "historic" weapons types in the home. (Until I finish recovering from shoulder surgery, the sharps will have to serve in lieu of the blunts.)
The Reaper
09-05-2014, 21:18
Speak for yourself. There's nothing unusual about "historic" weapons types in the home. (Until I finish recovering from shoulder surgery, the sharps will have to serve in lieu of the blunts.)
That is why handguns were invented.
You can still use both, if you insist. :D
When you said "sharps", I thought you were going old school on me.
TR
Peregrino
09-05-2014, 22:14
I was giving him a (deserved) hard time, JFTFOI. I get the feeling he hasn't kept up with the latest fads in CQB hand tools; e.g. the 'hawks, adaptive breaching tools, and various over-sized choppers that are currently supplementing the guys' firearms load-out down range. Almost all of it is positively medieval. Some of it makes battle axes and war hammers look tame. :D
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/10/nics-checks-show-gun-purchases-strong-in-2014.aspx
Thus far in 2014, there have been 8.33 million checks for the purchase of firearms, compared to 8.29 million for the same period in 2012, and smaller numbers in previous years.
Badger52
10-12-2014, 06:35
The number of checks will grow by a major number if the statists get their wishes for universal background checks and eliminate the right to conduct a transfer of private property among free men.
Badger52
11-05-2014, 16:40
Initiative 594 passed in Washington state. It is a very draconian "universal background checks" bill. Basically makes it where say letting your friend shoot your guns at a range is illegal. Now similar referendums are being planned for Oregon, Arizona, Maine, etc...See my post here. (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=567037&postcount=90) I hate it as much as you but here's the portion relevant to what you're speaking of:
Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check.
Other links are in the post referenced.
:)
For those interested in WA HI 594 -- links below to Washington State legislature page - including an analysis described as follows:
"This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent."
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/INITIATIVE%20594%20HBA%20JUDI%2014.pdf
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=594#documents
Badger52
11-05-2014, 21:15
For those interested in WA HI 594 -- links below to Washington State legislature page - including an analysis described as follows:
"This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent."
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/INITIATIVE%20594%20HBA%20JUDI%2014.pdf
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=594#documentsThanks for that; devil in the details. Whoa, what a piece of shit. Am I ever glad I don't live out there.
:rolleyes:
Badger52
11-06-2014, 11:23
Be vigilant as it may be coming to a your state at some point.Oh yeah. ;)
Some good news for a change - complete article at link below.
DECEMBER 10, 2014
Growing Public Support for Gun Rights
More Say Guns Do More to Protect Than Put People at Risk
Pew Research:
"For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.
Support for gun rights has edged up from earlier this year, and marks a substantial shift in attitudes since shortly after the Newtown school shootings, which occurred two years ago this Sunday."
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
Team Sergeant
12-11-2014, 09:56
Some good news for a change - complete article at link below.
DECEMBER 10, 2014
Growing Public Support for Gun Rights
More Say Guns Do More to Protect Than Put People at Risk
Pew Research:
"For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.
Support for gun rights has edged up from earlier this year, and marks a substantial shift in attitudes since shortly after the Newtown school shootings, which occurred two years ago this Sunday."
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
It's also nice to know that the level of "sheeple" in the United States is dropping.
ddoering
12-11-2014, 17:24
It's also nice to know that the level of "sheeple" in the United States is dropping.
Or that demographic was too busy rioting to participate in the poll.
For those interested in WA HI 594 -- links below to Washington State legislature page - including an analysis described as follows:
"This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent."
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/INITIATIVE%20594%20HBA%20JUDI%2014.pdf
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=594#documents
http://www.saf.org/?p=4877
“We’re not trying to stop background checks,” Gottlieb said. “We’re taking action against a poorly-written and unconstitutionally vague measure that criminalizes activities that are perfectly legal anywhere else in the country, thus striking at the very heart of a constitutionally-protected, fundamental civil right.”
Badger52
02-03-2015, 17:47
Thought this would be an appropriate location for Patrick Henry Society's letter RE their upcoming event on 7 February.
When you woke up this morning, the last thing on your mind was probably the state of your gun rights. Maybe you own a gun, maybe you’ve never even held one. Maybe you use your gun to feed your family, shoot skeet on the weekends, or just keep in the closet for a time when you think you might need it. Some of you train with it, carry it daily, and it is simply another thing you grab in the morning along with your wallet and your keys. Whatever your familiarity with guns is does not matter. You don’t even have to like guns, don’t have to want them in your home. There are two facts that anyone familiar with history knows:
1) Before a regime commits horrific acts against its people, it first ensures the people have no guns to fight back with.
2) The freedom that you live under was paid for by a group of colonists who used their guns.
The Ottomans murdered over 1 million people between 1915-1917, after passing laws disarming the people. In 1918, Russia passed the first of its own gun control laws, demanding licensing of gun owners and later banning possession of them at all. From 1929-1945, the government murdered 20 million people. In 1928, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, followed by other gun laws in 1938.
Once the people were disarmed, they passed the Regulations Against Jews, opening the door for the barbaric slaughter of the Holocaust.
In 1927, Nationalist China passed a law demanding government permits for gun ownership, later banning privately owned guns entirely. Between 1927 and 1949, 10 million people died. In 1951, as Communist China, more laws were passed, and once the people were disarmed completely between 20-35 million people were murdered.
Guatemala, 1960-1981: over 100,000 people killed. Uganda, 300,000. Cambodia, 2 million. Rwanda, 800,000. The list goes on and on.
The one thing that all of these events have in common is that the government disarmed the people first. They had to. Guns allow people to refuse slavery, and stand up to tyranny. To this day, genocide and terror exist in every nation where the people are unarmed and defenseless. Perhaps you think that it would just be easier and safer if the only people who had guns were the cops and the military. Maybe you believe in the Second Amendment as an abstract concept, but really don’t see how it affects you.
Now think about how the Constitution came to be. How it is that you are an American, born under liberty. Think of the men who founded this nation. They signed their names—and in doing so, pledged their lives—to a document that in those times equaled treason. Some of them were tortured and killed for it. Joseph Warren never even lived long enough to see the freedom he gave his life to secure for you. Nathan Hale died proudly, wishing he had more than one life to give in liberty’s defense. Other men stood at Lexington, staring down a superior force without blinking. They fought with knives, and their hands…and they fought with guns.
The idea that men with guns purchased our freedom is not a debatable point; it is certain fact. Our liberty came at the cost of blood.
Why should you care about the Second Amendment? The reason is simple. Without a means of defense, you cannot say no to tyranny. What if the Jews had been armed? What if they had risen up as one, and defied the Nazis? Would the world still be seared by the remembrance of one of the greatest evils mankind has ever committed? Or would we instead talk about the brave people who stood against evil? What if the Russian people had been armed? Would 20 million of them have perished under Stalin?
What if people in this nation were not armed? What if there was no one in this country willing to stand against evil? Can you honestly believe that the horrors of Auschwitz cannot happen here? Do you honestly think that a government should be able to do whatever it wishes to the people who elected it into power? If you believe at all that you have a right to be free, then whether you know it or not, you support the right of the citizens to own guns—because a citizen with a gun is literally the only thing that stands between your children and tyranny.
Right now in several states across this nation, citizens are being stripped of their right to defense. They are being told how many guns they can own, what kind they can own, how much ammunition they can have. You don’t need that much. You don’t need that many guns. The government says this, knowing all along that they have every kind of arms imaginable, in nearly unlimited quantities. We have already seen what happens when the government are the only people with guns. Are you willing to bet the freedom of your children on the idea that this government would not do what every other government has done once it disarms its citizens?
As you read this, there is a group of patriots in Washington who are standing up. On February 7th, they will stand for a third time in as many months against unjust laws meant to strip them of their right to defense. In fact, on the 7th they will stand against a state legislature that has said the people are not allowed to openly carry a firearm while viewing the proceedings of their own government. Think about that. The very people we elected, do not want their armed constituents to watch them at work, to see the things they do and say. The real question is what are they doing that they have to be afraid of the people?
These patriots will be arrested on the 7th, because some of them will choose while there to defy the unjust and tyrannical laws being forced on them. What awful thing will they be doing? Walking into a public gallery with a rifle slung over their shoulder. They are not monsters, or crazy gun nuts. They are Americans like you, who love their families and go to work and pay bills. They are Americans who value liberty more than anything else.
They are choosing liberty over peaceful slavery, and they are doing it because someone has to. But they are not standing for just Washington, they stand for all of you. Whether you live in Iowa or California, Maine or Wyoming, it is YOUR right to self-defense that patriots will defend on February 7th. They are being arrested to show that the right of you and your family to refuse to be a slave, is more important than their own comfort.
It no longer matters if you’re a gun owner or not, or if you hunt, or if you think guns are scary and don’t want one. Your continued liberty depends on someone other the government having all the guns, and if it’s not you, then someone else needs to stand. Right now patriots who don’t know you, don’t know your story, don’t even know if you support them or not, are getting ready to stand up for you and your babies. In fact, they’ll be standing to defend your right to call them extremists and ammosexuals.
Those of us fighting this fight appeal to you for help. We ask that if you pray, you pray for us. If you can afford it, consider donating to help pay their bail so they can go home to their families, or get legal help for the case that will come as a result of their stand. If you can make it up here, by all means come. Bring a firearm or don’t, whichever you prefer. But we need you on the line. We need to show our government that we will not allow our rights to be taken. We need to show those who gave their lives for us that their sacrifice meant something, that their struggle and their torture and their deaths were not wasted on a populace too self-absorbed and lazy to bother hanging on to what they paid so dearly to win for us. Let us show the government and the world what freedom looks like, and let us remember the gift that we have been given.
We are standing for your liberty, no matter the cost. We call upon the patriots of this state and this nation to stand with us before it’s too late.
Place: WA State Capitol, Olympia, WA
Date: 7 February 2015
Time: 10am
Other information here. (http://www.patrickhenrysociety.com/citizens-washington-state-american-countrymen/)
Badger52
02-11-2015, 14:54
Anything but SCOTUS never seems to be the final word (and maybe not then) but this is good to read about. (http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-court-rules-interstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional?CID=examiner_alerts_article)
In a huge victory for supporters of gun rights, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division issued a ruling Wednesday declaring the federal ban on interstate transfer of handguns unconstitutional. The 28-page opinion in the case of Frederic Russell Mance, Jr. against Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive Director B. Todd Jones was signed by United States District Judge Reed O’Connor.
Joined in the lawsuit by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the judgment noted the Brady instant background check system was not available when the prohibition on interstate transfers was enacted. Because that capability now exists, Judge O’Connor noted, the government’s “argument fails to take into account the current version of the 1968 Gun Control Act, nor does it address how simply crossing state lines under the modern regime can circumvent state law.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants have not shown that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of achieving the Government’s goals under current law,” O’Connor explained. “The federal interstate handgun transfer ban is therefore unconstitutional on its face.”
“Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions,” the opinion concluded. Noting that the government’s arguments failed even under intermediate scrutiny, any challenge to the ruling appears extremely problematic for Holder and Jones.
“It is bizarre and irrational to destroy the national market for an item that Americans have a fundamental right to purchase,” attorney Alan Gura observed in a triumphant CCRKBA media advisory. “Americans would never tolerate a ban on the interstate sale of books or contraceptives. And Americans are free to buy rifles and shotguns outside their state of residence, so long as the dealers respect the laws of the buyer’s home state. We’re gratified that the Court agreed that handguns should be treated no differently.”
Never heard of this guy but the vid below gives me an excuse to bump a great thread for some newer members.
The 2nd Amendment : For Muskets Only?!
"People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn't apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?"
StevenCrowder
Published on Feb 10, 2015
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s
(1VB)compforce
03-18-2015, 17:45
Probably one of the best presentations/testimony I've heard yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdUaPDiW-GY
He's speaking in reference to the current attempt to remove the "may issue" restrictions in the state of Maryland. With his background as Commander of the licensing division responsible for issuing permits and his self-professed previous status as being in favor of gun control, his testimony has to carry a lot of weight.
Team Sergeant
03-18-2015, 22:00
Probably one of the best presentations/testimony I've heard yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdUaPDiW-GY
He's speaking in reference to the current attempt to remove the "may issue" restrictions in the state of Maryland. With his background as Commander of the licensing division responsible for issuing permits and his self-professed previous status as being in favor of gun control, his testimony has to carry a lot of weight.
An "enlightened" liberal cop...... only a few million to go.....
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/10/obamas-gun-speech-gag-order-is-retaliation-against-group-that-sued-the-govt-last-month/
The Obama administration’s latest anti-gun salvo isn’t about reducing gun violence or stopping the export of dangerous weapons, it’s about pure retaliation against a non-profit that sued the government in federal court last month.
Defense Distributed, a pro-Second Amendment non-profit organization that provides blueprints, plans, and machinery to fabricate or finish firearm components, has been at war with the State Department for nearly two years.......
and..
On June 3, just four weeks after Defense Distributed filed its complaint in federal court, the State Department suddenly decided to propose a new rule giving it the authority to pre-approve speech related to publicly available firearm plans. The State Department’s play here is obvious: it hopes to promulgate a new rule making its previous anti-speech efforts superficially legal in order to short-circuit Defense Distributed’s court case. If that were to happen, the non-profit would then have to file a new and separate suit alleging the unconstitutionality of the new rule.
Badger52
06-12-2015, 05:18
Thanks pcfixer. The current regime continues promulgating things that conflict with each other, one sub-para to the next (Congress has no monopoly on that). It is sufficient for them to kick the can down the road with enough obstacles in the way of its citizens such that prior restraint on speech is accomplished under threat of prison sentence. While they seem to be benevolent in their new "definition" of public domain, what is chilling is what they propose to call a "defense article(item)".
Direct link to their proposed ass-covering. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf) (Warning: Bring your mental whiteboard.)
In the end, it's ok if it's in the public domain - but it isn't legally in the public domain unless they say so. Can they support this POS in court? I doubt it; but it seems they can get the same result by tying a peasant up for year$$$ if they cast their eye on you.
(1VB)compforce
07-19-2015, 18:37
And to borrow the metaphor from another thread, here's the next slice of salami:
The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/19/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns/
Any disabled Vets that applied for social security disability on the basis of PTSD are in line for this one...
Steven Overman, a 30-year-old former Marine who lives in Virginia, said his case demonstrates the flaws of judging gun safety through financial competence.
After his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2007, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury that weakened his memory and cognitive ability.
The VA eventually deemed him 100% disabled and after reviewing his case in 2012 declared him incompetent, making his wife his fiduciary.
Upon being notified that he was being reported to the background check system, he gave his guns to his mother and began working with a lawyer to get them back.
Overman grew up hunting in Wisconsin. After his return from Iraq, he found solace in target shooting. "It's relaxing to me," he said. "It's a break from day-to-day life. It calms me down."
Though his wife had managed their financial affairs since his deployment, Overman said he has never felt like he was a danger to himself or others.
"I didn't know the VA could take away your guns," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html#page=1
Get ready, here comes the full court press for the last 18 months of the administration. And let's not forget the second order effect that Veterans will stop seeking help for PTSD if they think their right to bear arms will be revoked.
Why is it that liberals think they can win a fight when only the other side is armed?
Team Sergeant
07-20-2015, 08:27
And to borrow the metaphor from another thread, here's the next slice of salami:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/19/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns/
Any disabled Vets that applied for social security disability on the basis of PTSD are in line for this one...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html#page=1
Get ready, here comes the full court press for the last 18 months of the administration. And let's not forget the second order effect that Veterans will stop seeking help for PTSD if they think their right to bear arms will be revoked.
Why is it that liberals think they can win a fight when only the other side is armed?
And we should remove their Freedom of Speech rights, religion and so forth.
All it's going to take is for a dem to take office in 2016 and some are going to march.....
SF Hunter
07-24-2015, 10:45
And to borrow the metaphor from another thread, here's the next slice of salami:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/19/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns/
Any disabled Vets that applied for social security disability on the basis of PTSD are in line for this one...
I saw the writing on the wall many years ago, in regards to this line of thinking.
All vets who have put in for disability claims for PTSD, through the VA, are setting themselves up for failure and to be singled out by "our" government. Now I am not saying that those who truly are in need of care, should not seek assistance/treatment. But just be prepared for the possible consequences.:munchin
spherojon
08-17-2015, 18:30
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/arms-and-the-greeks.htm
I thought this was a great article that relates to this exact subject.
Team Sergeant
08-18-2015, 09:12
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/arms-and-the-greeks.htm
I thought this was a great article that relates to this exact subject.
Yeah too bad liberals/progressives don't study history.
craigepo
08-29-2015, 17:22
I had never given much thought to the logistics of a nationwide repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Interesting take.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423183/rant-second-amendment-repeal?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20Best%20of%208/29&utm_term=VDHM%20Reader
We are advised to not judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Funny how that works...
Yes I know the vast majority of mass shooters subscribe to the religion of so-called progressivem.
The National Review article above is thought provoking.
The article and excerpts below also shed a bit of light on what might be expected in terms of civil disobedience if the populace were confronted with disarmament.
If force were to be used by the government to enforce these type of laws I suspect that things would deteriorate rapidly.
24,000 out of 1,000,000+...
Low assault-weapon registration stats suggest low compliance with Gov. Cuomo’s landmark SAFE Act gun control law
BY ADAM EDELMAN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Updated: Tuesday, June 23, 2015
In the years since Gov. Cuomo signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the NY SAFE Act, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their assault-style weapons with the state, according to statistics provided by the New York State Police.
Law enforcement experts have estimated there could be nearly 1 million assault-style weapons in circulation across the state, suggesting that many New Yorkers are ignoring a central provision of what had been touted by gun control advocates as a milestone law.
