April 30, 2013
Here's a longer opinion article than I usually post but it's pretty well written and I found it worth reading.
It's main point: no one needs a so-called "assault weapon", but that's NOT the point.
http://news.rtba.co/the-truth-about-assault-weapons/
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Illinois Lawful Carry of Firearms Gets Closer
April 30, 2013
Legal carrying of firearms in Illinois is getting closer. It's time people's constitutional rights there were restored after decades of infringement. In the immortal words of Rafiki, "It is time." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olLxrojmvMg) Illinois is the only state in our nation that does not allow lawful carrying of firearms. And its host to the murder capitol of our country, Chicago.
I agree with the article's author. Enough with making deals. It's time to press the advantage and re-take the rights without making it so burdensome that those otherwise inclined to exercise them won't or won't be able to.
http://news.rtba.co/illinois-gun-laws/
===
May 2, 2013
But the fight even in Illinois is far from over. Gun control advocates there including the Governor, Attorney General and others are doing everything possible to keep firearms carrying as illegal or as restrictive as possible.
In addition to this article, I just watched a video segment on Hannity showing an outraged Republican representative yelling at the gun control Democrats for dirty politics in trying to slip in undebated gun control into a piece of legislation. The vote for it failed but it was only after significant political fireworks.
http://www.examiner.com/article/illinois-ag-madigan-wants-more-time-to-decide-how-to-keep-citizens-defenseless
===
May 16, 2013
The Illinois legislature continues its antics in every desperate way they can think of to continue trampling on the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens.
Here, among other things, they're trying to allow concealed carry in the majority of the state but exclude Chicago and its parent Cook County which includes 40% of state residents. We all know Chicago is the murder capital of our country with over 500 murders in 2012. Apparently Illinois lawmakers think it's okay for the criminals to maintain their reign of terror there and feel so strongly about it that they're enabling murderers by ensuring they're the only ones carrying guns and, in many cases, the only ones that even possess guns since the imposed fees and processes for firearms licensing and registration are, by design, overly burdensome, expensive, restrictive and slow.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/illinois-senate-skirts-right-to-carry-mandate-by-contemplating-vote-on-severely-flawed-bills-this-week.aspx
Can you imagine how the collective heads of the gun control crowd would explode if concealed carry were finally granted in Chicago and there was a directly correlated reduction in violent crime? They couldn't avoid the correlation but I'm sure they'd never acknowledge it as cause and effect - they'd insist it was due to other factors like some nonsensical crackdown on criminals or something. They just can't see that if criminals are shot, or especially if they're killed, in the process of committing their crimes that that 'prevents' all the future crimes they would have committed. It's almost criminal that they can't see the logic in that, or that they're trying to protect the lives of criminals, when they try to use a similar line of argument in thinking that if they can reduce the number of guns in circulation that the related crime will dissipate. The flaw, of course, is that the gun supply they'd affect is from law abiding people, not criminals, and the innocent would remain at risk of victimization up to and including loss of life.
===
May 17, 2013
Gun control advocating lawmakers in Illinois have put together a VERY restrictive piece of legislation that would allow (sort of) concealed carry in the state. It has a minimum of two sets of rules and costs - one for Chicago and one for the rest of the state - but there's a provision for other municipalities to made amendments to where firearms cannot be carried within their borders. The current list of prohibited areas includes "a wide array of places, including trains, buses, bars, hospitals, schools, casinos and private businesses that choose to prohibit weapons. The bill also would provide larger cities with a six-month window of opportunity to designate additional locations where guns would be banned." There's also mention that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants prohibitions in Chicago to include "public transit or at Wrigley Field, concerts and places like the proposed new stadium near McCormick Place for DePaul University's basketball team".
There are other restrictions too. It's clear this is an attempt by the gun control crowd to comply with the 7th US Circuit Court order to the minimum degree and make it as restrictive as they can - a clear "infringement" on 2nd Amendment rights.
Illinois has 2 weeks remaining in their legislative session and 3 weeks before they violate the 7th US Circuit Court's order. The bill may pass in the Senate soon but will have significant resistance in the House. State Attorney General Lisa Madigan hasn't yet decided whether to appeal the 7th US Circuit Court's decision. Time is very short.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-concealed-carry-0517-20130517,0,1062260,full.story
===
May 25, 2013
Another step forward for Illinois citizens' 2nd Amendment rights but still with some troubling provisions. This Illinois Assembly plan is better than the Senate plan in a couple key ways but still has some significant restrictions in it that should be opposed by any person truly supportive of 2nd Amendment rights. Of course the gun control supporting politicians hate it.
