Florida #12 :D (should be better!!!!)

Indiana #16 probably should be higher. Our permit is not for concealed carry only. It is a license to carry a firearm and open carry is permitted (though you may have a conversation with a police officer in some cities).

Perspective from the General Counsel for O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc.

Gun Bans Don't Work, Only Hurt Business

By JOSEPH H. BARTOZZI | COMMENTARY
The Hartford Courant
8:51 p.m. EDT, March 15, 2013


Connecticut has a rich history of firearms manufacturing — from Eli Whitney to Sam Colt, Oliver Winchester and O.F. Mossberg, among others, our craftsmen have provided high-quality firearms to customers all over the world for generations.

O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc. has been located in Connecticut since its inception in 1919, and is the oldest family-owned and operated firearms manufacturer in America.

Mossberg and the firearms industry have provided generations of good, well-paying jobs in this state — exactly the types of jobs Connecticut needs and is spending millions of dollars to attract. In fact, firearms manufacturers, suppliers and dealers contribute more than $1.7 billion in economic activity to this state alone.

Throughout the recent debate over proposed additional gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, we have asked theConnecticut General Assembly not to react emotionally, but rather to look at areas that will have a meaningful and lasting effect on the safety of residents.

For example, gun and equipment bans (such as banning firearms on the basis of appearance, or creating some arbitrary magazine capacity limit) have never been proved to reduce crime or gun violence. A Clinton administration study regarding the 1994 to 2004 federal assault weapons ban concluded that "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)." Additionally, violent crime and gun deaths have been steadily decreasing while firearms ownership and the number of firearms in circulation have increased.

Mossberg is deeply concerned about proposed legislation that would hurt our significant and long-standing relationship with this state, and especially our roughly 270 Connecticut employees. We have been meeting with state officials to caution them about the economic impact of some of the proposed legislation and to offer our expertise as a resource for technical information to the legislature.

We have opened our doors to legislators and state policy officials to educate them about the types of jobs that we provide; the firearms and component parts that are made in our North Haven facility; and the employees who could be affected by ill-advised legislation. Our position is that because bans on firearms and equipment have never been proved to reduce violence or crime, a different approach is necessary.

Although the reports from the Sandy Hook shooting are not yet public, it seems obvious that an area where the legislature can do some real good is with regard to limiting access to firearms by prohibited or at-risk individuals. Currently there are states that routinely fail to provide timely mental health, restraining order status, or other prohibiting factors to the National Instant Check System, known as NICS. We strongly support state and federal programs to get all proper information into the NICS database as soon as possible.

In addition, the firearms industry has long supported safe and responsible storage of firearms. Mossberg has been providing free locking devices with its firearms since 1989. Mossberg has distributed well over 9.5 million firearms locking devices since that time — without any state or federal requirement to do so.

This legislature can draft new (or revise existing) legislation to criminalize straw purchasers — those who purchase firearms for prohibited persons — and define and prosecute gun traffickers to the fullest extent of the law. These suggestions are but some of the initiatives that, if adopted, would have a meaningful, long-lasting and positive impact on public safety.

We also recommend that the state engage in widespread public service announcements to remind owners of firearms to keep their guns inaccessible to children or other at-risk individuals. The "Click it or Ticket" program was a reminder to buckle seat belts. A similar approach can and should be taken to remind firearms owners to keep their guns safely stored.

We believe that legislation aimed at keeping firearms out of the wrong hands will create a safer community. Mossberg is proud to be a part of Connecticut's manufacturing base, and we would expect that any legislation that comes out of the Sandy Hook tragedy be results-oriented — not politically motivated.

Joseph H. Bartozzi is senior vice president and general counsel at O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc. in North Haven.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...,7714416.story

Congress: Assault-weapons ban nixed from bill
 

I think the dem's heard us loud and clear..... Dianne Feinstein (D-Kalif) GO POUND SAND!!!!!
TS

Congress: Assault-weapons ban nixed from bill

Whither assault weapons ban: “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month,” Politico notes. “After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.”
Cont:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...from-bill?lite

As long as they don't try to sneak it in as a quiet amendment. But good news, none the less.

Good news and continued vigilance
 

30 seconds left in round #1 and DiFi is sucking wind.

Pressure, pressure, pressure.

DiFi and little Chuckie Shumer, and all those of similar ilk, may be spineless - but they are relentless on this issue.

Gun Owners Separate Friends from Foes

A fast-growing website flags businesses that permit concealed carry — and those that don’t.