“What these numbers expose is that, if there are people who are wilfully ignoring the law, that means tens of thousands of gun owners are not complying with a law that is supported by New Yorkers," said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, citing a May poll commissioned by her group that showed state residents support key provisions of the SAFE Act.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-safe-act-weapons-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730
An interesting story illustrating the importance of armed free men...complete article at link below.
"The Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, wrote in his diary, “the joke cannot last much longer, but it shows what the Jews are capable of when they have arms in their hands.” [Yuri Suhl, introduction to “They Fought Back," p. 15.]"
"...as elsewhere, the key impediment to resistance was shortage of arms. According to Holocaust historian Abram L. Sachar: “The indispensable need, of course, was arms."
********
The Warsaw ghetto uprising: Armed Jews vs. Nazis
By David Kopel October 10 at 5:06 PM
The Volokh ConspiracyOpinion
During World War II, 30,000 Jewish partisans fought in Eastern Europe, in their own combat units. In Western Europe, where anti-semitism among the conquered gentile population was less severe, Jews were able to participate as individuals in the national resistance, rather than having to fight in separate units. For example, in France, Jews amounted to less than one percent of French population, but comprised about 15 to 20 percent of the French Resistance. One of the most successful battles of the Jewish resistance was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Nearly every Jew who participated was eventually killed — but they were going to be killed anyway. By choosing to stand and fight, the Warsaw Jews diverted a significant amount of Nazis resources from battlefields elsewhere, thus hastening the Nazi defeat.
The following is a based on my forthcoming book “The Morality of Self-Defense and Military Action: The Judeo-Christian Tradition,” which will be published in 2016 by Praeger.
Before the war, about 10 percent of Poland’s population was Jewish. In the Middle Ages, Poland had been a welcoming, tolerant and free nation, and many Jews emigrated there. But when Poland regained its independence in 1919, thanks to the Versailles Treaty, the nation degenerated into a military dictatorship which encouraged anti-semitism.
The Nazis took most of Poland in September 1939, but according to the terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact, the Soviet Union was allowed to take the eastern third of the nation. After the June 1941 German invasion of the U.S.S.R., all of Poland fell under German control.
In Eastern Europe, the Nazis followed a standard procedure. All the Jews in a city would be ordered to move into a walled ghetto. Movement in and out of the ghetto was strictly controlled. The Germans would set up a Judenrat of collaborationist Jews to run the ghetto and to punish any attempts at rebellion. The Judenrat received special privileges from the Nazis. Often, the Judenrat was told that as long as the ghetto worked hard to produce factory goods for the Germans, the ghetto would be allowed to survive.
Eventually, the Germans would begin deporting large numbers of people from the ghetto — ostensibly for resettlement in labor camps, but almost always for extermination. The Judenrat would be required to select the Jews to be deported. Eventually, the whole ghetto would be depopulated and the area would be declared Judenrein (Jew-free).
Warsaw’s large pre-war Jewish population was initially supplemented by large numbers of Jews who were shipped in from other cities. The Jews were forced to live on starvation rations, and many in the ghetto died from starvation or contagious disease. The Germans eventually cut the size of the ghetto in half, consolidating the survivors into extremely crowded conditions. Deportations to the death camps continued to depopulate the ghetto.
In late 1942, Emmanuel Ringelblum, the well-educated author of a diary about life in the Warsaw Ghetto, wrote:
Whomever you talk to, you hear the same cry: The resettlement never should have been permitted. We should have run into the street, set fire to everything in sight, have torn down the walls, and escaped to the Other Side. The Germans would have taken their revenge. It would have cost tens of thousands of lives, but not 300,000. Now we are ashamed of ourselves, disgraced in our own eyes, and in the eyes of the world, where our docility has earned us nothing. This must not be repeated now. We must put up a resistance, defend ourselves against the enemy, man and child.
[Emmanuel Ringelblum, “Notes from the Warsaw Ghetto: The Journal of Emmanuel Ringelblum," ed. & transl., Jacob Solan (N.Y.: Schoken Books, 1958), p. 326.]
On Jan. 18, 1943, the Germans rounded up 7,000 Jews and sent them to the extermination camp at Treblinka; they killed 600 more right in Warsaw. But on that day, an uprising began. In the beginning, the Jewish Fighting Organization had about 600 volunteers; the Jewish Military Association had about 400, and there were thousands more in spontaneous small groups. The Jews had only 10 handguns, but the Germans did not realize how under-armed the Jewish fighters were.
After four days of fighting, the Germans on January 21 pulled back from the ghetto, to organize better. A diary written in the Warsaw ghetto exulted, “In the four days of fighting we had made up for the shame of Jewish passivity in the first extermination action of July, 1942.” [Ber Mark, “The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” in “They Fought Back" ed., Yuri Suhl (N.Y.: Paperback Library, 1968; 1st pub. 1967), pp. 104-06].
Not only the Germans were shocked by the unexpected resistance, but also the Jews were astonished. They could not imagine until then that the beaten, exhausted victims could rise against a mighty enemy who had conquered Europe. Many Jews who were in the streets of Warsaw during the fighting refused to believe that on Zamenhof and Mila streets Jewish boys and girls had attacked Germans. The large-scale fighting which followed convinced all that it was possible.
In February 1943, the Polish Home Army transferred 50 revolvers (many of them defective), 50 hand grenades, and four pounds of explosives to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The Warsaw Jews also manufactured their own explosives, including Molotov cocktails. But, wrote Ringelblum, as in Biblical days, “their most potent weapon was their deep sense of national pride and responsibility.”
Eventually, the Jewish forces began to run out of ammunition. The Warsaw Jews, like the Jews throughout Europe, were unable to produce their own ammunition. There was little “gun culture” among European Jews of the 1930s, so few Jews had the equipment for “reloading” — the home manufacture of ammunition. In contrast, hundreds of thousands of American families own the machine tools used for reloading; home manufacture of ammunition is legal everywhere in the United States.
The Germans suffered over a thousand casualties in the first week of fighting alone. The Germans had to spend more time subduing the Warsaw Ghetto than they did conquering the entire nations of Poland or France.
The Warsaw Jews knew they had almost no chance of survival. They decided that it was better to die fighting than to die in a gas chamber. It was better to kill at least some of the killers, than to let them massacre Jews with impunity. Ringelblum wrote, “We took stock of our position and saw that this was a struggle between a fly and an elephant. But our national dignity dictated to us that the Jews must offer resistance and not allow themselves to be led wantonly to slaughter.”
Warsaw was the first mass civilian uprising against the Nazis. On April 23, the Jewish commander, 25-year-old Mordechai Anielevich, had written, “I have a feeling that great things are happening, that what we have undertaken is of tremendous significance.”
“If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” says the Talmud. [Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 72a.] That is the best response to mass murderers — in 1943, today and always.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/10/the-warsaw-ghetto-uprising-armed-jews-vs-nazis/
An illogical but highly effective plan to further divide us. Only in a state like California, with its endless supply of delusional liberals would this be considered. Get rid of your taxpayer funded armed security first, you hypocrite coward.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday will introduce a measure for next year’s ballot that aims to stanch the proliferation of gun violence, including a provision to require ammunition buyers to undergo background checks.
Newsom, a Democrat running for governor in 2018, will announce the measure in San Francisco, where he’ll be joined by co-authors from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that grew out of the mass shooting at 101 California St. in 1993.
The proposal follows a cascade of shootings around the U.S., including an average 92 gun deaths each day and four dozen school shootings this year. A renewed assault weapons ban, background checks and other suggested laws regulating the sale, possession and use of firearms have failed to garner support from Congress, which is under pressure from the powerful National Rifle Association and other gun lobbying groups formed to protect the Second Amendment.
California has among the nation’s toughest gun restrictions, including a 1999 ban on assault weapons such as the AK-47 and importation, manufacture and sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines. However, several more recent planned laws in the wake of the deadly 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., faltered in the state’s Democratic-run Legislature, or have been vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat with a mixed record on firearms.
“In the last 72 hours – 68 people have been killed and 129 people have been injured due to gun violence in America,” Newsom wrote online Wednesday.
His measure, which requires nearly 366,000 signatures to qualify for next year’s ballot, incorporates provisions of bills that stalled at the state Capitol. It would ban the possession of large-capacity magazines – more than 10 rounds – and require anyone who currently has them to sell to a licensed firearm dealer, transfer them out of state or relinquish them to law enforcement to be disposed of.
The pending measure also would force those selling ammunition to be licensed like firearm dealers and require the purchasers to go through a background check. It would establish a process to recover guns from people prohibited from owning them because of their criminal record; mandate individuals whose guns were lost or stolen to report to law enforcement; and compel the state Department of Justice to notify the federal government when someone is added to the database of people barred from buying or owning a firearm.
CONT... LINK (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article39234468.html#storylink=cpy)
Team Sergeant
10-15-2015, 15:42
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday will introduce a measure for next year’s ballot that aims to stanch the proliferation of gun violence, including a provision to require ammunition buyers to undergo background checks.
America's best guns and ammunication salesmen , the liberal/progressive/socialists!
(Makes you wonder if liberals like Newsom don't have a huge amount of Olin stock......)
Liberal/progressive/socialists, taking your rights/freedoms one amendment at a time.
(I'll be opening a gun shop in Ehrenberg, AZ is this measure passes.)
As if we need another reason to defeat Hillary.
October 23, 2015
Arranging American Gun Confiscation
By Daren Jonescu
American Thinker
America's progressive chatter on guns has been shifting noticeably from the abstract language of "control" to the concrete language of "confiscation." Hillary Clinton is just the latest leading voice to serve notice that the forced disarmament of law-abiding Americans is not the dystopian fantasy of paranoids, but a matter of current policy discussion -- and action.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/arranging_american_gun_confiscation.html
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/arranging_american_gun_confiscation.html#ixzz3pW3Z uXrV
Badger52
10-24-2015, 14:32
Money quote: "Is a law establishing tyranny "the law?"
Some in other discussions hereabouts should reflect on that and where they will personally draw that "but-it's-the-law" line (or even IF they will make the distinction). Figure it out sooner rather than later.
As Natural Law proponents may have suggested in other circumstances during other times...
Lex iniusta non est lex...
The 2A stands between the people and tyranny.
Team Sergeant
10-24-2015, 23:32
As if we need another reason to defeat Hillary.
October 23, 2015
Arranging American Gun Confiscation
By Daren Jonescu
American Thinker
America's progressive chatter on guns has been shifting noticeably from the abstract language of "control" to the concrete language of "confiscation." Hillary Clinton is just the latest leading voice to serve notice that the forced disarmament of law-abiding Americans is not the dystopian fantasy of paranoids, but a matter of current policy discussion -- and action.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/arranging_american_gun_confiscation.html
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/arranging_american_gun_confiscation.html#ixzz3pW3Z uXrV
Then I do hope she wins this next election and it begins. :munchin
Then I do hope she wins this next election and it begins. :munchin
If Hillary wins...Warren Zevon said it well...send lawyers, guns and money...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5Xv7QqXiM
Some in other discussions hereabouts should reflect on that and where they will personally draw that "but-it's-the-law" line (or even IF they will make the distinction). Figure it out sooner rather than later.
That line would have to be pretty thick to garner support of any kind of widespread uprising/rebellion. I would wager it would take an overt, mass door-to-door gestapo style confiscation of arms to REALLY piss off enough Americans to fight back. Apparently the dissolution of the first amendment for some but not others, the constant attacks on the 2nd, so on and so forth have not been enough.
Team Sergeant
10-29-2015, 10:46
That line would have to be pretty thick to garner support of any kind of widespread uprising/rebellion. I would wager it would take an overt, mass door-to-door gestapo style confiscation of arms to REALLY piss off enough Americans to fight back. Apparently the dissolution of the first amendment for some but not others, the constant attacks on the 2nd, so on and so forth have not been enough.
I'd like to know "who" is going to be doing the "confiscation".
If and when that "order" is given people will start dying en mass along with the idiot that gave the order.:munchin
I'd like to know "who" is going to be doing the "confiscation".
If and when that "order" is given people will start dying en mass along with the idiot that gave the order.:munchin
Pretty simple I think. Most of the rookies at "name-that-agency", die hard liberal members that are already in those agencies, and just plain ole dumb asses that never think for themselves and just want that revenue stream to stay wet.
I'm not saying that everybody in a LE agency would follow those orders, but enough of them would to warrant resistance. Just my $.02.
Team Sergeant
10-29-2015, 13:03
Pretty simple I think. Most of the rookies at "name-that-agency", die hard liberal members that are already in those agencies, and just plain ole dumb asses that never think for themselves and just want that revenue stream to stay wet.
I'm not saying that everybody in a LE agency would follow those orders, but enough of them would to warrant resistance. Just my $.02.
That's OK. Unlike Liam Neeson our skills are real and I'd put those skills against any and all "federal" personal/special agents/agencies. :munchin
The only way to take the guns from the people is to have the military backing those orders and that's not going to happen.
Team Sergeant
10-30-2015, 11:45
Think someone read our letter concerning the Second Amendment and our ideas concerning "gun free" zones?
Congressman’s Wife Launches ‘Mothers Against Gun-Free Zones’
by AWR Hawkins30 Oct 2015
Christy Stutzman is a wife, former teacher, and mother, who believes the “senseless acts of violence” often perpetrated on school campuses with a gun can be remedied not by taking away guns, but by taking away gun-free zones. To that end, Stutzman is rallying with other mothers around the country to launch Mothers Against Gun-Free Zones.
According to The Washington Times, Stutzman is focused on how her son will be able to maintain his own safety once he heads off to college, and having him in areas surrounded by “no guns allowed” signs does not really inspire confidence.
Stutzman said:
My No. 1 priority is to know with assurance that my son will be kept safe in every way and that, if attacked, he will have the ability and freedom to defend himself. Yes, by all means, we need to discuss the current lack of adequate treatments for mental health. There are obviously major issues that need to be addressed in that area of health care. But until that complicated subject is honestly addressed and corrected, there is one sure-fire, no-fail way to keep our kids safe: No Gun-Free Zones.
She points out that gun-free zones are obvious targets for madmen with guns, yet leaders on the Democrat side appear determined to maintain such zones at all costs–even when the costs include the lives of our children.
Stutzman asserted:
Looking at every mass shooting on record, since 2009, one thing is clear: Gun-free zones don’t protect, they endanger. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a report in 2014 showing that 92 percent of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones. Have we become so politically correct that we are willing to ignore the facts to the detriment of our children’s safety?
She explains that gun-free zones are places that are only theoretically gun-free and/or safe. In reality, the very existence of such zones is “an invitation for those with evil intentions who seek to attack the weak.” Stutzman is urging mothers across the country to come together in Mothers Against Gun-Free Zones and fight to remove the zones, which leave children, young adults, teachers, and professors vulnerable to attack on campuses all over this nation.
Christy Stutzman is the wife of Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/30/congressmans-wife-launches-mothers-gun-free-zones/
If the court declines to hear the case and lets these unconstitutional bans stand, they will send the nation on a nearly inevitable path towards another civil war.
The high court is considering whether to accept an appeal filed by Highland Park pediatrician Arie S. Friedman, 49, who claims the ban passed by the City Council in 2013 violates the Second Amendment because it denies him the right to use his semi-automatic weapons to protect his home and family. The new law required that residents such as Friedman, who owned firearms capable of rapidly firing more than 10 rounds of ammunition, either remove them from the city, modify them or turn them over to police.
Friedman, who filed the lawsuit along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, already has lost in two lower courts. A U.S. District Court upheld the ban last year, and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The National Rifle Association has filed a brief to the Supreme Court in support of the suit.
http://bearingarms.com/supreme-courts-decision-lead-second-civil-war/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-133.htm
Team Sergeant
11-04-2015, 08:35
If the court declines to hear the case and lets these unconstitutional bans stand, they will send the nation on a nearly inevitable path towards another civil war.
That's ok by me. I just hope it happens soon. :munchin
Obama to impose new gun control curbs next week
Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin January 1 at 6:00 AM
HONOLULU — President Obama will meet with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch on Monday to finalize a set of executive actions on guns that he will unveil next week, according to several individuals briefed on the matter.
White House officials declined to comment on Obama’s plans beyond releasing his weekly radio address on Friday, a day earlier than usual. But according to those familiar with the proposal, who asked for anonymity because it was not yet public, the president will expand new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.
The president will also use his executive authority in several other areas, these individuals said, but the overall package has not yet been finalized.
In the radio address, Obama said he was moving unilaterally because Congress had failed to address the growing problem of gun violence.
<snip> complete article at link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/01/obama-to-impose-new-gun-control-curbs-next-week/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pp-obamaguns-610am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Badger52
01-01-2016, 11:39
Obama to impose new gun control curbs next week
Washington Post
By all means. Curbing new gun control would be a refreshing idea.
By all means. Curbing new gun control would be a refreshing idea.
Lol, "curbing gun control" ...not in the current alternate universe of emperor Obama.
Prediction: The "buy" numbers will again nudge upwards a tad.
Breaking news...
"This is so important that I just had to break my silence and come out of seclusion...Bathhouse Barry believes in the Second Amendment !"
Brian Williams
"Just because you're paranoid - don't mean they're not out to get ya."
The new target for gun bans: All semiautomatic weapons?
By Eugene Volokh January 8 at 5:52 PM
Washington Post
Back in the 1970s, talk was of banning “Saturday Night Specials” — cheap, generally low-caliber handguns that were supposedly favored by criminals. Actually, criminals, like other people, preferred better, more powerful guns. And to the extent the bans pushed criminals away from the cheap, low-caliber guns and to slightly more expensive, high-caliber substitutes, they might have increased gun deaths, precisely because the high-caliber substitutes were deadlier. (A gun is a criminal’s tool of the trade; a few would-be gun criminals might be put off by having to pay some more for a gun, but many others would pay the extra money if they had to.)
