Congressman’s Wife Launches ‘Mothers Against Gun-Free Zones’
 

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-governm...un-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-court...ond-civil-war/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.a...les/15-133.htm

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/...mepage%2Fstory

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/...matic-weapons/

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. Not just the gun quote:
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.

I want Obama to take away your guns By W. Kamau Bell, CNN
 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/opinio...uns/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.

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/...-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/ni...month_year.pdf

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 short YouTube video I hadn't seen before.

DEMOCIDE Socialism, Tyranny, Guns And Freedom

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UE5u0l...ature=youtu.be

Good contribution to this thread; remains relevant.

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/th...-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

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.

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.

Chief Justice Thomas Speaks!
 

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!

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/ni...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...10078_aplc.pdf

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
 

Obama Administration Moves Forward With Stripping Gun Rights Through Social Security

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...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.

obama can go screw himself, as some of us will not abide by his rules
 

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

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-confi..._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

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

Gun Rights
 

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

Hey Joe Salazar, can you hear us now?
 

In 2013, CO House Rep. advocated that all women needed was a whistle before passing some of Colorado's onerous anti-gun laws.