By Frank Miniter
National Review Online
MARCH 18, 2013 4:00 A.M.

"Chris Walsh didn’t set out to punish businesses that don’t allow him to carry his concealed handgun. He’s just a software designer from Richmond, Va. He started the website Friend or Foe in 2009 to keep track of where he could shop and eat without running afoul of business policies and local regulations. But then gun owners started using his website. As word got out on gun-rights blogs, people began adding more business ratings to Friend or Foe, highlighting the establishments that ban firearms and those that don’t. Before long, Walsh found he’d become an activist, and his fast-growing website was helping to fortify a civil-liberties movement. He’s okay with that. He has big plans for how to separate friends of the Second Amendment from foes."

"His latest deed was integrating Google-mapping software. Now anyone can easily log in and rate businesses. A red thumbtack signifies a business that’s not friendly to gun owners. A green thumbtack represents a place that openly welcomes gun owners. A gray thumbtack is a business where folks have carried a concealed firearm without incident, but where the official policy is not known. There are now over 11,000 places rated, and users are adding more everyday."

<snip>

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-frank-miniter

ETA Friend or Foe link below:

http://friendorfoe.us/

Fed assault weapons ban a bust?

The Feds certainly should have known they couldn’t succeed with this after the 94 ban at the Federal level...especially now. However, no doubt in my mind that a lot of Federal support in favors & money are going towards the States (like NY and CO) where the 2nd Amendment is being battled. Perhaps the Federal push is more a feint to pull attention from the State actions.

I think the Democrats understand that their biggest chance for a national weapons ban is by getting it done in several States and setting the precedence for the rest of them.

We need a new set of leaders before that happens. :mad:

Ahhhh......one major piece of good news, from the bloody sea of scrumming politicians.

This is the crux of it. These laws are packaged as "for the children" or to "make us safer". They are really about control and disarmament but being that obvious would go over like a fart in church even for our low information voters. So, they lie.

So true. Think of the "Affordable Care Act." Nothing affordable about it.

In NYS the debacle that was signed by Coumo was referred to as the "SAFE Act."

Sound bites and smoke and mirrors...each piece of legislation chipping away at our freedoms and further empowering the STATE and the endless bureaucracy.

MOO, complete and total civilian disarmament is the end game.

Gun control?...nothing to see here...just some "responsible" "common sense" measures...ask the regime.

Streamlined it, Chief. ;)

Personally, I think the population of this country loses intelligence and has less knowledge every day.

We punish the successful, reward the lazy, and reinforce failure.

The eventual result is inevitable.

TR

This is good news but it's just round one with these people, they have been emboldened and they are not to be trusted. It's a long time before the next election, God help us.

So we congratulate ourselves on a win. Right where we were before Sandyhook. Actually, from the sales data there are actually more guns out there now, and more to come with all the back orders.
Except, that the guns and ammo are now much more expensive.
And the kids are still dead and the live ones are no safer.

Banning violent video games to reduce Sandy Hook-style rampages would do more to keep people alive.

Banning guns a la DiFi's bill is as impractical as banning cars to keep kids safe.

Why don't you libs concentrate on saving the millions of kids killed in car wrecks instead of trying to disarm an entire free society because of isolated instances where insane scumbags play Call of Duty with live ammo? :munchin

Exactly. Where is the liberals' righteous indignation over these senseless murders?

Shop of Horrors...

Senseless murders of innocents indeed...don't hear any liberals arguing in Congress for tighter controls and more restrictions on abortion...

So honestly, liberals, until you get your own house in order, go f__k yourself over trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights...

See post #248

Dusty,
First, nothing wrong with being liberal on some subjects, this country was founded by Liberals.
Second, I'm still looking for the people or legislation that is trying to disarm our entire free society. Where are they and who are they? I want to know.
I'm with you, I just want to regulate the insane scumbags who play Call of Duty with guns and live ammo. i think most of those calling for some improvements to our gun laws feel the same way.

As for your comment of auto fatalities, regulation was very unpopular when it was called for initially in the 50's and 60. Regulation over the years has drastically reduced fatalities.