Then talk shifted to so-called “assault weapons” — particular kinds of semiautomatic weapons — partly because these too were seen as unusual and not generally owned by law-abiding people. Quite a few states and cities have indeed banned sales of such weapons, as did the federal government (for newly manufactured) weapons from 1994 to 2004. Of course, especially now, such “assault weapons” are actually pretty common, but bans on them are still being proposed.
And of course now things have moved on: Now we’re hearing calls for bans on sale or home possession of semiautomatic weapons generally. Consider, for instance, Thomas Friedman’s column in the New York Times this week; Damon Linker’s article for The Week this week, though apparently limited to semiautomatic rifles; the Media Matters article hopefully noting a poll of Latinos that showed support for a ban on “semi-automatic and assault weapons” (the polling organization itself characterized the position as “ban semi-automatic weapons”).
These proposals aren’t entirely new; President Obama, when he was a candidate for the Illinois legislature in 1998, said he’d support a ban on semiautomatic weapons. But I’ve been hearing them more and more often — even though semiautomatic guns likely represent close to half of the guns out there in the country. These aren’t calls for restricting supposedly narrow categories of guns that are allegedly used predominantly by criminals. These are calls for banning the sorts of guns that tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have in their homes.
Now if people think that we’d be safer with a ban on semiautomatic weapons, they should of course feel free to argue in favor of such a ban. But, as I suggested in this post earlier today, it’s hard to view gun rights supporters as “paranoid” for worrying that supposedly modest restrictions will lead to broad gun bans, when they see how supposedly narrower past restrictions are indeed being followed by calls for much broader gun bans today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/08/the-new-target-for-gun-bans-all-semiautomatic-weapons/
Badger52
01-09-2016, 06:23
Consider, for instance, Thomas Friedman’s column in the New York Times this week; Thanks for that by way of Volokh's piece; went & read it. Friedman is a guy many people read to find out how they should think in the morning, in the absence of developed independent thought - and he's lost it with this one. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/up-with-extremism.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-l-friedman&_r=0) Not just the gun quote:
Bans on the manufacture and sale of all semiautomatic and other military-style guns and government offers to buy back any rifle or pistol in circulation. It won’t solve the problem, but Australia proved that such programs can help reduce gun deaths.
But you can see the full-on retard trend. Yes, yes, I know it's the NYT but Friedman in the past has largely stuck to foreign affairs & economics. He's gone for a long walk on the ice with this one on a variety of points.
Lighthouse
01-10-2016, 22:50
This country could use that kind of president, with black people in fear for our lives during every interaction with police and with literally every American at risk of some American deciding to take out as many innocent people as possible because ... Jesus and Muslims and women with opinions!...
We could use a President who was, like, "OK. Everybody turn in all your guns tomorrow by 5 p.m. After that, if I catch you with a gun then I'm sending SEAL Team Six to your house with a recent Facebook picture of you and those tanks that shoot fire that we haven't used since Waco -- Ummm -- I mean since World War II."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/opinions/bell-obama-guns/index.html
This is what puzzles me about leftist. :confused: They are so intellectually superior yet they can't seen to see that their solutions to gun control is a fascists despot. While in one breath shutting to fear at the thought of an interaction with uniformed public service at the other they want to use another form of public service to kill any non conformist. This would be funny if it wasn't so asinine.
Badger52
01-11-2016, 06:12
They feel they are so intellectually superior yet they can't seen to see that their solutions to gun control is a fascists despot.Fixed it for you.
;)
The only thing Bell (who is a stand-up comic able to get quoted by the media) got correct was that, ultimately, the right doesn't trust the current POTUS (or his crew). In a specific sense someone like him is not worth the 'breath' trying to argue with.
You can seldom use facts to move someone holding an irrational position who didn't arrive there via rational argument in the first place.
Some things that might be worth remembering that remain separate from the socialist public discussion of reality:
- Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.
- Bad people will do horrible things to good people in supposedly safe places. (Because bad people don't care about 6x9" signs. Maximizing the chances the bad person will get their shit blown away before achieving their goal works better than dialing 911.)
- The leftist ultimately needs the muzzle of a gun to enforce his "intellectually superior" social ideas. Everyone not with him/her is a "subject." (They don't count on subjects being familiar with history, which is the source of the mistrust.)
- They know all the above, often quite consciously, and do it anyway. (What does that make them?)
The 2d, as with all Ammendments, was inspired by a Christian God. Some people in this Country have forgotten that, some choose to ignore it, and some are vehemently argumentative about it, but it's a fact.
People in this Country used to say, "I can take anything they dish out." Many still do. Too many are looking for a "safe space" that never has existed and never will.
Thank God there are enough normal citizens left to vote these sniveling hippiespawn outta here.
The right to defend oneself, family, property transcends what is merely written on parchment - it is a Natural Right.
Some insight into presidential candidate Governor Christie on the Second Amendment.
This is not interesting merely because a high level politician may have lied on the national stage...but that he misleads with such conviction.
Video at link...it is amusing to watch the real-time unvarnished reactions of law enforcement (sworn or otherwise) to the question of concealed carry in NJ in light of the Governor's comments.
NJ2AS - Future Victims of NJ - Part 5: Christie Lies To The Nation
New Jersey Second Amendment Society
"Published on Jan 17, 2016 Governor Christie continues to tout his supposed commitment to the second amendment on the presidential campaign trail. When he recently professed to have made it "easier" to get a concealed carry permit in New Jersey, we decided to take him to task on this monumental lie. NJ2AS documented employees of law enforcement refuting the lies delivered by the Governor at Fox Business Network debate."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=umGF6-kCzNI
Sheriffs issue a call to arms: ‘Take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm’
Washington Post
By Lindsey Bever January 18, 2016
Sheriffs across the country have been calling their citizens “the first line of defense” against crime — a call to arms that some say is a new phenomenon following terrorist attacks at home and abroad.
A sheriff in Wisconsin wants “as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this country as we can get.” One in New York state told people who are licensed to carry a gun to “please do so.” In Florida, one sheriff said: “I can tell you the probability of needing a firearm is remote, but it’s more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone.”
The proclamations come after suicide bombers and gunmen terrorized Paris, a gunman opened fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs and two attackers – since linked to Islamic extremism – gunned down a crowd at a social services center in San Bernardino, Calif.
<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/18/u-s-sheriffs-call-to-arms-urge-citizens-to-help-protect/
Just the facts.
Another record year for background checks - which are a reasonable estimation of firearm transactions/sales.
That's a lot of "iron"...and polymer...
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
Ret10Echo
02-04-2016, 18:43
It's not overturned... it just opens things up for more litigation.
Be thankful O'Malley dropped out of the presidential primary race. He's destroyed every jurisdiction he's touched...
a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.
"In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment -- the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling.
Provisions that outlaw these firearms, Traxler wrote, "substantially burden this fundamental right."
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who recently suspended his Democratic presidential campaign, signed Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013 in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which spurred similar initiatives in other Democratic-leaning states.
A short YouTube video I hadn't seen before.
DEMOCIDE Socialism, Tyranny, Guns And Freedom
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UE5u0lPZOok&feature=youtu.be
Badger52
02-23-2016, 05:41
A short YouTube video I hadn't seen before.
DEMOCIDE Socialism, Tyranny, Guns And Freedom
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UE5u0lPZOok&feature=youtu.be
Good contribution to this thread; remains relevant.
GratefulCitizen
02-27-2016, 17:52
This surfaced awhile ago.
Can't believe it's still moving forward.
Maybe they'll they'll start enforcing it on April 19...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/23/the-gun-grabbers-are-coming-lexington-massachusetts-now-faces-semi-automatic-gun-confiscation/
This surfaced awhile ago.
Can't believe it's still moving forward.
Maybe they'll they'll start enforcing it on April 19...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/23/the-gun-grabbers-are-coming-lexington-massachusetts-now-faces-semi-automatic-gun-confiscation/
At the link below is a 2012 clip of the supposed author of that proposed legislation in Lexington, MA - Harvard Professor Robert Rotberg. At approximately the 1:57 mark of the video, the good professor places all his ivory tower naïveté on full display when he completely ignores the value of the 2A with respect to tyrannical leaders. His own words support the unquestioned value of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just another example of a highly educated tool.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-woq7wcZb8k
GratefulCitizen
02-27-2016, 22:07
At the link below is a 2012 clip of the supposed author of that proposed legislation in Lexington, MA - Harvard Professor Robert Rotberg. At approximately the 1:57 mark of the video, the good professor places all his ivory tower naïveté on full display when he completely ignores the value of the 2A with respect to tyrannical leaders. His own words support the unquestioned value of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just another example of a highly educated tool.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-woq7wcZb8k
A tool indeed.
An important difference between how "leaders" are meant to act here as apposed to elsewhere:
Leaders elsewhere are masters, here they are servants.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the people at large retain the means to quash any rebellion on the part of their elected and appointed servants.
A tool indeed.
An important difference between how "leaders" are meant to act here as apposed to elsewhere:
Leaders elsewhere are masters, here they are servants.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the people at large retain the means to quash any rebellion on the part of their elected and appointed servants.
Thank you. You point out a very important and not so subtle distinction that is sometimes lost on some of our young people today, thank you again.
Moreover, the good Professor also seems to discount the importance of the 2A with respect to a soft (but hardening tyranny) and erosion of the Constitution by our so called political leaders. Incremental steps to tyranny (boiling frog analogy) are steps nonetheless.
The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against terrorists, migrant hordes, petty criminals an oppressive government, or whoever, as the case may be - the right of civilians to keep and bear arms - is a vital and undeniable RIGHT not a privilege in our country.
Team Sergeant
02-28-2016, 12:52
Thank you. You point out a very important and not so subtle distinction that is sometimes lost on some of our young people today, thank you again.
Moreover, the good Professor also seems to discount the importance of the 2A with respect to a soft (but hardening tyranny) and erosion of the Constitution by our so called political leaders. Incremental steps to tyranny (boiling frog analogy) are steps nonetheless.
The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against terrorists, migrant hordes, petty criminals an oppressive government, or whoever, as the case may be - the right of civilians to keep and bear arms - is a vital and undeniable RIGHT not a privilege in our country.
Most people/sheeple are idiots. And they will continue to vote away their freedoms until most of them become the sheep they were born to be.
Old Dog New Trick
02-29-2016, 13:45
After 10-years of silence while sitting on the highest court, Chief Justice Clarence Thomas had a question. And it's in support of the 2A.
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
Justice Thomas breaks 10-year silence in court
http://usat.ly/1oJt3Ip
Why is there a "lifetime ban" for a misdemeanor conviction? Does that happen for any other Constitutionally protected rights? Apparently not!
Red Flag 1
02-29-2016, 16:27
I met Justice Thomas at his son's graduation from a private military school in Virginia (FUMA) . Our son was a year behind his son, as he joined my wife and I as we were taking advantage of a large shade tree beside the bleachers. Very few took notice of him until after the graduation was over,and we went in search of our cadet sons. He had just finished his confirmation hearings, and we chatted about that for just a bit before moving on to other things. What he said in his latest statement matches the image I formed of him that hot summer afternoon. I am glad that he is sitting on the Supreme Court.
NICS background checks for the first two months of 2016 are particularly strong.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
A short decision from the Supreme Court regarding the 2A. Full text of decision at link below.
<snip>
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016
A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the conse quences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self- defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14.
If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.
<snip>
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Badger52
03-23-2016, 05:04
Thanks for posting that. The Court takes refreshingly straight language in its slapping of the Kommissars of Massachusetts.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008)
One would think state and local authority would read and understand the plain language of 2nd A and Supreme Court decisions.
:munchin
Obama Administration Moves Forward With Stripping Gun Rights Through Social Security
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/05/02/obama-moves-forward-with-stripping-gun-rights-through-social-security-n2156896/print
"Late last week President Obama announced a new push for additional federal "smart" gun technology funding. After grabbing headlines and much attention, the move received praise from gun control groups like Michael Bloomberg's Everytown and criticism from law enforcement, the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
But an issue flying under the radar in Obama's announcement is the Administration's decision to move forward with gun control measures through the Social Security system. Late last year it became clear if an individuals needs financial help managing Social Security benefits, the agency can deem that person mentally unfit to purchase a firearm. This policy is already in place at the Veteran's Administration, where people who have been assigned a "representative payee" have been permanently placed into the NICS background check system as ineligible to purchase a firearm without due process, a hearing or a trial. As background from the LA Times, bolding is mine:..."
First VA and now SS. Just wait until PTSD gets thrown into the mix.
Team Sergeant
05-03-2016, 10:42
Obama Administration Moves Forward With Stripping Gun Rights Through Social Security
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/05/02/obama-moves-forward-with-stripping-gun-rights-through-social-security-n2156896/print
But an issue flying under the radar in Obama's announcement is the Administration's decision to move forward with gun control measures through the Social Security system. Late last year it became clear if an individuals needs financial help managing Social Security benefits, the agency can deem that person mentally unfit to purchase a firearm. This policy is already in place at the Veteran's Administration, where people who have been assigned a "representative payee" have been permanently placed into the NICS background check system as ineligible to purchase a firearm without due process, a hearing or a trial. As background from the LA Times, bolding is mine:..."
First VA and now SS. Just wait until PTSD gets thrown into the mix.
obama and the socialists/progressives can go screw themselves, as some of us will not abide by their rules.
MOLON LABE you spineless socialist cowards, MOLON LABE
Obama Administration Moves Forward With Stripping Gun Rights Through Social Security
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/05/02/obama-moves-forward-with-stripping-gun-rights-through-social-security-n2156896/print
First VA and now SS. Just wait until PTSD gets thrown into the mix.
Illegal to as Executive Orders for Obama to do. Also Not IAW 14th A due process clause. There needs to be more Sheriff's to stand up against illegal orders.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-confiscation-fears-lead-protest-northern-idaho-233309692.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma&ref=gs
Illegal to as Executive Orders for Obama to do. Also Not IAW 14th A due process clause. There needs to be more Sheriff's to stand up against illegal orders.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-confiscation-fears-lead-protest-northern-idaho-233309692.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma&ref=gs
Former AZ Sheriff Richard Mack successfully challenged the Brady Bill which would have required police chiefs and sheriffs to do the background checks for gun purchases. He said, “We went through a lawful process to show the government is out of control, to force sheriffs to comply.” He also said that U.S. District Judge John Roll, who was killed in the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, summed up every sheriff’s dilemma: “He said I was forced to choose between obeying the law or keeping my oath of office. He described my problem in one sentence.”
Pat
Oldrotorhead
05-03-2016, 16:41
Here is an interesting group of Sheriffs the Second and 14th Amendments are high on their support list.
Our Mission
THE CSPOA MISSION
To Protect, Serve, Uphold, and Defend.
http://cspoa.org/our-mission/
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association seeks to Protect, Serve, Uphold, and Defend each citizen’s Natural, Unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as outlined in our Bill of Rights, and our Constitution.
To this end, the CSPOA seeks to educate, empower, encourage, and activate Citizens to elect, support, and rely upon Constitutional County Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and Constitutional Public Officials who understand the ethical application of The Oath of Office which they swore to uphold for our safety and peace, protecting individual liberty from all enemies, both foreign and domestic; in thought, word, and deed..
Our Constitutional Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and Elected Officials must provide a bulwark of protection of our Natural, Unalienable Rights; it is upon this strong foundation that we confidently build our families, our communities, our Sovereign States, and our Nation.:munchin
Noslack71
05-11-2016, 00:50
I was speaking with a lawyer, he is a former Ranger. His firm and a couple others have been creating "Gun Trusts" for clients that request them. My very limited legal understanding is it works just like other trusts, the Trustee controls the guns just like he or she was the owner. Buy, sell, shoot, loan them out etc. only thing is the Trust owns the guns. Sounds like that might be a workable solution. Of course, a Trust specifically for guns is relatively new, and has not been tested in court by this DoJ and other anti 2nd Amendment groups ;) but, having one might by a little time and space.
Noslack
In 2013, CO House Rep. advocated that all women needed was a whistle before passing some of Colorado's onerous anti-gun laws.
Team Sergeant
05-18-2016, 16:06
In 2013, CO House Rep. advocated that all women needed was a whistle before passing some of Colorado's onerous anti-gun laws.
Went to a funeral last month and saw one of my mothers "80 year old" friends. Discussion came up about carrying and he shows me his TAURUS 4510PD-3B REVOLVER | .45/.410.
I just said, "good for you!"
ddoering
05-25-2016, 15:30
More shenanigans from the left: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/24/hawaii-could-be-first-state-to-put-gun-owners-in-federal-database.html
They really are that stupid.
They really are that stupid.
Yep...a bunch of subject-matter-experts right there! Some people should simply keep their mouths shut...but they insist on proving they are idiots.
Schmucks!
Team Sergeant
06-14-2016, 15:49
Gretchen Carlson, you're an idiot.
Your gun knowledge is zero. You really should talk to a gun "expert" before ranting against a gun/tool.
There's about 1000 guns that can and will do what Mateen did with an AR-15, he just so happened to use an AR-15. And like you he was a gun novice. Your argument against the AR-15 is on par with using a Ferrari or a Volkswagen to run someone down.
Tell me Gretchen Carlson, who do you think could kill more folks firing a gun, your mother using an AR-15 or a trained soldier firing a revolver? :munchin
The AR-15 is a tool, a gun and called by some "assault rifle". And we all know who made up that socialist term, "assault rifle". A gun is no more "powerful" or "deadly" than the joker wielding it. Same goes for most "tools", knives, swords, spears, cannons, bows, etc etc etc
But go ahead and rant like the mindless socialist you really are....