"But its obliteration of all local gun laws, including Chicago's ban on assault-style weapons, drew immediate resistance from Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat like Madigan. Quinn said the proposal endangers the public by pre-empting local gun laws, which have nothing to do with concealed carry, the only subject covered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decree.
Senate President John Cullerton, another Democrat from Chicago, called the pre-emption provision "offensive." "
Apparently Governor Quinn is much more satisfied and comfortable with local laws that support his anti-gun stance and put law abiding citizens of his state in jeopardy of criminal conviction simply by moving from place to place within the state. Do you think he and others with the idea that state preemption of guns laws is "offensive" believe the same about other laws? Should individual communities in Illinois be free to make up their own laws that run counter to other state laws? Or is it only okay in the case of laws restricting the constitutionally provided right to "keep and BEAR arms"? Hypocrisy at its best!
"In fact, with 220 so-called "home-rule" communities — generally larger cities such as Chicago, Peoria, Bloomington and Springfield which are free from state oversight on many local policy decisions — Madigan said there could be just as many different gun standards if there's no statewide standard.
Imagine if traffic laws changed 220 times within the same state. How could anyone navigate them safely - without risk of being ticketed, fined, arrested, convicted or jailed? We're not talking about the speed limit here - we're talking about fundamental differences that could result in felony conviction, imprisonment and a life-long label as a criminal. Preposterous! Local restrictions MUST GO!
Likewise, some of these restrictions must go for the same reason.
"it significantly broadens the places that would be off-limits to guns, including all of the places Chicago officials requested, such as mass-transit buses and trains, parks and street festivals."
Really? Then how does a daily commuter in Chicago and elsewhere in the state exercise their right to "bear arms" if they cannot travel on mass-transit? How does a parent protect their children from criminals as they play in the local park, or a woman protect herself from rape? Have you seen the news about the recent shootings in New Orleans and, of course, the Boston Marathon Bombing? Parades and festivals are precisely where some criminals target innocent, vulnerable victims. But gun control advocates continue to ignore the obvious, the facts and the reality of what's happening in our society. They continue to insist on making citizens be victims of violence. And they insist on putting law abiding citizens in jeopardy of becoming convicted criminals for the 'crime' of wanting to exercise their constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" and to protect themselves, their families, their property and others. It's much easier to do that and show how tough they are on 'crime' rather than go after the real criminals and real crime. These restrictions will NOT prevent any criminal or intended criminal from carrying a firearm or any weapon of their choice any place they choose! Anyone arguing to the contrary is either a liar or, at best, naive.
Some good parts of the bill include:
"The Phelps bill would wipe out local regulations such as Chicago's assault-weapons ban, gun-purchase taxes and required reporting of lost and stolen guns. Rep. Christian Mitchell called it a "massive dismantling of local administration of gun safety."
That first paragraph is all good. As for the "opposite of small government" and "massive overreach" parts, those are laughable. Rarely do you hear a Democrat screaming about either - it's how they conduct their regular business. Again, the hypocrisy is only funny until you really think about it and then it turns sickening. "Dangerous"? What's dangerous is gun control advocates making victims of law abiding citizens! Crime heats up in summer? Is it a surprise that criminals, being human, are more active in warmer weather - just like everyone else. You know who else is more active in the summer? Victims and potential victims!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/25/illinois-lawmakers-approve-gun-plan-opposed-by-governor/
Don't think that violent crime can't happen to you. How do you think this woman felt when she did what she was supposed to do - she called 911 - and was told 'sorry, we can't help you'.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/05/23/911-dispatcher-tells-woman-about-to-be-sexually-assaulted-there-are-no-cops-to-help-her-due-to-budget-cuts/
So much for Mayor Michael Bloomberg's statement about the police being able to protect people. What a ridiculous and outrageous thing for anyone to say! What a lying thing to say! No, this didn't occur in New York City but does it matter? This is a reflection of what's happening all across our country. Police forces are being reduced as often as they're being increased. If police could adequately protect people then we wouldn't be having any of these discussions. There wouldn't be a murder capital or a violent crime problem to talk about.
===
June 1, 2013
2nd Amendment victory in Illinois? Yes! Finally! Could it be better? Yes! Maybe some day!
This short article from the Second Amendment Foundation speaks of "adoption by Illinois lawmakers of the state Firearm Concealed Carry Act" but it doesn't mention the governor's signature, so it may still be one step away.
A "“good step” toward bringing the Prairie State in line with the rest of the nation." Yes!
"It is a shame that this had to go right down to the wire." Yes!
"but the important thing is that Illinois citizens will now have a law that makes it possible for them to exercise their right to bear arms outside the home for personal protection" Yes!