Next time you get in your car look around.
Do you have a driver's license? Mandatory personal training and periodic qualification
Licence and registration? annual licensing and registration of vehicle
Minimum insurance? you are responsible for the damage by you and or your car
Auto emission check? vehicle serviceability and safety check
One way sign? restrictions on where cars can and cannot go
Toll booths? limited access
Speed limit signs? restrictions on how cars can be used
Taxes on gasoline? pays for roads
Highway Patrol and other types of police? Random and ever present enforcement of existing regulations covering drivers and vehicles at state, county, community levels
Meter maids fair use of temporary storage
Seat belt? mandatory driver safety equipment
Highway emergency call boxes (not so much anymore but) in place services and recognition that driving is inherently dangerous
National Highway Safety Board, Department of Transportation? Federal regulation
Formula One racers? we're not allowed to drive anything we want

Need more?

^ All of that...not in the Constitution as a right that shall not be infringed.

Also "I'm still looking for the people or legislation that is trying to disarm our entire free society. Where are they and who are they? I want to know. "
Have you read the bill DiFi submitted???

I knew your first point was coming. And I do not dispute the wording. It is what it is. Whether the word choice is open to interpretation is what the discussion focuses on.

My point in addressing our Brothers argument about regulating cars is that it doesn't contribute IMO.

It absolutely contributes, especially when the "advertising" of the necessity of the law(s) is that it/they will save "at least one life". If you hang your hat on a point, you better be ready to defend that point, and the dems have completely failed in this "saving lives" propaganda.

The real irony here is that if we're truly ascribing to a liberal philosophy, then I would expect that the cry would be for harsher penalties on specific actions, such as using a gun in the commission of a crime, rather than an attack that infringes on a guaranteed personal freedom.

You don't like the choice of the number "one"?

Would you prefer 2,947? That's the number of children and teens who died from gunfire in 2008.
Or maybe 2,793? That's the number of children who died from gunfire in 2009.
How about 3,625? That is the peak number of child homicides committed in 1993.
Maybe 13,791? that is the number of children and teens who were injured by gunfire in 2009.
I have one more, 20,596. Thats the decade high (2000-2010) the number of kids injured by gunfire in 2008.

I think even the most ardent gun rights advocate finds these numbers alarming.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/...s-new-gun-laws

I'm looking for a similar study detailing children who die in traffic. Still looking but found this one. its worth a read if just to remind you when not to drive or take to the sidewalks. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

Restricting responsible gun owners' right to own what they need to to fight an oppressive government is not the answer.

Disappointing how most of those children were killed in gun free zones like Chicago, Detroit and Wash D.C.

Dozer523, let's keep this on point, gun control by the liberals is stupid and it does not work.

Team Sergeant, if the point is that Liberals' efforts to contain, much less prevent gun related fatalities among children are a failure; I will concede that point.
So what is the non-Liberal plan and how is it doing when measured against gun-related fatalities /injuries among kids? (Just kids, as far as I'm concerned all adults are on their own.)

2,136 was the total of children killed in motorized vehicles in 2003. And none of them were driving. Sorry, not as current as I'd like. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf

If laws against murder fail to stop murderers, why would one think that laws restricting personal property will help.

The different approach is for all to be well armed, just as you are when sent somewhere dangerous.

Mutual Assured Destruction seemed to work out......

Dozer, I would think that those numbers would be higher as there are more than 1.4 million Outlaw Gang Members and more than 33,000 Outlaw Gangs running around here in the US. Gangs are a problem in most every major population centers. We should address the mental illness and criminals running free. Mental illness is a major problem with the attacks we have seen but most folks want to sweep it under the rug to hide it. In my opinion, all murderers that use weapons should be executed within one year of conviction. Other criminal acts with weapons involved, add 10 years to the sentence, no chance of parole. If the sentence has true teeth there is less likely of transgressions.

In my opinion, guns in the hands of RESPONSIBLE citizens is a crime deterrent.

2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...eat-assessment

Dozer,

Just a little more perspective on those stats:

In 2003, there were more than 60 million children under 15 years old in the
United States. This age group (0-14 years) made up 21 percent of the total U.S.
resident population in 2003.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age
from 2 to 14 years old (based on 2001 figures, which are the latest mortality data
currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics).

In 2003, there were a total of 42,643 traffic fatalities in the United States. The 0-14
age group accounted for 5 percent (2,136) of those traffic fatalities. In addition,
children under 15 years old accounted for 4 percent (1,591) of all vehicle occupant
fatalities, 9 percent (253,000) of all the people injured in motor vehicle crashes,
and 8 percent (220,000) of all the vehicle occupants injured in crashes.