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a62_1465938002
Hey Gretchen if that Orlando POS Muslim murderer doesn't represent all Muslims...why would that same POS Muslim murderer represent all modern sporting rifle owners?
Sorry Gretchen on this topic you are an idiot.
Not that I own an assault rifle, but it seems that the CinC in his twisted liberal logic thinks banning them will go a long way towards ending terrorism. He really seemed livid during his remarks I think he's losing it.
In his remarks, Obama also pushed for an assault weapons ban and declared, 'Enough talking about being tough on terrorism. Actually be tough on terrorism.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641384/Angry-Obama-hits-Trump-aftermath-Orlando-attack-won-t-say-radical-Islam.html#ixzz4BbCejgVD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Team Sergeant
06-15-2016, 08:50
So...... the democrats/liberal/socialists invite islamic terrorists into the United States. They then go onto committing mass murder.
And now the answer is to ban American "assault rifles".
Let's ban islam and muslims instead and work our way to banning liberal/socialists.
Dems renew push for gun control measures, aim for terror watch list
Barnini Chakraborty
By Barnini Chakraborty
·Published June 15, 2016
Congressional Democrats are renewing their push for gun control measures in the wake of the Orlando terror massacre, arguing the best way to prevent suspected terrorists from carrying out acts of violence is to legally limit their access to firearms.
Republicans have their own proposals for confronting the terror threat, and warn that certain gun control measures could make Americans less safe. House Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday touted proposals to improve refugee screening and other measures to deal with homegrown terrorism.
But while some Democrat-backed gun proposals have little chance of passing -- like a reinstated assault-weapons ban, a move President Obama endorsed Tuesday -- others could gain traction in Congress.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., specifically are pushing a proposal to the top of the Democratic agenda that would bar suspected terrorists from purchasing guns and explosives.
cont:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/15/dems-renew-push-for-gun-control-measures-aim-for-terror-watch-list.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Badger52
06-15-2016, 09:26
Since the tyrants like to project behavioral characteristics on others, here's a little back. Feinstein & Schumer & their ilk (cast of thousands) had a not insignificant portion of their 'back-room' inner selves jumping for joy when they heard of the Orlando tragedy. Frankly, they eat this shit up.
Team Sergeant
06-15-2016, 14:21
Since the tyrants like to project behavioral characteristics on others, here's a little back. Feinstein & Schumer & their ilk (cast of thousands) had a not insignificant portion of their 'back-room' inner selves jumping for joy when they heard of the Orlando tragedy. Frankly, they eat this shit up.
It's going to come down to two camps:
Those that eat bacon and those that do not.
You'll find me with the bacon eaters camp. :munchin
It's going to come down to two camps:
Those that eat bacon and those that do not.
You'll find me with the bacon eaters camp. :munchin
It smells like .... VICTORY !!!!
It's going to come down to two camps:
Those that eat bacon and those that do not.
You'll find me with the bacon eaters camp. :munchin
I had eggs and pork sausage and pig bacon this morning!:D
There are some well articulated thoughts in this simple article - the Second Amendment did not kill those innocent people in Orlando - a screwed up Muslim terrorist did.
TERROR REACTION
Cal Thomas: Debate a logic-free zone
Cal Thomas
Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 5:30 a.m.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Massachusetts, recently disclosed that a congressional investigation has found at least 72 employees of the Department of Homeland Security listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list.
In other news, President Obama used a memorial service for the victims of the Orlando massacre to advocate for more gun control laws. Anyone else see a contradiction in these two items?
Interviewers frequently ask me why I don’t favor more gun control laws. My response: Name one law that deters someone intent on breaking the law. Murder has been prohibited since the beginning of civilization, but people still murder. One might as well outlaw human nature.
Only those predisposed to obey laws will obey them. Florida prohibits openly carrying firearms and many places advertise “gun-free zones,” which can be an open invitation to anyone intent on mass murder. The Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, reportedly visited Pulse nightclub several times before breaking its gun-free zone policy. That night, he entered the club with an assault rifle and entered into a gun battle with the club’s security guard, an off-duty police officer. He then retreated to a bathroom, taking hostages. Had Mateen cased the place? Did he know the guard would be the only one standing in his way? It would appear so.
Despite the president’s claim to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that even a small number of armed patrons might have limited the number of fatalities. And had the shooter known he would encounter armed patrons perhaps he might not have chosen that particular club as his target.
More gun laws are not the answer. Britain has some of the toughest gun laws in the world, but that did not stop a deranged man from shooting and stabbing to death Labour MP Jo Cox.
Omar Mateen was a radical Muslim who pledged his allegiance to ISIS. Why do so many of us find it hard to accept that Islamists want to kill us as part of a strategy to create a worldwide caliphate? And why is the president adopting their language by using the term ISIL, which stands for the “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant,” a larger area of the Middle East that includes Lebanon, Jordan and Syria? The president uses their terminology, but refuses to say “Islamic terrorism,” while continuing to allow thousands of Syrian refugees into America when authorities say there are so many that they can’t conduct proper background checks.
The answer to the first question is political correctness. The owner of the gun store where Mateen purchased his rifle says he also asked about body armor. When Mateen left the store, someone contacted the FBI. The follow-up, however, proved insufficient.
James Kallstrom, a former FBI assistant director, recently spoke with Megyn Kelly on her Fox News show. Kallstrom told Kelly that orders have come down from the White House that the bureau cannot investigate “anything to do with Muslims” and agents are “petrified” of losing their jobs if they do.
Islamists could not have a better friend in the White House had they put one of their own there.
The media and liberal activists have returned to their default positions, of course. New York Times columnist Charles Blow blames conservative Christians and their biblical doctrines on marriage, sexuality, even evolution for fomenting “hate” against LGBT people, a hate that, supposedly, propelled Mateen toward mass homicide.
Truth is often a casualty in politics, but in a presidential election year it has become a mass casualty.
http://m.news-journalonline.com/article/20160622/MCT/160629878/0/apj?Title=Cal-Thomas-Debate-a-logic-free-zone
****
This is not the time to disarm law abiding Americans.
Badger52
06-28-2016, 05:25
Happened to catch this piece (http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/27/special-forces-association-rips-patraeus-mccrystal-gun-control-betrayal/) from yesterday which cites the SFA appropriate roasting of Petraeus & McChrystal, as well as The Letter (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=486159&postcount=1) which continues to stand as a reference for many.
After President Obama threatened wide-ranging “executive actions” a month after the Sandy Hook massacre, more than 1,100 Green Berets wrote him a public letter that outlined their position, and gently reminded the President that their duty was to defending the Constitution against all enemies, and that they owed no allegiance to any particular President.
It was not lost on Mr. Obama that the Green Berets specialize in fomenting insurrections and overthrowing governments, and the First Golfer has confined himself to making anti-gun speeches ever since.
:cool:
Matt Damon, star of a series I highly enjoyed... is an idiot. (And a hypocrite).
Hollywood actor Matt Damon used a press conference in Australia over the Fourth of July weekend to discuss his desire for a massive confiscation of U.S. guns.
“You guys did it here in one fell swoop [in 1996] and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly,” Mr. Damon said during a promotional engagement in Sydney for the movie “Jason Bourne.”
The action star went on to say people get too “emotional” when it comes to “not selling AK47s to people on terror watchlists.”
Mr. Damon also discussed the Dec. 12, 2012, massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20-year-old Adam Lanza stole his mother’s legal weapons, killed her and then did the same to 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
“Obviously, mass shootings aren’t going to do it. There have been so many of them at this point. Sandy Hook, when those children were murdered, if that didn’t do it, you know, I just don’t know. Maybe we just need to evolve further before we can have that conversation, I don’t know,” Mr. Damon said, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Sunday.
Source. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/5/matt-damon-jason-bourne-star-calls-for-us-to-ban-g/)
Hey Matt Damon - we can't control our own borders and the movement of illegal aliens or the movement and possession of illegal drugs and you propose we round up all of our legal firearms? Leaving only law abiding folks defenseless? Good luck with that.
FBI: June Is 14th Consecutive Month of Record Background Checks
Breitbart
by AWR HAWKINS5 Jul 2016
New FBI figures show June 2016 is the 14th consecutive month of record background checks for gun sales.
The previous FBI record for June — set in June 2o15 — was 1,529,057. The number of background checks in June 2016 was 2,131,485.
According to the FBI figures, this means June 2016 saw more background checks than any June since background checks began in 1998. Breitbart News previously reported that the record-breaking streak began in May 2015, only to have May 2016 exceed the number of background checks performed a year earlier.
On June 27, Breitbart News used FBI figures to show that the number of background checks conducted during the Obama presidency is so high that it averages out to nearly 52,000 a day. That means, an average of 52,000 citizens a day go to a retail store to buy a gun, two guns, or even more.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/05/fbi-june-14th-month-record-bg-checks/
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
link to FBI stats:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
If Damon truly believed his rhetoric...he wouldn't allow himself to profit from activities portraying the use of such evil instruments. He is yet another hypocritical talking head in Hollywood that feels his opinion matters.
If he wants to get some attention...then turn down movies that involve the use of weapons. Then...I will say he is a man that truly stands on his principles.
I would sincerely like to see Hollywood put their cockholsters in the same location as their spotlighting fucking social activism...
I want to see empty souls like Matt Damon, Sylvester Stallone, Mark Walhberg, Liam Neeson, Danny Glover, and George Clooney commit to never again appear in, direct, produce, support, or in any way enable a film that glorifies firearms in any way.
I also challenge hypocrites to give up armed protection services; people like Rosie O'Donald, Michael Moore, and all of the other hollyweird hypocrites that don't mind having armed guards protecting them and their parties and awards ceremonies, but don't seem to think "normal" aMEricans should have access to that same kind of personal protection.
...give up your guns fatty
...you too Rosie
I also challenge them to surrender any and all monies collected through profiteering on the shoulders of gun violence.
I'm sure all of the money that Sly made on the Rambo franchise could be put to good use making our communities safer.
But it wont happen...
...because all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
Team Sergeant
07-06-2016, 10:54
Hey Matt Damon - we can't control our own borders and the movement of illegal aliens or the movement and possession of illegal drugs and you propose we round up all of our legal firearms? Leaving only law abiding folks defenseless? Good luck with that.
FBI: June Is 14th Consecutive Month of Record Background Checks
Breitbart
by AWR HAWKINS5 Jul 2016
New FBI figures show June 2016 is the 14th consecutive month of record background checks for gun sales.
The previous FBI record for June — set in June 2o15 — was 1,529,057. The number of background checks in June 2016 was 2,131,485.
According to the FBI figures, this means June 2016 saw more background checks than any June since background checks began in 1998. Breitbart News previously reported that the record-breaking streak began in May 2015, only to have May 2016 exceed the number of background checks performed a year earlier.
On June 27, Breitbart News used FBI figures to show that the number of background checks conducted during the Obama presidency is so high that it averages out to nearly 52,000 a day. That means, an average of 52,000 citizens a day go to a retail store to buy a gun, two guns, or even more.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/05/fbi-june-14th-month-record-bg-checks/
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
link to FBI stats:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
The only way to read those stats, folks are preparing for war.
Good for them.
Be ready.
Team Sergeant
07-06-2016, 11:00
Matt Damon, "morbidly hypocritical" , it's like affluenza but only affects the hollywood elite.
Matt Damon, star of a series I highly enjoyed... is an idiot. (And a hypocrite).
Source. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/5/matt-damon-jason-bourne-star-calls-for-us-to-ban-g/)
Old Dog New Trick
07-06-2016, 11:04
I would sincerely like to see Hollywood put their cockholsters in the same location as their spotlighting fucking social activism...
I want to see empty souls like Matt Damon, Sylvester Stallone, Mark Walhberg, Liam Neeson, Danny Glover, and George Clooney commit to never again appear in, direct, produce, support, or in any way enable a film that glorifies firearms in any way.
I also challenge hypocrites to give up armed protection services; people like Rosie O'Donald, Michael Moore, and all of the other hollyweird hypocrites that don't mind having armed guards protecting them and their parties and awards ceremonies, but don't seem to think "normal" aMEricans should have access to that same kind of personal protection.
...give up your guns fatty
...you too Rosie
I also challenge them to surrender any and all monies collected through profiteering on the shoulders of gun violence.
I'm sure all of the money that Sly made on the Rambo franchise could be put to good use making our communities safer.
But it wont happen...
...because all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
I'm sure the A-list is longer but don't forget: POS Sean Penn.
Streck-Fu
07-06-2016, 11:38
I'm sure the A-list is longer but don't forget: POS Sean Penn.
Ahhhh...Ol' Sean....who, so he claims, gave up all his guns for pussy.
I could have a "tool box" to be proud of from all the hypocritical tools in Hollyweird when it comes to their hypocritical views on guns.
The A list grows by the day!
Some compelling statistics - received this from the NSSF - the numbers are at the link below.
NSSF Infographic: Gun Sales Up, Crime Rates Down
July 6, 2016 By nssfnews
With gun control advocates in Congress continuing to beat the drum on restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights, it’s important to remember the facts are on our side.
As NSSF’s new infographic shows, violent crime continues its downward trend, even as the firearms market sees more and more growth over the past two decades. Fortunately we also see the number of firearm accidents dropping year after year.
Looking at the infographic below, one thing is clear; punishing the law-abiding firearms owners in the U.S. and the federally-regulated firearms and ammunition industry for the criminal acts of terrorists and madmen cannot be justified by data. These pictures are worth a 1,000 words.
http://www.nssfblog.com/nssf-infographic-gun-sales-up-crime-rates-down/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NSSFGR+%28NSSF+Government+Rel ations%29
http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/whats-next-for-right-to-carry-firearms-in-public_59576/
Well, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has given its final verdict on concealed carry and in what shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone, the en banc panel of the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is absolutely no right to carry a weapon concealed in public under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Given that all of the plaintiffs had argued that states can ban concealed carry, no one should be complaining that the 9th Circuit took them at their word. If you didn’t like the decision then blame: The National Rifle Association,
The California Rifle and Pistol Association, The Second Amendment Foundation, The CalGuns Foundation and every other so called gun-rights groups which filed an
Amicus brief in support of their lawsuits. By the way, the plaintiffs in these two cases also claimed that Open Carry can be banned. Be grateful that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree with them on that point as well.
Badger52
07-14-2016, 18:17
I sense (from some other identical postings on the internet that the author has another specific open-carry axe to grind, in/pending litigation - but it happens too often that someone takes a position that "you damn CC people are screwing with my OC rights." I think you should do both but my opinion doesn't matter. Kommifornia is so f'd up that - as states used to fight for shall-issue permit laws - CA is like little county fiefdoms in a country all their own, fighting their county sheriffs.
Given the actual narrow scope (San Diego County) of the plaintiff's attempt to chip away at the commie glacier that is CA law I don't necessarily share the author's view that all those who filed amicus briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs are to blame. There are at least a couple of other more relevant core issues:
It's Kalifornia. (c'mon YGBSM) :rolleyes:
It's the 9th Circuit. (same)
Team Sergeant
07-14-2016, 23:00
That's OK. Soon, very soon because of the democrats and the flood of muzzies they are allowing into this country unchecked, what happened in France today will become routine here in "America".
islamic bombs go off weekly in middle eastern countries and they are headed this way by the hundreds of thousands. Difference here and France, we "still" live in a free society, we can still purchase guns, ammo, explosives (black power, smokeless powder, etc) relatively easy.
The muzzies already tried a islamic terrorist attack in Texas, didn't go well. They were armed and waiting. Muzzies will learn who's armed and who's not real fast.
The attack in NYC was just a islamic terrorist test, expect more soon. Intel is not going to stop islamic terrorist attacks.
wait until HRC invites another half million immigrants into the USA and lists the NRA as a terrorist organization...
of course non of this will interfere with our women in SOF programs or full integrating of trannies into military service
interesting times for sure
DIYPatriot
07-20-2016, 12:36
Looks like Massachusetts is trying to one up Kalifornia. On the bright side, think of how many reporters will never have to suffer from a "temporary form of PTSD"created after firing one of these scary black guns.
SMFH
Weapons like the AR-15 are the gun of choice for mass shooters, Healey said, used in shootings in Orlando, Baton Rouge, Dallas, Sandy Hook and San Bernardino. After the shooting that killed 49 people in a nightclub in Orlando, sales of those types of weapons went up 450 percent in Massachusetts, Healey said.
People who already own the guns can keep them, she said. And gun dealers will be allowed to transfer their remaining stock to states where the guns are legal.
In a press conference announcing the new enforcement, Healey and others also faulted the federal government for not doing more to crack down on these types of weapons. Only seven states have an assault weapons ban like the one in Massachusetts.
Article (http://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2016/07/20/massachusetts-enforce-longstanding-assault-weapons-ban-closing-loophole)
Looks like Massachusetts is trying to one up Kalifornia. On the bright side, think of how many reporters will never have to suffer from a "temporary form of PTSD"created after firing one of these scary black guns.
SMFH
It's hard to believe Massachusetts was the cradle of the American Revolution with their irrational fear of law abiding gun owners. There are still good folks up there but it seems the blood and sacrifice has been forgotten...what was it the British were coming for on that fateful day in Concord...?
nousdefions
07-20-2016, 14:08
Samuel Whittemore is rolling over.....
Samuel Whittemore is rolling over.....
A true patriot and a stud...80 years old back in the day...what's that like 107 today? ...damn.
bblhead672
07-20-2016, 14:43
You have to wonder if some day around a campfire in a better place, the founders look at us and ask "how the hell could you lose the country we gave our lives, fortunes and sacred honor for?"
DIYPatriot
07-20-2016, 15:02
A true patriot and a stud...80 years old back in the day...what's that like 107 today? ...damn.
I wonder if Billy Waugh is of any relation to him ;)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/02/d-c-stun-gun-ban-being-challenged-on-second-amendment-grounds/
I think the lawsuit should prevail, for reasons I givein this article; but I look forward to seeing what arguments D.C. offers for why, when people have a right to have deadly weapons, they shouldn’t have a right to own almost entirely nondeadly ones.
Good article and good law suit. :munchin
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/02/the-atf-is-illegally-hoarding-american-gun-owners-personal-information/
A government report discovered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) illegally stockpiles gun owners’ personal information.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the go-to federal oversight agency, conducted an audit of ATF and found it does not remove certain identifiable
information, despite the law explicitly mandating it do so. GAO conducted reviews for four data systems, and concluded at least two of ATF’s systems violated official protocols.
One of the data-collecting systems called Multiple Sales (MS) requires that multiple firearms purchased at once must be reported to ATF by the federal firearms licensee (FFL). ATF policy requires that the bureau internally removes particular data from multiple gun sales reports after two years if the firearm has not been traced to criminal activity. GAO found that ATF does not adhere to its own policy. In fact, “until May 2016, MS contained over 10,000 names that were not consistently deleted within the required 2 years.”
Another system called Access 2000, or A2K, establishes servers to be used by National Tracing Center (NTC) personnel. The NTC can electronically search FFLs’ records for certain information needed to track the history of a firearm.
Wonder who will insure the ATF removes that data? :munchin
A government report discovered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) illegally stockpiles gun owners’ personal information.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the go-to federal oversight agency, conducted an audit of ATF and found it does not remove certain identifiable information, despite the law explicitly mandating it do so.
...since when does the government need to follow the law?
Silly peasants - laws dont apply to the government.
...since when does the government need to follow the law?
Silly peasants - laws dont apply to the government.
Funny you should bring that up, I guess O just learned about it while watching the news on Martha's Vineyard. I am sure he will get to the bottom of it when he gets back to D.C.
NICS Firearm Background Checks: Month/Year - FBI
Looks like 2016 is another record setting year. I helped in May.
We live in a very, very different world.
It used to be, that if good people avoided bad areas at the wrong times they'd be safe.
Not true today.
Malls
Recruiting stations
Theaters
Restaurants
Concerts
Major sporting events
Trains
Buses
Military bases
Churches
Nightclubs
Highways
Home invasions
Ordinary citizens will most likely be our first responders in the current reality. Recent data suggests that folks realize this even if the politicians do not.
Survey: Nearly 110 Million Americans Have a Gun at Home
Gun rights see record-high levels of support in Pew Poll
BY: Stephen Gutowski
September 1, 2016 11:45 am
A recent survey found that 44 percent of respondents either own a gun or live with somebody who does, suggesting that some 110 million Americans live in a house with firearms.
The latest Pew Research Center poll, conducted between Aug. 9 and 16, found 31 percent of those surveyed own a gun, the highest number in the poll’s history. Another 13 percent reported living with somebody who owns a firearm. Twelve percent said they own their own firearm and live with somebody else who does. A slim majority, 51 percent, said nobody in their household owns a firearm, the lowest number in the poll’s history.
The latest United States Census Bureau estimate pegs the number of adults living in the country at 247,813,910. If Pew’s survey is correct then at least 109,038,120 Americans have a gun in their home.
The general concept of gun rights also won out over the desire to tighten gun control laws. A slim majority of respondents said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than it is to control gun ownership.
Furthermore, gun rights enjoyed more passionate support, with 46 percent of supporters saying they “strongly agreed” with the importance of protecting gun rights, while only 37 percent of gun control supporters felt the same level of intensity.
<snip>
http://freebeacon.com/issues/survey-nearly-110-million-americans-gun-home/
Badger52
09-27-2016, 05:03
Interesting numbers.
A federal database of all gun purchases was supported by 68 percent of Americans.This is a thought that must be pushed back at with history lessons whenever brought up; something that must be done in our daily conversations. I wonder what the survey numbers would be if more of the populace in general were aware of what the Weimar Republic was instead of haggling over the latest OS version of their smartphone.
I know many have read about this incident but watching the video makes it a bit more real...this is what's coming folks...don't believe them when they say they're not coming after your firearms...ammo...those rich donors tell the real story.
HIDDEN CAM: Russ Feingold Says Hillary Might Issue Executive Order on Guns
Project Veritas Action
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-HrUUXOHgzg
Team Sergeant
10-21-2016, 12:28
I know many have read about this incident but watching the video makes it a bit more real...this is what's coming folks...don't believe them when they say they're not coming after your firearms...ammo...those rich donors tell the real story.
I think we all know what will happen if some idiot issues an order banning guns.
1st No one's going to listen, except Rosie O'Donnell.
2nd No one's going to enforce that law , except the Chicago PD and NYPD.
3rd After the first wave of "gun collectors" are killed, the moron that issued the "executive order" will be hiding in Cuba with close friends and relatives.
We will vote ourselves into submission, it ain't going to happen by "executive order".
And what need to be repelled is the term "assault weapon". This liberal term should be replaced with the term gun. Then try to ban them.
TS agree - executive order will not be an effective frontal assault. And we will vote ourselves into the problem...already have.
The video captures the motivation of donors - oh, they want your guns and ammo.. I can imagine a substantial increase in taxes on various supplies.
bblhead672
10-21-2016, 13:08
As evil and power hungry as BHO and HRC are, the real evil-doers are the super-elite wealthy donors who are pulling all the strings worldwide. All the politicians are merely willing paid-for pawns doing their masters bidding.
Ret10Echo
10-27-2016, 05:45
On Oct. 27, 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays calling for ratification of the United States Constitution, was published.
(What would Hamilton, Jay and Madison think of us now?)
Streck-Fu
10-27-2016, 07:28
On Oct. 27, 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays calling for ratification of the United States Constitution, was published.
(What would Hamilton, Jay and Madison think of us now?)
The Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would effectively restrict the powers of the federal government. They did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary.
However, the group that did not trust the document to prevent corruption of the government leading to eventually tyranny were the Anti-Federalists. If you think the BoR was necessary, it is the them you need to thank.
The Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would effectively restrict the powers of the federal government. They did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary.
In your opinion, how accurate was their belief?
Peregrino
10-27-2016, 12:42
In your opinion, how accurate was their belief?
History has proven the antis prescient. Hamilton and the pros on the other hand would probably be ecstatic given the current state of affairs. Biographies of the FFs make for fascinating reading. Politics have always centered around money, power, and angry men (and women) with petty jealousies.
I wonder what message people take away when they realize that our constitution was a document written by our young government, knowing that we would need to be protected from our old government later on down the road...
...free speech
...right to bear arms
...freedom from having to quartering government troops
The first three seem to free up citizens enough for them to be able to shoot move and communicate
...is it a coincidence?
The next three are supposed to prevent the gubmint from digging in my business, forcing me to give testimony, and preventing them from arbitrarily punishing me without a trial
...after practicing the first three amendments, a citizen might need the protection of the second three
...is THAT a coincidence?
The next three tend to govern HOW those court proceedings move forward and the last one says when in doubt its up to the state
or the people
This isn't at ALL about protecting the second amendment.
The bill of rights isn't just one amendment - it is ten of them.
Liars and criminals, the likes of those on the left only need to break one link in the chain to enslave the common man.
...don't be blinded or distracted by the attack on the 2d amendment. They are ALL under assault.
Don't believe me?
Your free speech is censored by political correctness, assaulted by SJWs, and ignored by the political elites.
Right to bear arms not infringed? Why then do purchase certificates and CCW permits cost money?
You think you have privacy from illegal search and seizure?
...hahaha of course you do
...just make sure you let the NSA know first
5th amendment?
...my shiny white ass. You try that shit and you'll get hit with contempt of court. Those protections are only for the privileged.
The bill of rights protects "the well born conspirators" today just like those pesky old forefathers said it would. Just like some of those uneducated hillbillies without internet and Blackberry smart phones told us it would.
How did they know?
Funny how back in the late 1700's the idea that Washington DC would become “the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious.” was no less conspiratorial than suggesting that hilLIEary clint0ns e-mails are about anything but yoga classes and grandchildren.
...but hey, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.
Great posts.
The anti-tryranny aspects of the 2A and indeed the complete BORs anticipates the inevitable corruption of men (and women) of power and the subsequent oppression of ordinary citizens the likes of Stalin's atrocities, Chairman Mao's purges, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few examples of armed troops dominating unarmed populations.
Those hillbillies back when sure knew a thing or two.
Thank you.
Ret10Echo
10-27-2016, 18:04
The Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would effectively restrict the powers of the federal government. They did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary.
I agree. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were idealists and coming from their experience with the crown and breaking with GB, they would probably assume it was insanity to enumerate all the things the government could NOT do to you. Of course every citizen had the right and needed to have the ability to defend themselves, declare their support or opposition to a topic, not be randomly imprisoned or have their property taken from them. What IDIOT didn't understand that (in 1789)?
Enter the weasel-worders that slither through society (the first one was in the Garden)..... Now the snakes are so busy cranking out laws and rules and regulations (and executive fiats) that it reads like that 600 foot long caution/danger disclaimer in a prescription drug box.
mojaveman
10-29-2016, 19:52
As part of its efforts to stay relevant during the election, and raise money, the National Rifle Association has described a way to build an AR-15 rifle on a budget.
A nice easy read below that summarizes the basics nicely for newcomers - a review of the entire thread might be timely for the revived Second Amendment Caucus (a group of conservative U.S. Representatives has banded together to form a caucus that will work towards shepherding a host of pro-gun bills in the new Congress).
http://www.guns.com/2016/12/14/republican-lawmakers-in-the-house-launch-second-amendment-caucus/
Second Amendment: A fundamental principle of American liberty
By Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm - - Monday, December 12, 2016
Washington Times
The Founders would not have been surprised that the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms” survives.
What would have surprised them was that it very nearly didn’t.
The right of self-defense it protects had been considered the primary law of nature since antiquity. Other governments may have forbidden their people to have weapons to protect themselves, but the English did not. Englishmen had a long-standing duty to be armed to keep the peace and, beginning with the English Bill of Rights of 1689, that duty became a right.
Like other rights Americans derived from England, the original English right to have arms had restrictions — in this case religious and class limits, although these fell away by the early 19th century. In his classic work popular with the Founders, “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” William Blackstone referred to the right of having arms as a “natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”
He insisted no government could take the right to self-defense away. In contrast to any limitations on the English right, the American Second Amendment assumed “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and decreed it “not be infringed.”
For most of its history, the Second Amendment was understood to confer an individual right, notwithstanding hundreds of various regulations. But in the 1960s, widespread riots and three political assassinations led to demands for stricter gun controls. Campaigns began for onerous restrictions on private ownership of firearms, including total bans.
Along with these, came a debate over the core meaning of the Second Amendment. The gist was that Americans had been wrong to believe the Second Amendment guaranteed them an individual right. The words of the amendment were parsed to disabuse them of that idea. Rather than the “well-regulated” militia as a reason for general ownership of weapons, it was argued that the amendment merely ensured that states have a militia and that membership in the militia, today’s National Guard, constituted the only right to be armed.
To advance this hypothesis, the amendment was interpreted as exclusively military. Unlike reference to “the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments protecting individual rights, we were told that in the Second Amendment “the right of the people” merely intended a “collective” right.
“Arms” meant only military weapons, “to bear” meant carrying weapons in a military force. “Keep” was ignored.
There was even the claim that if an individual right were intended, it only protected 18th century weapons.
Those opposed to the individual right interpretation even claimed the individual right was a brand new idea. Laurence Tribe, in the 1979 edition of his popular textbook, “American Constitutional Law,” relegated the Second Amendment to a footnote. A generation of law students were taught accordingly.
In 2008, the Supreme Court acted.
In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time. The justices overturned Washington, D.C.’s ban on residents keeping handguns in their homes, affirming the individual’s right to keep and bear those weapons in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment’s individual right throughout the country, finding it “a fundamental principle of American liberty.”
Despite these decisions, debate continues. Both landmark opinions affirming the right of Americans to keep and bear arms were passed by 5-4 majorities, with the dissenting justices asking that they be overturned. Further, some judges are choosing to ignore the high court.
Moves to protect and expand the right to be armed are, however, rapidly advancing in the states. Forty-four state constitutions include a right to be armed, and only nine of the 50 states have restrictive rules to prevent residents from carrying a concealed weapon, while 11 states permit any resident who lawfully owns a firearm to carry it concealed without further requirements.
Millions of Americans own and use firearms peacefully. Despite the recent uptick in gun violence in a few cities, the past 20 years have seen a dramatic drop in gun crime and gun homicides.
The Second Amendment affords Americans a right and ability to protect themselves and their loved ones. It places ultimate trust in the good sense of the American people, as the Founders intended.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/12/second-amendment-a-fundamental-principle-of-americ/
• Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., is Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at Antonin Scalia Law School. She has written extensively on the English and American right of the people to be armed.
NICS background checks for the year 2016 at link below.
That's a lot of heaters.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
Team Sergeant
01-04-2017, 15:03
NICS background checks for the year 2016 at link below.
That's a lot of heaters.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
And those are just the ones that need/require a background check. I've not needed an FBI background check since I got my AZ CWP. ;)
Badger52
01-05-2017, 06:11
And those are just the ones that need/require a background check. I've not needed an FBI background check since I got my AZ CWP. ;)That's what really gives statists pause (or nightmares); as well as thoughts, perhaps, about the patriarch with dozens distributing some out to a grown kith & kin as simply exchange of private property among 2 free persons. If it gives them heebee-jeebees then I'm all :D
bblhead672
01-05-2017, 08:53
And those are just the ones that need/require a background check. I've not needed an FBI background check since I got my AZ CWP. ;)
Same here in Texas.
Obama's tenure 2009-2016: 157,233,157
Not included are how many background checks were approved for purchase, which would be a good number to publish. Although that still wouldn't give a 1 to 1 correlation of actual purchases considering multiple firearms purchased at one time and purchases made in states like Texas and Arizona that do not require an NICS check for license holders.
One industry is gonna miss BHO...the gun salesman of the year...this is a good opportunity to buy. Complete article and graphs/charts at link below,
Crashing "Post-Obama Era" Gun Sales Lead To Remington Mass Layoffs
Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
ZERO HEDGE
Mar 14, 2017 12:46 PM
As we noted last summer, the Obama administration’s constant gun control threats did little more than flood American homes with more guns as people looked to stockpile weapons ahead of anticipated new regulations. In fact, both of Obama's elections resulted in massive and unprecedented spikes in gun sales.
Meanwhile, Obama's presidency was a boon for the gun manufacturers whose revenue, profitability and stocks all soared during his presidency.
But while the constant threat of new regulations under Obama resulted in a massive full forward of gun demand and pushed gun stocks to all-time highs, the election of Trump, and thus the removal of those threats for at least the next 4-8 years, is having exactly the opposite effect.
If fact, Remington Outdoor just announced layoffs of 120 people at their upstate New York manufacturing facility due to sinking gun demand in the Trump era. Per the Wall Street Journal:
Meanwhile, other firearms makers, including American Outdoor Brands, formerly known as Smith & Wesson, say demand for weapons, particularly handguns, has been ebbing since Trump's election. Earlier this month the company posted disappointing sales and higher inventories and admitted to investors on their quarterly earnings call that business had slowed...all of which sent the stock into a downward spiral.
Meanwhile, Wedbush equity analyst James Hardiman expects FBI background checks, a good indicator of gun sales, to be down 10-15% in 2017.
<snip>
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-14/crashing-gun-sales-post-obama-era-causes-mass-layoffs-remington-manufacturing-facili
Badger52
03-14-2017, 14:19
One industry is gonna miss BHO...the gun salesman of the year...this is a good opportunity to buy.I'd like to see "accessory sales" spike because a suppressor is an OTC item in a bubble-pak.
I'd like to see "accessory sales" spike because a suppressor is an OTC item in a bubble-pak.
COSTCO should have handy 5 packs...everything else there is packed family size.
Team Sergeant
03-14-2017, 15:02
One industry is gonna miss BHO...the gun salesman of the year...this is a good opportunity to buy. Complete article and graphs/charts at link below,
Crashing "Post-Obama Era" Gun Sales Lead To Remington Mass Layoffs
Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
ZERO HEDGE
Mar 14, 2017 12:46 PM
As we noted last summer, the Obama administration’s constant gun control threats did little more than flood American homes with more guns as people looked to stockpile weapons ahead of anticipated new regulations. In fact, both of Obama's elections resulted in massive and unprecedented spikes in gun sales.
Meanwhile, Obama's presidency was a boon for the gun manufacturers whose revenue, profitability and stocks all soared during his presidency.
But while the constant threat of new regulations under Obama resulted in a massive full forward of gun demand and pushed gun stocks to all-time highs, the election of Trump, and thus the removal of those threats for at least the next 4-8 years, is having exactly the opposite effect.
If fact, Remington Outdoor just announced layoffs of 120 people at their upstate New York manufacturing facility due to sinking gun demand in the Trump era. Per the Wall Street Journal:
Meanwhile, other firearms makers, including American Outdoor Brands, formerly known as Smith & Wesson, say demand for weapons, particularly handguns, has been ebbing since Trump's election. Earlier this month the company posted disappointing sales and higher inventories and admitted to investors on their quarterly earnings call that business had slowed...all of which sent the stock into a downward spiral.