In the United States, an average of 6 children 0-14 years old were killed and 694
were injured every day in motor vehicle crashes during 2003.

In the 0-14 year age group, males accounted for 59 percent of the fatalities and 50
percent of those injured in motor vehicle crashes during 2003.

From: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf

This, compared to the over 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually. How many children might have been saved out of that 2.5 million?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

As far as "non-liberal" plans for protecting the 2A and all our citizens (including children) go...IMO there's a pretty good one in the OP...18 pages back. Just sayin'...

DISREGARD
 

Dozer, I understand your second point and would respectfully submit that your second applies to your first!

A not so recent article - but one that IMO contains a number of interesting and helpful observations regarding interpretation of the 2A.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

by Nelson Lund, J.D., Ph.D.

©2002 by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, Potomac Falls, Virginia, No. 7, June 2002

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - The Second Amendment

"The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong."

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pub...n_const.php#c2

This thread WAS getting kind of boring. :p

"For The Sake Of The Children" ...or other such prattle.

:munchin

Maryland Woolard case Reversed by 4th Circuit
 

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...ard_revers.php

Woollard reversed
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 21 MARCH 2013 10:04 AM
Just in. The District Court had sticken Maryland's "shall issue" carry permit system. The Fourth Circuit reverses, finding that it passes intermediate scrutiny. Another one bound for the Supreme Court.

See attachment

Newly released Congressional Research Service informational report.

Richard :munchin

Public Mass Shootings in the United States:
Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy
CRS, 18 mAR 2013 (attchd pdf)

Summary

This report focuses on mass shootings and selected implications they have for federal policy in the areas of public health and safety. While such crimes most directly impact particular citizens in very specific communities, addressing these violent episodes involves officials at all levels of government and professionals from numerous disciplines.

This report does not discuss gun control and does not systematically address the broader issue of gun violence. Also, it is not intended as an exhaustive review of federal programs addressing the issue of mass shootings.

Defining Public Mass Shooting

Policy makers may confront numerous questions about shootings such as the December 2012 incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, that claimed 27 lives (not including the shooter). Foremost, what are the parameters of this threat? How should it be defined? There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end—the gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example.

One Measure of the Death Toll Exacted by Public Mass Shootings. Applying this understanding of the issue, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has identified 78 public mass shootings that have occurred in the United States since 1983. This suggests the scale of this threat and is intended as a thorough review of the phenomenon but should not be characterized as exhaustive or definitive. According to CRS estimates, over the last three decades public mass shootings have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims. Significantly, while tragic and shocking, public mass shootings account for few of the murders or non-negligent homicides related to firearms that occur annually in the United States.

Policymaking Challenges in Public Health and Safety

Aside from trying to develop a sense of this phenomenon’s scope, policy makers may face other challenges when addressing this topic. To help describe some of the health and safety issues public mass shootings pose, this report discusses selected policy in three areas: law enforcement, public health, and education. While mass shootings may occur in a number of settings, the education realm is one that has received particular attention from policy makers, officials, and the public alike—at least since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary has renewed such concerns for many.

In the areas of law enforcement, public health, and education, this report discusses some key efforts to prevent mass shootings as well as efforts geared toward preparedness and response.

Policy measures that deal with recovery are also discussed within the context of education and public health initiatives.

Policy Effectiveness and Outlay of Resources.

Many of the policymaking challenges regarding public mass shootings boil down to two interrelated matters: (1) a need to determine the effectiveness of existing programs and (2) figuring out where to disburse limited resources.

Finally, baseline metrics related to this problem are often unclear or unavailable. This lack of clarity starts with identifying the number of shootings themselves, since no broadly agreed-to definition exists. Several questions flow from this issue. How many people have such incidents victimized? How much does prevention of, preparedness for, and response to such incidents cost the federal government? What measurements can be used to determine the effectiveness of such programs?

I think this Army Officer does a good job of poignantly laying out some of the dilemma of the issue as many Americans might see it today.

Richard :munchin

Fort Hood, Sandy Hook and Powerlessness
JessicaScott, 21 Mar 2013

I hope I don’t offend a lot of people off with this post. It is not my intent. I’ve been wanting to write about a lot of things that have been happening lately but I’ve found that when I sit down to write, the right words don’t come to me.

So I realize that writing about Sandy Hook almost 6 months later is probably, well, behind the times. But I’ve finally figured out what I want to say, so here goes.