Meanwhile, Wedbush equity analyst James Hardiman expects FBI background checks, a good indicator of gun sales, to be down 10-15% in 2017.
<snip>
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-14/crashing-gun-sales-post-obama-era-causes-mass-layoffs-remington-manufacturing-facili
Prediction was already made last year........ :munchin (Post #49)
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51694&page=4
Prediction was already made last year........ :munchin (Post #49)
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51694&page=4
Gotta love it !
Just got back from the range - timely bump for an important thread.
Quote of the Day: In China, Gun Control Is About Government Control
The Truth About Guns
Dan Zimmerman
April 10, 2017
“The Chinese government took away people’s guns to prevent them rising up. Do you think they would be able to demolish peoples’ homes if they hadn’t?”- Renin University sociologist Zhou Xiaozheng in In gun-taboo China, tourism to U.S. firing ranges grows [via usatoday.com]
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/04/daniel-zimmerman/quote-day-china-gun-control-government-control/
TS and many others posted in another thread about the goings on in Venezuela - the short article below ties the actions of those Statist/communist thugs with an important reminder.
A lesson in Democracy from Venezuela
By Russ Vaughn
American Thinker
April 21, 2017
The socialist government of Venezuela has just provided American gun owners with an excellent lesson in why it is of paramount importance never to let the government take our guns. Back in 1998, after four decades of the Latin American variety of democracy, military leader Hugo Chávez, a moderate leftist, was elected president. From that time until his death in 2013, he continued to take Venezuela further left, founding the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) in 2007, which has remained the ruling party to the present, inexorably moving the country into a quagmire of socialist poverty. Chávez died in 2013, but one of his last acts is now coming into full play in a way that provides our lesson.
In 2012, Chávez and PSUV began consolidating their hold on the Venezuelan people by banning guns in public places using the usual leftist excuse of reducing crime. Since that first gun control measure, those in charge have incrementally, to the point of recent total confiscation, taken away gun ownership rights until the only legally owned firearms are those of the military, the police, and favored security organizations, and they can obtain those only through government sources. The civilian populace of Socialist Venezuela has been effectively disarmed.
...unless your political views align with the socialist leadership, that is. Chávez's handpicked strongman successor, Nicolas Maduro, has decided to hand out military-grade weaponry to those civilians who agree with him politically – that is, his hard-left socialist supporters.
From an excellent accounting at Washington Free Beacon:
"A gun for every militiaman!" Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro said to uniformed militia members outside the presidential palace, Fox News reported on Tuesday. The Bolivarian militias, created by Maduro's predecessor Hugo Chavez, already number in the hundreds of thousands and are being used to supplement the regime's armed forces. Maduro is boosting the number of armed supporters in hopes of keeping control over the country from what he labels "imperialist aggression."
Therein lies your lesson, American gun owners: the American left constantly pushes for more gun control, never satisfied, slowly chiseling away at our 2nd Amendment rights, even to the point that a President Hillary admittedly would have considered the Australian buyback form of voluntary gun confiscation. With the American left moving ever more radically in that direction, who is to say that a future dedicated socialist president like Elizabeth Warren might not stack the Court and get the reading of the 2nd Amendment that the Democrats have long wanted: that the only legal guns in America, like Venezuela, are those in the hands of government?
And who's to say that an even more rabidly socialist successor to a President Warren might not decide that she feels her position threatened, like President Maduro, and decide to issue arms to her loyalists? Thanks to our recent election victory, we are now enjoying a respite from liberal gun grabs and fears of a liberal-dominated Supreme Court. However, as the Democrats have recently learned regarding national power, nothing is forever.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/a_lesson_in_democracy_from_venezuela.html
bblhead672
04-21-2017, 07:30
No matter what successes liberty minded people have in elections and legislation, we must remember that the left will never rest in their quest to take away the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people.
The armed citizen is what stands between liberty and the globalists/leftists agenda of dominance.
Old Dog New Trick
04-27-2017, 12:15
Tell us something we don't know!
US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties - Fox News
https://apple.news/AHDeUV0vSSsS5BhQX2UBL6A
One of the most interesting findings in the report is that areas with the highest gun ownership rates have low murder rates.
"While many factors explain these concentrated murders, it is also striking that the counties with zero murders are the counties with by far the highest gun ownership rates," Lott said.
Tell us something we don't know!
US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties - Fox News
https://apple.news/AHDeUV0vSSsS5BhQX2UBL6A
One of the most interesting findings in the report is that areas with the highest gun ownership rates have low murder rates.
"While many factors explain these concentrated murders, it is also striking that the counties with zero murders are the counties with by far the highest gun ownership rates," Lott said.
Brother, you know you can't introduce logic into this equation....:p
Logic was old school, it went out when kids quit "getting" to wash the blackboards for doing well.
Tell us something we don't know!
US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties - Fox News
https://apple.news/AHDeUV0vSSsS5BhQX2UBL6A
One of the most interesting findings in the report is that areas with the highest gun ownership rates have low murder rates.
"While many factors explain these concentrated murders, it is also striking that the counties with zero murders are the counties with by far the highest gun ownership rates," Lott said.
Obama and Hillary supporters are undoubtably well represented in that deadly 5%...illegal immigrants? Sanctuary cities? Gangs? Illegal drugs? Gun control advocates? Community organizers? Statists? Globalists?
Contrast the leftist carnage with the counties experiencing essentially zero murders and possessing lotsa iron.
Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here...it's not the pencil after all...but the writer...
mojaveman
04-27-2017, 20:21
Just read that President Trump is going to visit the NRA convention in Atlanta tomorrow. Wish I were there just to hear the cheering and applause. ;)
Just read that President Trump is going to visit the NRA convention in Atlanta tomorrow. Wish I were there just to hear the cheering and applause. ;)
Not for naught, but if you dig a bit, you can usually find somebody livestreaming on either Periscope (https://www.google.com/search?q=periscope+for+pc&oq=periscope&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.6793j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), Facebook Live (https://live.fb.com/), Youtube or Twitter.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.
•Judge Neil Gorsuch now sits on the US Supreme Court. Possibly we could see a favorable 5/4 ruling!
Badger52
05-24-2017, 13:25
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.
•Judge Neil Gorsuch now sits on the US Supreme Court. Possibly we could see a favorable 5/4 ruling!There are some pretty weighty amici curiae briefs in there. For the barristers or SCOTUS watchers (looking at that link), is that part of their "process" to update once/week like that, and/or are meeting on it, or does it appear they are kicking the can down the road?
Hope it leaves a big ugly bruise on Kali when it lands.
Pericles
05-25-2017, 14:03
There are some pretty weighty amici curiae briefs in there. For the barristers or SCOTUS watchers (looking at that link), is that part of their "process" to update once/week like that, and/or are meeting on it, or does it appear they are kicking the can down the road?
Hope it leaves a big ugly bruise on Kali when it lands.
Kicking the can down the road as two or more justices are trying to convince one or more to vote to hear the case. Need at least 4 justices to agree to put the case on the docket.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16a1074.htm
May 10 2017
Application (16A1074) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 21, 2017.
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/4th-circuit-says-2a-does-not-protect-americas-rifle/#axzz4j8fJm6ez
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/4th-circuit-says-2a-does-not-protect-americas-rifle/#ixzz4j8grWw2M
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
The 4th Circuit en banc declared that “contrary to the now-vacated decision of our prior panel — the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment.
That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles’ — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach…Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.” It further stated that the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to such a challenge was intermediate scrutiny. In other words, the Court believes that the Second Amendment does not warrant the highest level of protection when analyzing a challenge to the constitutionality of a law it may infringe upon.
Many people have been asking “how will this affect me”? Remember at the beginning where I listed the states the 4th Circuit covers? This decision is only binding on lower federal courts in those states. Unfortunately, that means if a law restricting certain types of firearms is passed in any of those states and someone brings a challenge to the constitutionality of it under the Second Amendment, it has now opened the door for restrictions on what firearms the Second Amendment protects. If you reside in a different state, no courts are bound by the decision. However, they can cite to it as persuasive authority, which is problematic, especially if other courts begin to adopt the perverted logic employed by the 4th Circuit.
When we were reviewing the script for this episode, Jon asked me how we could fight such a terrible decision. The fact of the matter is, there isn’t really any way to do so, short of contacting your congressional representatives. As you probably know, we have a system of government that is designed to have checks and balances on one another. If you didn’t know that, don’t worry, I’ve included another School House Rock episode for you to enjoy.
Pericles
06-07-2017, 10:01
I find it fascinating how this language from the Heller decision:
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra
....
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Became Heller decided M16s are not protected by the 2A.
I find it fascinating how this language from the Heller decision:
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra
....
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Became Heller decided M16s are not protected by the 2A.
I'd say misquoted Heller is either stupidity or judicial activism in the decision. Quite possibly both.
Also the argument over "common use", that the AR-15 is not considered common use!
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-10-06/news/bs-ed-gun-control-letter-20141006_1_assault-weapons-ban-firearms-safety-act-Maryland
The Firearms Safety Act does not ban the sale of an AR-15 with a heavy barrel. In fact, it is not a "regulated" firearm in Maryland. The AR-10 is not banned in Maryland and can be purchased and carried out of the store on the same day. The difference between an AR-10 and an AR-15? The AR-10 is a larger caliber firearm. The truth is, Maryland does not really have an assault weapons ban as they claim.
The Firearms Safety Act of 2013 is a very poor attempt, a quick fix, at reducing gun violence in Maryland. As a retired police officer, I worked to combat violent crime for 23 years across the state of Maryland. I have a very strong understanding of the causes of violence and tactics we can use to reduce violence. I have worked in specialized units to target gun violence and gang violence. We are not addressing the true causes of gun violence. Maryland's efforts to reduce gun violence by passing a very poor piece of legislation are out of focus.
Jack Mccauley
It is also of a note than many in Maryland purchase %80 lowers and put on HB uppers completely within the law. Many dealer also now sell gas piston AR's that are not regulated by the FSA 2013 law in fact as sold as cash and carry only with ATF 4473. Explain that to a progressive liberal?
The May 2017 numbers are in.
NICS Firearm Background Checks:
Month/Year
November 30, 1998 - May 31, 2017
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice:
They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it…." —Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch
.
:lifter
bblhead672
06-27-2017, 14:40
.
"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice:
They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it…." —Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch
:lifter
Exactly!
Ret10Echo
06-27-2017, 20:17
I think that the point Thomas brings where the 2nd Amendment is treated as a "disfavored right" where the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are not limited to the "confines of ones home".
For that matter, is the First Amendment solely for private conversations away from public space?
Why is the 9th Circus Kort allowed to perpetuate this level of complete disregard for the Constitution?
Amazing
Badger52
06-28-2017, 05:45
For that matter, is the First Amendment solely for private conversations away from public space?
Why is the 9th Circus Kort allowed to perpetuate this level of complete disregard for the Constitution?
AmazingI think such jurists make a conscious choice to ignore the history of what it took to get the BoR passed after the USCon's ratification. (Many of the time, for example, were distraught that there would still be no religious test for office-holders, "...lest Turks, Jews and other Infidels" find their way into the new national government.) The 9th Circuit's composition is usually an embodiment of that selective allocation of freedom, as they've become an arm of the states where the infringements take place rather than a check on oppressive states. Pushing back against that is, alas, a task that doesn't go away.
Big News in Wrenn and Grace Cases!
Today, the D.C. Circuit denied the District of Columbia's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Wrenn and Grace cases (the lead case is Wrenn). In the consolidated appeal in those cases, a 3 judge panel of the D.C. Circuit had struck down as unconstitutional the DC requirement that an applicant show a "good reason" for a permit to carry a handgun outside the home.
Significantly, the court's order denying en banc noted that no judge even requested a vote on the petition. What a contrast with the Ninth Circuit! That circuit has granted en banc in every case from a favorable panel decision applying the Second Amendment. You can find the panel's decision HERE. The court's order denying rehearing can be found HERE. This denial of rehearing makes the D.C. Circuit's decision final!
At this point, the DC government can choose either to file a petition for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court or accept the D.C. Circuit's decision. In Heller, DC sought certiorari and ultimately lost on the merits. Given how irrationally and rabidly anti-gun DC is, our expectation is that DC will once again seek certiorari in Wrenn. If it does, there are good reasons to believe that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case.
First, the Wrenn decision openly disagrees with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits, all which have sustained as constitutional similar "good reason" requirements.
Second, not only does the Wrenn decision create a square conflict in the circuits, it invalidates a DC law on Second Amendment constitutional grounds.
Third, we now have a full Court of nine Justices, including Justice Gorsuch, and while it takes five to win, it only takes four Justices to grant certiorari. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but if the Supreme Court does take the case and the plaintiffs prevail, that Supreme Court decision will effectively overrule the 4th Circuit's decision in Woollard, which sustained Maryland "good and substantial reason" requirement.
At that point, Maryland would become a "shall issue" state (as would the rest of the states that have imposed "good reason" requirements)!
DC has 90 days in which to file a petition for certiorari, subject to extension. In the meantime, under its local rules and prior order, the D.C. Circuit will issue its mandate seven days from today, including its instruction to the district courts in Wrenn and Grace to enter a permanent injunction against DC's "good reason" requirement.
Once those permanent injunctions are issued by the district courts (it will take some time), applicants *should* be able to file carry applications with DC without regard to the "good reason" requirement, particularly if the applicant is a member of the Second Amendment Foundation, which was one of the plaintiffs in Wrenn. Of course, it is still possible that DC may seek to delay the court's mandate or ask for a stay of the mandate pending a petition for certiorari. Nothing in Wrenn changes Maryland's law. It will take a Supreme Court decision to do that.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kolbe-v-hogan/
https://newswithviews.com/supreme-court-the-2nd-amendment-and-the-nra/
Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA
Oct 17, 2017 Read More Articles by Edwin Vieira Jr.
As the readers of my columns on News With Views are aware, for more than the past decade I have attempted to awaken Americans who consider themselves “constitutionalists”, “patriots”, “friends of the Second Amendment”, and like-minded people to the importance of revitalizing “the Militia of the several States”.
But my efforts have met with scant success. Whether the fault lies with the author of these missives or the audience to which they were directed may be debatable. The facts remain that, not only have vanishingly few Americans evinced any interest in this matter, but also all too many who have taken note of my work have reacted to it in a singularly negative, if not overtly hostile, fashion.
The latest manifestation of this dog-in-the-manger attitude is the refusal of the Petitioners in the pending case Kolbe v. Hogan, No. 17-127 (U.S. Supreme Court) to consent to my filing of a brief amici curiae on their behalf.
The decision which is the subject of this petition—Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)—is, in my estimation, the most egregious affront to the Second Amendment which has ever been handed down by any court in the United States. So my attempt to intervene in this case is not simply a quixotic, let alone an uninformed, effort on my part.
For those who are unfamiliar with procedure in the Supreme Court, a potential amicus curiae (“friend of the Court”) first seeks permission from the parties to file a brief, usually on behalf of one of the parties. If either party refuses consent, the amicus may file a motion for leave to file, requesting the Supreme Court to accept his brief notwithstanding that refusal.
Now, usually, parties who desire the Supreme Court to review their case through a petition for a writ or certiorari want to marshal as many amici briefs on their behalf as possible, in order to convince the Court that their petition not only has theoretical merit but also raises issues of general rather than merely passing concern.
Indeed, in yesteryear, the all-too-close coördination of various amici with the parties they supported became something of an abusive “cottage industry”, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s issuance of its Rule 37.6, under which an amicus must certify that no counsel for any party has authored the amicus brief in whole or in part, and that no such counsel or any party has made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of such a brief.
So, today, an amicus must be completely independent of the party whose position it supports, except to the extent under Rule 37.1 that the amicus brief brings to the Court’s attention matters which not only support that party but also apprise the Court of matters that the favored party will not emphasize in its petition but which nonetheless will be useful for the Court to consider.
In my brief amici curiae, as something of an expert on the Second Amendment I seek to inform the Court of critical matters related to the first thirteen words of the Amendment—to wit, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”—that (as my brief explained)
will “not * * * [be] brought to [the Court’s] attention by the parties”, but nevertheless “may be of considerable help to the Court.” Because these matters have* “not [been] specifically noticed in the objections taken in the records or briefs of counsel” for the parties in a satisfactory manner to date, and are unlikely to be raised hereafter, th[e Supreme] Court should take them under consideration by way of the Amici’s brief, “that the Constitution may not be violated from the carelessness or oversight of counsel in any particular.” See Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 604 (1895) (separate opinion of Field, J.).
Of course, one would expect that the Respondents (here, Hogan et alia) would balk at having such information brought to the Court’s attention—but that, on the other hand, the Petitioners (here, Kolbe et alia) would be grateful for whatever assistance they could obtain from an amici brief prepared by someone who knows his business. After all, at the petition stage, the strategy must be for the Petitioners to amass whatever support is available that could convince the Court to hear the case on the merits.
If the reader goes to the SCOTUSBLOG on the Internet, and searches for Kolbe v. Hogan in the compilation under “Petitions”, he will find, not only Kolbe’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, but also the amici briefs filed on the Petitioners’ behalf. These include briefs from such amici as the NRA and the Cato Institute. Of these briefs, mine is the only one as to which the Petitioners have denied their consent to file.
When the reader peruses these briefs, he will see that mine is the only one which focuses on the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment. The rest rely on what I should describe as the erroneous “law-school solution” to the problem raised in Kolbe—focusing on such really irrelevant matters as whether so-called “assault rifles” are in “common use” by average Americans for individual self-defense in the home,
and such ultimately self-defeating arguments as whether “the right of the people to keep and bear [such] Arms” is subject to one or another anti-constitutional judicial “balancing test” (so-called “strict scrutiny” or “intermediate scrutiny”) under the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
None of these briefs, other than my own, points out that the actually controlling precedent is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); and that, applied in tandem, both Miller and Heller demand reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision in a manner which absolutely guarantees—indeed, if the Second Amendment is properly construed, requires—average Americans’ possession of “assault rifles”.
Under these circumstances,
one would expect that my amici brief would at least be welcomed sotto voce by the Petitioners, because they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from having the Supreme Court made aware of the arguments which that brief, and no one else, presents.
But no—the Petitioners do not want my amici curiae brief even to be considered by the Court. Having kicked around in Supreme Court practice over the years—and not without some notable successes—I find Petitioners’ reluctance to further their own interests rather perplexing. This is a conclusion in which I expect those of my readers who study the various amici briefs to concur.
So the question I raise for my readers’ consideration is: “What is going on here?” Why do the Petitioners (and, for that matter, the other amici ostensibly on their side) treat the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment, not simply as irrelevant to their case, but also as so dangerous to mention that they refuse both to address them in their own briefs and to consent for my amici brief to bring them to the Supreme Court’s attention?
Do these people really believe that the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are actually irrelevant to the last fourteen words, even though they all are included in the very same sentence? If this the way English grammar works? Is this the way constitutional interpretation works (or ought to work)?
At this point, the matter is in the hands of the Supreme Court. But, in the long run, the problem goes beyond what happens to my amici curiae brief or even to the petition for a writ of certiorari in Kolbe itself. Kolbe, after all, will not represent the final battle over radical “gun control” in this country.
The struggle to secure “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” will continue, unabated, until all of the twenty seven words of the Second Amendment are either upheld in their entirety or so disregarded, discounted, or diluted by ridiculous decisions of the Judiciary that the Amendment is reduced to the palest shadow of what the Founders intended it to be.
To be sure, readers of this commentary who are not members of the Supreme Court Bar are not in a position to influence the Court. But many of them are capable of bringing this matter to the attention of leaders of the NRA—who, more than anyone else, are responsible for floating the mistaken notion that the Second Amendment’s overriding concern is to enable average Americans to possess “Arms” for the purpose of individual self-defense. Not simply the words of the Amendment, but especially the pre-constitutional history which informs them, teach that community self-defense is that concern. See my book The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the Several States” (CD-Rom Edition, 2012).
So I urge my readers—in particular, those who are members of the NRA—to contact that organization and encourage its leadership to reevaluate its position. At no time in this country’s history could such reconsideration be more vital.
Hours and hours and hours of entertainment at link below...that damn inanimate object just won't get violent.
I've watched some in my home for decades...nuthin' ...maybe some of y'all will be able to spot the iron jump up and turn violent...good luck !
:munchin
http://montego.roughwheelers.com/gun_cam.html
National Shooting Sports Federation calls on bureaucrats to do their jobs and keep criminals and the mentally ill from possessing firearms - rather than blanket bans on law abiding folks from possessing common firearms.
NOVEMBER 8, 2017
NSSF ON CNN HEADLINE NEWS: FIXNICS | GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS
America’s firearms retailers are on the front line of preventing firearms from getting into the hands of those who should not have them. The system is only as good as the records in the database. Appearing on CNN Headline News Network’s S.E. Cupp Unfiltered last night, NSSF’s Larry Keane discussed our industry’s FixNICS initiative and called on the Department of Defense to ensure it is doing its part to enhance public safety.
Since 2013, NSSF has led the successful nationwide FixNICS initiative effort to improve the reporting of all criminal and adjudicated mental health records by the states to NICS. To date, 16 states have adopted NSSF-led FixNICS changes. Since the campaign was launched through the end of 2016, the number of disqualifying mental health records submitted to NICS increased by 170 percent to nearly 4.5 million, from about 1.7 million in December 2012.
https://www.nssf.org/nssf-cnn-headline-news-fixnics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NSSFGR+%28NSSF+Government+Rel ations%29
An interesting article below.
Mass shootings in gun-free nations
David Kopel
Washington Post
November 9, 2017
The global history of mass shootings demonstrates that the vast majority of these crimes are perpetrated in places where citizen firearms ownership is close to nil. While people can argue about cause and effect, the facts are indisputable.
This might seem surprising to people who read a recent article in the New York Times claiming that the mass shootings in the United States are a direct consequence of the high density of gun ownership in the country. But the article is analytically flawed, as Robert VerBruggen detailedfor National Review Online. For example, the Times article is based on a study by a professor who refuses to allow skeptics to see his data or his methodology. But let’s hypothesize that the assertions by the professor are correct. It is still true that mass shooting fatalities are heavily concentrated in areas where citizen firearms possession is prohibited.
Consider, for example, some of the deadliest mass shootings of the 20th century. As soon as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union began on June 22, 1941, special SS units called Einsatzgruppen were deployed for mass killings. All the Jews or Gypsies (also known as Roma) in a village would be assembled and marched out of town. Then they would all be shot at once. (Yehuda Bauer, “Jewish Resistance in the Ukraine and Belarus during the Holocaust,” in Jewish Resistance Against the Nazis, Patrick Henry ed. [D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2014], pp. 485-93.)
Within a year, the 3,000 Einsatzgruppen, aided by several thousand helpers from the German police and military, had murdered about 1 million people, concentrating on small towns in formerly Soviet territory. (Hillary Earl, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945–1958 [Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2009], pp. 4–8; Reuben Ainsztein, Jewish Resistance in Nazi-Occupied Eastern Europe [London: Elek Books, 1974], pp. 222–25.) Einsatzgruppen mass shootings took place not only in today’s Russia but also in nations that the Soviet Communists had taken over, and which were then over-run by the Nazis: eastern Poland (taken by Stalin pursuant to the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact), Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
Because of psychological damage to the Einsatzgruppen, the Nazis attempted to replace mass shootings with mobile gas vans. But these did not work out well, partly because herding people into the gas vans required even closer contact with the victims than did mass shooting. (Earl, p. 7). Therefore, the Nazis invented extermination camps with huge gas chambers, which were more efficient at mass killing, and which created a larger physical (and, consequently, psychological) distance between the murderers and their victims.
In pre-WWII Poland and in the Soviet Union, “no firearm, not even a shotgun,” could be lawfully possessed without a government permit. For most people, “such permits were impossible to obtain.” (Ainsztein, p. 304; see also Chaika Grossman, The Underground Army: Fighters of Bialystok Ghetto, trans. Schmuel Beeri [N.Y.: Holocaust Library, 1987; first pub. in Israel 1965], p. 3.) “Not to allow the peasants to have arms” had been the policy “from time immemorial.” (Ainsztein, p. 304.) In this regard, Lenin and Stalin carried on the Russian czarist tradition, as they did in many other ways. (See generally Eugene Lyons, Stalin: Czar of All the Russias [Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1940]; Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar [N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004].)
In Poland, the main way that firearms got into citizens’ hands was peasant scavenging of rifles that had been left behind from the battles of World War I (1914-1918) and the Russo-Polish War (1919-1920). Usually the rifle barrels would be sawed short, for concealment. (Ainsztein, p. 304.) But thanks to the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Soviet Union invaded and conquered the eastern third of Poland at the beginning of World War II. The Soviet secret police, the NKVD, “took great care to disarm the local population, and was very successful.” (Ibid.)
The one big chance to acquire arms was in the chaos immediately after June 22, 1941. In those first weeks, the Soviet army reeled in retreat, leaving large quantities of weapons behind. But the abandoned arms tended to be in rural areas (where Polish peasants picked up many), whereas most Jews lived in cities or towns. (Ibid.)
During the chaotic early weeks on the Eastern Front, the Nazis successfully deterred most Jews from attempting to scavenge arms. As in every nation conquered by the Third Reich, being caught with a firearm meant instant death for oneself and one’s family, and perhaps even for others, in reprisal. This was especially so for Jews. Disarmed, the Jews and Roma were soon destroyed.
Victims of a mass shooting perpetrated by organized government are just as dead as victims of a mass shooting perpetrated by a lone nut. Adopt the broadest definition of “mass shooting” that you want (e.g., three victims wounded, one killed). Add up all the mass shooting deaths from lunatics, organized crime, jihadist cells and ordinary criminals. The global, historical total of mass shooting deaths will be gruesome, and it will also be small compared to the total of mass shooting deaths perpetrated by criminal governments — including Fascists, Communists and non-ideological tyrants.
University of Hawaii political science professor R.J. Rummel compiled demographic data regarding genocide. He estimated the total number of victims of mass murders by governments from 1901 to 1990 to be 169,198,000. (Rudolph J. Rummel, Death by Government [Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Pub., 2d ed. 2000].) This figure does not include deaths from wars; it includes only deliberate mass murder of civilian populations.
Because Rummel was only studying situations in which governments were engaged in major efforts to exterminate a large number of people, his 169 million victims figure does not include smaller-scale mass murders, including mass shootings. For example, if government agents shoot up a political rally, or attack an opposition newspaper, killing dozens of people, those deaths would not be included in Rummel’s figures.
There are lots of means to perpetrate mass murder: with poison gas, with bombs, by running people over with trucks, working them to death in slave labor camps, or even by hacking them with machetes, as in Rwanda. However, mass shootings have been among the most common methods of mass murder around the world for more than a century. Even when victims are killed by other means, such as deliberate starvation or gas chambers, a government monopoly of arms is essential for governments being able to prevent the victims from resisting.
The illegitimate “governments” that perpetrate mass shootings or other forms of mass murder have worked assiduously to ensure that their intended victims are disarmed. This was true in Turkish Armenia in World War I; in Darfur, Sudan; in Indonesia’s ethnic cleansing of East Timor; in Bosnia; in Kenya and Uganda; in Ethiopia against the Anuak; and in many other places.
Gun prohibition advocates insist that armed self-defense could not possibly make a difference when governments perpetrate mass shootings or other forms of mass murder. But this is true only for strawman scenarios. Of course the Jews in Nazi Germany could not have overthrown Hitler by themselves. Nor could the Jewish or Roma peasants in eastern Poland have single-handedly driven the Wehrmachtback to Germany. But at the least, armed resisters can fight back and kill some of the perpetrators. If every one of the 1 million Jews and Roma who were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen had possessed a good rifle, then it would not have been so simple for a million people to be slaughtered by a few thousand. Plenty of Einsatzgruppenwould have been shot and that would at least have slowed down the pace of murders, providing more time for some potential victims to escape, and making it harder for Hitler’s regime to recruit replacements.
Notwithstanding the assertions of anti-gun lobbyists that victim resistance is futile, the governments that perpetrate mass murders do fear armed citizens. That is why rigorous disarmament of the victims almost always precedes the killings.
Besides denying the universal human right that is recognized by the U.S. Second Amendment, the perpetrators also deny the universal human right recognized by the First Amendment: the exchange of information. It was not until early 1942 that Eastern European Jews began to realize that when Nazis moved people out of a city or town, the purpose was not deportation for slave labor, but rather extermination. The news of the Nazis’ actual intentions was first spread by a Jan. 1, 1942, manifesto written by Abba Kovner, a young poet in Vilnius, Lithuania. Kovner’s words were smuggled from ghetto to ghetto:
“Let us not go to slaughter like sheep! Jewish youth, do not trust the deceivers. . . . Hitler has invented a system for the destruction of all the Jews on Europe….It is true that we are weak and we have nobody to help us. But our only dignified answer to the enemy must be resistance! Brothers, it is better to die like free fighters than to live by the murderer’s grace. Resist until your last breath!”
(Ainsztein, p. 499.)
Continued below...
Continued from article above:
“It can’t happen here,” some people say about the United States. But during the 1930s, there were lots of American supporters of Fascism and Communism. Today, there are far too many people on the political far left and far right who are openly hostile to civil liberty and to the Constitution. They palpably yearn to be ruled by a strongman. On nearly every college campus, many professors indoctrinate students in Marxist thinking, which in practical application is little different from Hitlerite thinking. As detailed by the Canary Mission, Jew-hating student “leaders” are common on American college campuses; like their brownshirt ancestors of the 1920s in Germany, they use violence and intimidation to suppress speech in favor of Jewish resistance to exterminationists, which today include organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
Germany in 1900 was one of the most tolerant places in the world for Jews; in any country, things can change a lot in a few decades.
Contrary to the claims of the gun prohibition lobbies, sensible policies to minimize mass shootings are not simply a matter of confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. The better approach was adopted by the United States as World War II loomed in Europe. First, laws should attempt to prevent firearms acquisition by individuals who have proven they are particularly likely to use firearms offensively. The first broad federal law to do so was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which, among other things, prohibited firearms sales to felons. This was later strengthened by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Today, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System works towards the same objective.
Second a policy for reducing the death toll of mass shootings also means ensuring that lawful defenders have the means to resist. This means abolishing laws that forbid licensed, trained adults to carry defensive handguns in certain locations, such as churches. It means not depriving good citizens of effective arms of resistance — such as Stephen Willeford’sAR-15 rifle that instantly ended the killing spree in Sutherland Springs, Tex., on Nov. 5.
Most of all, it means ensuring that our nation can never be turned into a “gun-free zone,” in which a rogue government could perpetrate mass shootings without resistance. Thus, after Congress passed the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, it passed the Property Requisition of Act of 1941. This was the first of several federal statutes to outlaw federal gun registration and gun confiscation. The act was informed by what had already taken place in Europe, where Hitler and Stalin used registration lists to confiscate guns, create gun-free zones, and then perpetrate mass shootings. Registration, confiscation, extermination.
Humane and sensible firearms policy aims to deter illegitimate, offensive uses of firearms, and to foster legitimate, defensive uses. Unreasonable and unfair policy disarms everyone except the government and its favored elites. Not every nation that adopts the latter policy ends up with genocide. Yet the historical record is clear that mass disarmament of citizens can be the gateway to millions of deaths by mass shooting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/09/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-nations/?utm_term=.311d2143d9c8
Badger52
11-11-2017, 13:21
Thanks for that. Given the paper, almost a "man bites dog" thing.
I was going to suggest someone should airdrop that article on the Tim McGraw/Faith Hill estate but it's OBE since they have their Bahamas island in Goat Cay now.
:rolleyes:
Team Sergeant
11-12-2017, 10:15
Why are liberal/socialist/communists so afraid of citizens bearing arms?
Because they know, that one man, one rifle and three bullets can change the course of history. And until they can confiscate every gun they are not safe.
MOLON LABE
bblhead672
12-04-2017, 09:54
Retired military commanders urge Congress to address 'gun violence crisis' (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/retired-military-commanders-urge-congress-to-address-gun-violence-crisis-20171202.html)
The group is part of the veterans coalition of a gun control group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. They laid out their arguments in a letter they plan to send to Congressional leaders.
Traitorous scum.
Retired military commanders urge Congress to address 'gun violence crisis' (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/retired-military-commanders-urge-congress-to-address-gun-violence-crisis-20171202.html)
Traitorous scum.
Some familiar names - many Obama or Klinton supporters among them.
Advisory Committee
The Giffords Veterans Coalition is led by an Advisory Committee - Members of the Giffords Veterans Coalition include:
Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.), Co-Founder, Americans for Responsible Solutions
Admiral Thad Allen, USCG (Ret.)
General Peter W. Chiarelli, USA (Ret.)
General Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.)
General Michael V. Hayden, USAF (Ret.)
General James T. Hill, USA (Ret.)
Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.)
General Stanley A. McChrystal, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Eric T. Olson, USN (Ret.)
General David Petraeus, USA (Ret.)
Lt. General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Lt. General Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.)
Lt. General William “Kip” E. Ward, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James Arden “Jamie” Barnett Jr., USN (Ret.)
Major General Vance Coleman, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote, USA (Ret.)
Captain Gail Kulisch, USCG (Ret.)
Commander Carlos Del Toro, USN (Ret.)
Dave Korus, USAF (Ret.)
Jonathan Sanford, USA (Ret.)
Terron Sims II, USA (Ret.)
Shawn J. VanDiver, USN (Ret.)
Team Sergeant
12-04-2017, 11:02
Some familiar names - many Obama or Klinton supporters among them.
Advisory Committee
The Giffords Veterans Coalition is led by an Advisory Committee - Members of the Giffords Veterans Coalition include:
Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.), Co-Founder, Americans for Responsible Solutions
Admiral Thad Allen, USCG (Ret.)
General Peter W. Chiarelli, USA (Ret.)
General Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.)
General Michael V. Hayden, USAF (Ret.)
General James T. Hill, USA (Ret.)
Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.)
General Stanley A. McChrystal, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Eric T. Olson, USN (Ret.)
General David Petraeus, USA (Ret.)
Lt. General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Lt. General Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.)
Lt. General William “Kip” E. Ward, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James Arden “Jamie” Barnett Jr., USN (Ret.)
Major General Vance Coleman, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote, USA (Ret.)
Captain Gail Kulisch, USCG (Ret.)
Commander Carlos Del Toro, USN (Ret.)
Dave Korus, USAF (Ret.)
Jonathan Sanford, USA (Ret.)
Terron Sims II, USA (Ret.)
Shawn J. VanDiver, USN (Ret.)
A list of the left-wing, progressive, socialist idiots........... good to know. (But we already knew.)
If you want your rights taken, vote democrat/socialist.
If you wish to live Free, vote right of center.
A who's who of liberal, sell out GO / FOs
https://m.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/posts/1843059172384905
Contact your Reps! This could be VERY bad!
Team Sergeant
12-05-2017, 08:02
https://m.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/posts/1843059172384905
Contact your Reps! This could be VERY bad!
Actually not that bad. Did you read it?
Veterans with mental issues should not have guns.