I want to explain why I – as a gun owner – am deeply conflicted about what to do. I want a common sense solution – one that keeps our children safe while still allowing access to the fundamental right that so many of us hold dear. I grew up around guns. I’m a soldier, so I’m comfortable around guns. When I deployed to Iraq, I had my weapon on me at all times. I remember coming home and looking for it in blind panic at one point, only remember that no, I’m not in Iraq any more. Not a PTSD flashback but an oh my God where did I leave my weapon sinking heart feeling.

I want to tell you two stories.

The Aftermath of Fort Hood

I came home from Iraq a month after the Fort Hood shootings, when one of our own wearing our rank and our uniforms walked into a building full of unarmed soldiers and civilians and started shooting. He did it to prove a point – he wanted to target soldiers in his war against us.

So when I came back to Fort Hood with my little girls – who were six and four at the time, it was to enroll my oldest in kindergarten. She had started her school years in the same elementary school that I’d attended as a little girl. There were maybe 50 kids in that whole school. It’s the kind of school where the kids you start with will probably be the kids you graduate with years later. It was small. It was, in my mind, safe.

Then we rolled up to my daughter’s new school. It was massive. There were 700 elementary school kids racing through the halls. Fourth graders who looked like giants next to my little girl.

But I asked about security. How did they keep people out? Did they have active shooter drills? They answered yes to all of those questions and I – with my husband’s hand on my shoulder – had to release my six year old into an unfamiliar school filled with strange, big children and pray that no one would target a school full of military kids to wage a war against our soldiers’ families.

Helplessness in Command

My second story takes place a very short time before I left company command. A company commander has a lot of power and influence. I promise you there is no job out there that gives me more access to medical information, police records. I can know almost everything about you. I am charged by my directives to use that power for good and to never abuse it.

But part of that power comes the massive responsibility to ensure that our soldiers are mentally and medically prepared to go to war. So when a soldier comes to one of our NCOs and says, I’m hearing a voice and it’s telling me I may have to kill my family, we’re going to the hospital.

A few short weeks after Sandy Hook, I found myself sitting in the doctors office, having a conversation about how do we keep The Voice from getting angry. What can we do to ensure the Voice stays benevolent and doesn’t keep the soldier awake at night. Or doesn’t keep talking to him at all.

You may or may not believe in demons but let me tell you, that was some really terrifying stuff. And demons or psychiatric illness, the end result is no less terrifying.

But in the aftermath of that conversation, when we decided on the evaluations they would run and no, they wouldn’t allow the soldier out of the hospital until the medication was working correctly, I had an argument with my father. He was complaining about a gun show being cancelled after Sandy Hook.

And I lost my mind. Because no matter how much authority I have a company commander, there was NOTHING I could do that would prevent that soldier from getting out of the hospital, driving himself off post and buying as many guns as he wanted. I couldn’t legally restrict him to post. I couldn’t bar him from buying/owning weapons. All I could do was keep him from firing the government weapons in my arms room.

The utter and complete powerlessness that I felt in that moment sticks with me and it colors how I see gun control.

We say oh, we can’t stop the crazies. We should all be responsible. We should, we should, we should.

But should is a four letter word in my world. It doesn’t describe how things are. I don’t want the fear that one of the violent, sociopathic, super-deviants out there who are idolizing the Aurora killer or the Sandy Hook killer to be able to get their hands on weapons. Because those people are out there. They want to up the score to the next level. Don’t believe me? Go look it up. There may be thousands of them with a sick desire to outdo Lanza.

As we see again and again, it only takes one.

I don’t know what right looks like when it comes to gun control. I certainly don’t want it to be arbitrarily enforced. I don’t want veterans afraid to seek mental health because they’re terrified of losing their right to bear arms. But if someone is unbalanced enough that they can’t care for themselves, do we really want to give them access to weapons?

But something – some rational middle ground has got to be found. Surely in the greatest nation on earth we can come up with something that makes sense? We the people. Not the corporations or their lobbyist pawns.

Us. The fabric that holds this great nation together.

Can’t we?

Why do human beings always think they have to control everything? There are a million threats in everyday life that one can feel "powerless" to control. Car accidents, heart attacks, you name it. Why the mental gyrations over "common sense" gun control but not other possibilities?

The only "common sense" gun control I would be willing to debate is the purchase/ownership of surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons, grenades, etc.

"We Should"

We often discuss what we should do and never the consequences of such actions. In spite of all the laws we pass - do we really ever make things any better?