Seniors that cannot take care of them selves and have been adjuncticated as such, should not have guns.
And expanding the national background check is fine with me as I'm not a criminal.
What I'm not good with is allowing just any agency to add names to a national database or take rights away.
Ret10Echo
12-05-2017, 11:10
What I'm not good with is allowing just any agency to add names to a national database or take rights away.
Agree... And apparently both after the fact and without disclosure to those impacted.
Actually not that bad. Did you read it?
Veterans with mental issues should not have guns.
Seniors that cannot take care of them selves and have been adjuncticated as such, should not have guns.
And expanding the national background check is fine with me as I'm not a criminal.
What I'm not good with is allowing just any agency to add names to a national database or take rights away.
Yes I read it and researched it. My greatest concern is the lack of due process. Another factor is how it will be determined. Even if specified, I have little trust in enormous bureaucracies getting that right. It has to have even more oversight, notification of pending action, and a reasonable time and way to repeal.
I agree some people shouldent own guns. Setting the precident to remove constitutional rights this way does not help.
The Reaper
12-05-2017, 11:46
Sounds like almost as much fun as the "no fly" list.
TR
bblhead672
12-05-2017, 11:58
What I'm not good with is allowing just any agency to add names to a national database or take rights away.
Due process? Deplorables aren't worthy of due process.
Team Sergeant
12-05-2017, 15:10
So what mental issues that veterans have could qualify? Anything? Trooper snuffy goes through a divorce so his CO sends him to counseling to cover his ass and bam on the list. What about PTSD? How severe does he have to have it? Remember they found the Melfiquin caused brain damage to a lot of people and mimics PTSD. What about a trooper that was caught in an IED and his bell was rung so he was a little off for a couple weeks? Where do we draw the line?
Why can a senior that can not take care of themselves have a gun? Granted some should not but what if it is a physical problem not a mental one but a physical one? Where is the line drawn? I believe the law already states anyone mentally defective can not buy a firearm. also do you think anyone that is mentally adjudicated due to dementia would be able to fill out the form to begin with? Have you ever worked with someone like that? They can not fill out the form, kind of a check onto its self.
What would expanding the data base do? It missed the last asshole that should have been on there. Do you think it will stop any crimes at all. Look how making meth and heroin have really stopped the spread of illegal drugs. What puts people on this crime list? A warrant for a speeding ticket they paid but the county screwed it up and did not record it and issued a warrant? (I seen this happen)
Even if they make it reasonable what will the courts do with it in a few years? Remember once the camel has its nose under the tent the next Obama could run with it.
No real bad idea. Adding more laws on top of the ones that already exist will not help anything but only create more bullshit in the long run. The good idea fairy strikes again.
That tinfoil hat make noise while you're sleeping? :munchin
So what mental issues that veterans have could qualify? Anything? Trooper snuffy goes through a divorce so his CO sends him to counseling to cover his ass and bam on the list. What about PTSD? How severe does he have to have it? Remember they found the Melfiquin caused brain damage to a lot of people and mimics PTSD. What about a trooper that was caught in an IED and his bell was rung so he was a little off for a couple weeks? Where do we draw the line?
Why can a senior that can not take care of themselves have a gun? Granted some should not but what if it is a physical problem not a mental one but a physical one? Where is the line drawn? I believe the law already states anyone mentally defective can not buy a firearm. also do you think anyone that is mentally adjudicated due to dementia would be able to fill out the form to begin with? Have you ever worked with someone like that? They can not fill out the form, kind of a check onto its self.
What would expanding the data base do? It missed the last asshole that should have been on there. Do you think it will stop any crimes at all. Look how making meth and heroin have really stopped the spread of illegal drugs. What puts people on this crime list? A warrant for a speeding ticket they paid but the county screwed it up and did not record it and issued a warrant? (I seen this happen)
Even if they make it reasonable what will the courts do with it in a few years? Remember once the camel has its nose under the tent the next Obama could run with it.
No real bad idea. Adding more laws on top of the ones that already exist will not help anything but only create more bullshit in the long run. The good idea fairy strikes again.
Below is a much shorter version of an earlier post - calls on bureaucrats to do their jobs and keep criminals and the mentally ill from possessing firearms is a good thing - rather than blanket bans on law abiding folks from possessing firearms.
Watch the video at link.
Some people should not have guns.
NOVEMBER 8, 2017
NSSF ON CNN HEADLINE NEWS: FIXNICS | GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS
Since 2013, NSSF has led the successful nationwide FixNICS initiative effort to improve the reporting of all criminal and adjudicated mental health records by the states to NICS. To date, 16 states have adopted NSSF-led FixNICS changes. Since the campaign was launched through the end of 2016, the number of disqualifying mental health records submitted to NICS increased by 170 percent to nearly 4.5 million, from about 1.7 million in December 2012.
https://www.nssf.org/nssf-cnn-headli...t+Relations%29
Badger52
12-06-2017, 04:11
I agree with TR's parallel to the no-fly list. HR 4477 actually does nothing except let Congress tell its lessers that they are doing something (cue the hand-wringing crowds). Oh, yeah, it also threatens to dock the bonus pay of politically-appointed agency hacks if they fail to meet the reporting gates. Whoopee.
There is no requirement to put this on all the agencies when the criteria that determine a prohibited person IAW 922 are based on a court decision. Only those entities that can actually render a legal determination (civil courts, military courts-martial) should be on the hook for this, and that's already in the law. And under existing law the AG already has the authority to gather the information from any agency it needs it from.
The danger is erroneous and/or duplicate reporting by agencies that have no business collecting & submitting records in the first place.
It is a badly written law, and is eyewash.
For reader's convenience below is link to Senator Cornyn's web page describing the proposed legislation and text of proposed legislation for Fix NICS Act of 2017.
There is no bump stock language in the proposed Senate version - there is in the House version.
Links directly to the differing House and Senate versions of the proposed legislation are also produced below. Hope this helps.
CORNYN'S take:
https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/node/4478
https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/sites/default/files/Fix%20NICS%20Act%20Bill%20Text.pdf
SENATE VERSION:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text
HOUSE VERSION:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4477/text
Perhaps, fix NICS with properly reporting prohibited persons (felons and those adjudicated mentally ill) and tie the passage of that proposed fix to simultaneously passing national reciprocity for law abiding folks.
ETA: introduce specific and expedited relief provisions into the proposed fix language for those wrongly placed on the "no buy" list to address that legitimate concern.
Retired military commanders urge Congress to address 'gun violence crisis' (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/retired-military-commanders-urge-congress-to-address-gun-violence-crisis-20171202.html)
Traitorous scum.
A response to the "Generals" from a representative of NSSF (firearms industry trade association) that touches on some good points.
DECEMBER 12, 2017
RETIRED BRASS OFF TARGET TRUMPETING FOR GUN RESTRICTIONS
By Mark Oliva
Sixteen of our nation’s senior military officers recently penned a letter to Congress under the banner of the Giffords Veteran Coalition. They chose to lend their military authority and prestige to assist an ongoing political effort to further restrict their fellow law-abiding American citizens’ Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because they mistakenly believe they know how to reduce criminal misuse of firearms.
Generals and admirals, this is something that I just can’t salute.
The retired military leaders, who of course deserve accolades for leading forces in combat and humanitarian operations, cited the recent tragedy in Sutherland Springs, Texas, to call for more gun control laws. Unfortunately, they never mentioned that our nation’s military itself had the tools to prevent this tragedy from ever happening but failed tragically in that mission.
The Sutherland murderer had been convicted of domestic violence in a court-martial and involuntarily committed to a mental health facility before being booted from the Air Force with a bad conduct discharge. At least two of these instances would have been enough to bar the murderer from buying a firearm. But the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was not informed of these facts because the Department of Defense never submitted the required disqualifying records. Because of DoD’s failure to follow its own regulations and our nation’s laws, this murderer was able to buy guns not just once, but four separate times. Each time he passed the background check.
Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, the military services were required to submit these records. The flag-level officers didn’t mention the DoD’s own instruction ordering compliance with the law. Nor was there mention of the Inspector General’s reports criticizing the military’s failure in its obligation to submit names of prohibited persons to the NICS database.
The generals and admirals tell Congress their command experience is foundational to their moral authority to call for restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners. They didn’t tell Congress, though, that during the height of the fighting, while Army General Petraeus commanded Coalition forces, Iraqi families could keep a fully-automatic AK-47 and 30-round magazine in their homes. U.S. forces didn’t want these families left defenseless against the terrorists who preyed on them.
This was the practice during my tour in Fallujah in 2006-2007. It was just one of several combat tours to Iraq and Afghanistan during my 25-year Marine Corps career. I trusted my life to their battlefield decision making. Yet, their letter wrongly blames the firearms, accessories and laws recognizing the fundamental right of Americans to keep and bear arms for the criminal activities of individuals.
There is a cognitive dissonance that these generals and admirals would seek restrictions on law-abiding Americans, who are only looking to make the best choice to protect themselves and their families. They never saw the same need in a nation under martial law with no Second Amendment rights. They advocate banning modern sporting rifles, the most popular rifle sold today. Nearly half of those who own these are former active and former military and law enforcement. They buy them primarily for target shooting, which follows a long history in the United States of service members in civilian life purchasing firearms similar to the rifle they used in uniform for lawful purposes like target shooting and hunting. Their opposition to this, and other measures, doesn’t pass muster.
Instead of endorsing new laws that criminals would not obey, the generals and admirals should devote their energy and commit their prestige to helping ensure that the laws already on the books are enforced. That includes keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons by ensuring that disqualifying records are submitted to the system designed to help protect their fellow citizens. Sixteen retired generals and admirals do not speak for the overwhelming veteran population who know and treasure their Second Amendment rights.
ETA: link https://www.nssf.org/retired-brass-off-target-trumpeting-for-gun-restrictions/
About the Author
Mark Oliva is Manager, Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition and industries. He is a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant with 25 years of service, including tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Albania and Zaire.
mojaveman
12-31-2017, 21:24
No more Internet ammo sales to the People's Republik of Kalifornia as of tomorrow.
Was at Walmart earlier this evening and the manager of the store told me that they will not be selling any ammunition in any store in California after they close tonight.
All of this ammunition restriction is going to do is create a thriving black market here.
Can't wait to retire and leave this place. :(
DinDinA-2
01-01-2018, 11:19
That tinfoil hat make noise while you're sleeping? :munchin
LOL. Good one.
BrightGirl
02-12-2018, 09:16
Team Sergeant,
I agree with every word written in your position statement. I highly recommend that all who care about our country read two books that I just finished: Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog by Dr. Bruce Perry. These books were written as easy-to-read textbooks, citing research and anecdotal information to support the claim that our future is in jeopardy. The books include suggestions on what we can do to address the problems.
We (as a society) have created this problem and we (with the skills) must fix it. As a sheepdog, I want to be part of the solution. The first step is to list who is doing what already. Creating the list begins now. I seek the names of organizations and their leaders who are addressing removal of media violence, elimination of gun-free zones and/or prevention of childhood trauma.
Bright Girl
RichL025
02-12-2018, 09:40
So what mental issues that veterans have could qualify? Anything? Trooper snuffy goes through a divorce so his CO sends him to counseling to cover his ass and bam on the list. What about PTSD? How severe does he have to have it? Remember they found the Melfiquin caused brain damage to a lot of people and mimics PTSD. What about a trooper that was caught in an IED and his bell was rung so he was a little off for a couple weeks? Where do we draw the line?
Why can a senior that can not take care of themselves have a gun? Granted some should not but what if it is a physical problem not a mental one but a physical one? Where is the line drawn? I believe the law already states anyone mentally defective can not buy a firearm. also do you think anyone that is mentally adjudicated due to dementia would be able to fill out the form to begin with? Have you ever worked with someone like that? They can not fill out the form, kind of a check onto its self.
Just because a line has been drawn poorly in the past, does not mean that no line should be drawn.
Sure there are many vets with mental issues who are perfectly safe to own firearms. But there are many who are not. At least 20 per day, according to the statistics.
What would expanding the data base do? It missed the last asshole that should have been on there. Do you think it will stop any crimes at all...
So because one person slipped through the system, your solution is to not improve the database and continue to allow prohibited persons to slip through? I'm not following the logic here....
.
...are we letting these "mentally impaired" people vote?
Why?
Team Sergeant
02-12-2018, 09:58
Team Sergeant,
I agree with every word written in your position statement. I highly recommend that all who care about our country read two books that I just finished: Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog by Dr. Bruce Perry. These books were written as easy-to-read textbooks, citing research and anecdotal information to support the claim that our future is in jeopardy. The books include suggestions on what we can do to address the problems.
We (as a society) have created this problem and we (with the skills) must fix it. As a sheepdog, I want to be part of the solution. The first step is to list who is doing what already. Creating the list begins now. I seek the names of organizations and their leaders who are addressing removal of media violence, elimination of gun-free zones and/or prevention of childhood trauma.
Bright Girl
Not many on here have anything good to say about Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. In my opinion he writes for one reason only, the money.
bblhead672
02-12-2018, 10:04
...are we letting these "mentally impaired" people vote?
Why?
Yes, they are called "Democrats". :D
RichL025
02-12-2018, 11:36
We already have a system in place that this guy slipped through. By the rules today and for many years he should not have had a firearm. Fix the current system, making more rules will not fix it but potentially cause more problems.
So you think this is a zero-sum game, we can "either" fix the current system "or" make our rules better?
I disagree. We can BOTH fix the current system, and then, as a society of laws, we can make the current system better if (as a society) we agree that other classes of people should not be eligible to own a weapon.
Or are you saying that you are OK with a person with poorly controlled paranoid schizophrenia buying firearms?
I think we all can agree (please tell me if I'm wrong) that a person whose "mental health issues" means mild PTSD or well-controlled depression can own weapons. Just like I think we all can agree that the guy who thinks police officers are evil aliens coming to abduct him should NOT have them. I agree, drawing the line between those two may sometimes be difficult, but that is not a reason to give up and not draw the line at all.
Why are we only concerned about our 2d amendment rights?
Shouldn’t concerns about mental health be applied to the entire Bill of Rights? There is more to the Bill of Rights than just the 2d amendment; abridging someone’s constitutional liberties should not be done in a vacuum. If we are willing to take away freedoms specifically addressed in the bill of rights, why are we still letting crazy people vote? Why are dangerous crazy people given any liberties at all? Crazy people should be subject to a different set of laws than the rest of us. There are some people that have clearly lost their minds, yet they have the unabridged freedom to stir up the masses.
I agree that there are many controversial people out there with mental health problems that don't talk crazy and they may not ALL pose a threat, but there are a lot that can't be trusted to speak in public without causing trouble and we can’t afford to let the really crazy ones slip through the crack. If that means that there are innocent crazy people being deprived of some rights so that the rest of us can be safe from the dangerous crazy people, so be it.
The 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments remove prohibitions on voting rights based on race, color, sex, and age; there is nothing that says we can't keep crazy people from voting.
Ret10Echo
02-12-2018, 16:24
Why are we only concerned about our 2d amendment rights?
Shouldn’t concerns about mental health be applied to the entire Bill of Rights? There is more to the Bill of Rights than just the 2d amendment; abridging someone’s constitutional liberties should not be done in a vacuum. If we are willing to take away freedoms specifically addressed in the bill of rights, why are we still letting crazy people vote? Why are dangerous crazy people given any liberties at all? Crazy people should be subject to a different set of laws than the rest of us. There are some people that have clearly lost their minds, yet they have the unabridged freedom to stir up the masses.
I agree that there are many controversial people out there with mental health problems that don't talk crazy and they may not ALL pose a threat, but there are a lot that can't be trusted to speak in public without causing trouble and we can’t afford to let the really crazy ones slip through the crack. If that means that there are innocent crazy people being deprived of some rights so that the rest of us can be safe from the dangerous crazy people, so be it.
The 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments remove prohibitions on voting rights based on race, color, sex, and age; there is nothing that says we can't keep crazy people from voting.
This sounds oddly familiar..............
bblhead672
02-19-2018, 11:22
Is the number really 300 million guns? Or much much more?
http://weaponsman.com/?p=33875
Badger52
02-20-2018, 07:26
Is the number really 300 million guns? Or much much more?
http://weaponsman.com/?p=33875Kevin (RIP) gave an admirable crack at it; one of his commenters also provided an additional link on the topic (http://extranosalley.com/how-many-guns-how-much-ammunition/). FL has resurrected their own version of the AWB in the wake of Parkland, and the functional head of ATF is still in the Swamp; the same guy who was head of the Phoenix Field Division (remember them?) & picked to be Deputy Director & was advocating a national gun registry to Candidate Clinton last election. When it comes down to it, does the exact number really matter?
:munchin
bblhead672
02-20-2018, 08:00
When it comes down to it, does the exact number really matter?
:munchin
No it doesn't matter. I just thought it was interesting that you hear the 300 million number thrown around by both sides, and it most likely isn't even close to the actual number of firearms in the hands of American citizens.
Badger52
02-20-2018, 13:27
... and it most likely isn't even close to the actual number of firearms in the hands of American citizens.Roger that. Whenever some hand-wringer throws that number just mention "and that's just the ones you know about."
bblhead672
02-20-2018, 14:08
Roger that. Whenever some hand-wringer throws that number just mention "and that's just the ones you know about."
The progressive socialists and the RINO buddies say it's impossible to round up and deport all the criminally present citizens of other countries, while advocating that rounding up all of the guns in American citizens hands is doable.
The progressive socialists and the RINO buddies say it's impossible to round up and deport all the criminally present citizens of other countries, while advocating that rounding up all of the guns in American citizens hands is doable.
Lol.
Simply stated - and as you know - they lie about both issues.