"Under the new law, both residents and non-residents may apply for Illinois carry licenses. The new license will be valid for a period of five years...The new law has a 16-hour training requirement for new license applications, and a three-hour refresher for license renewals." Um, I may have to go download and complete an application after this post, or at least look at the 16-hour training requirement to see if I already meet it or not.
"This Act will give Illinois citizens a great opportunity to demonstrate to reluctant lawmakers that concealed carry can work as it has been working in other states,” Gottlieb observed. “A bright new day is dawning for the good people of Illinois who have waited patiently for years to see this happen." Yes and yes.
http://www.thegunmag.com/saf-lauds-illinois-lawmakers-on-ccw-bill-forced-by-landmark-lawsuit/
As long as Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy doesn't start executing lawful carrying citizens in the streets. Remember this quote? "I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms. People who are not highly trained … putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire, and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front." That's straight from Shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later-McCarthy.
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-moronic-statements-from-chicago.html
===
June 20, 2013
As mentioned in my previous post on this topic, the concealed carry bill is still lacking Illinois Governor Quinn's signature to make it law. In a typical anti-gun move, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan requested and was granted a second 30-day extension to 'decide' whether to appeal the federal court's 2012 ruling that's forcing Illinois to enact a concealed carry law. She's had several months to make this decision already. The excuse for this latest delay is that the Illinois legislature passed the proposed bill very late and didn't allow the attorney general's office time to review it and make their decision. But it's not like the AG didn't know there was something coming. It was making headlines for a long time! Just another excuse to delay and deny Illinois citizens their 2nd Amendment rights.
Governor Quinn is on a separate clock to decide to sign the bill. If he does then the appeal decision becomes moot. If he takes no action then it becomes law but they may still decide to appeal. If he vetoes the bill it'll go back to the legislature where the votes were enough to pass the bill into law anyway but it'd delay implementation that much more. An appeal will undoubtedly also cause a delay of more months. Illinois citizens have waited long enough to be able to exercise their constitutional rights!
What do you think will happen with this appeal and bill?
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x871007557/U-S-Supreme-Court-grants-Madigan-more-time-on-guns#axzz2WekvpNXV
===
June 29, 2013
Illinois gun control zealots just won't give up. The legislature there passed a very limiting bill through both houses that would allow some lawful concealed carry in Illinois, the only state in the nation that currently doesn't allow it. But according to this article, it's not yet restrictive enough, expensive enough, or difficult enough to jump through the hoops for those who would choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
The Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, says she expects Governor Pat Quinn to veto the legislation. It's important to note that the bill passed through the legislature with enough votes to override a veto. Quinn may have a more restrictive counter proposal though. It'll be interesting to see how the legislature responds. Regardless of that, this is yet another way to delay, delay, delay (translate that to deprive) citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/breaking-illinois-governor-quinn-likely-to-veto-conceal-carry-bill/
===
July 2, 2013
It's being reported that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, a well known anti-gun, gun control advocate, intends to use (abuse) his "amendatory veto authority" to add additional restrictions to the lawful concealed carry bill "including limiting the places where someone may carry, the number of cartridges someone can have in a defensive firearm and the level of concealment one must exercise, all in excess of the legislation passed by the State Legislature last month". That will send the bill back for another vote where it already received enough votes to override a veto.
Quinn clearly won't be happy with any lawful concealed carry in the state and is doing everything in his power to make it as restrictive as he possible can - effectively making it an empty law that will result in otherwise lawfully abiding citizens being arrested because of the tyrannical restrictions on their right to "bear arms".
http://www.thegunmag.com/il-gov-quinn-plays-emperor-with-citizens-civil-rights-says-ccrkba/
The Illinois chapter of the 1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, Illinois 2nd Amendment Moms, posted this on their Facebook page urging people to call their Illinois state legislators and get involved in demanding Illinois reject the additional measures and pass a lawful concealed carry bill, as ruled the federal circuit court has ruled must be provided.
This article has a few more of the details of Quinn's amendment veto. It's even worse than I realized! Almost unbelieveable!
http://www.examiner.com/article/ill-governor-quinn-sets-stage-for-ccw-confrontation
===
July 13, 2013
July 2013 was monumental for 2nd Amendment rights of Illinois citizens. Governor Pat Quinn did as expected and provided an "amendatory veto" of the already restrictive lawful concealed carry bill passed by the Illinois Assembly, attempting to make it even more restrictive and more effectively impossible to lawfully carry in the course of a normal person's day by adding bans in restaurants to those already in place for public transportation, parks, bars, etc. The Assembly, however, overrode the governor's amendments and veto and passed the law.
This is a big day for Illlinois and for the country as state citizens finally get to carry lawfully within the state, after undergoing an expensive and burdensome process, and the last state in the nation now has a lawful concealed carry option. That Chicago machine and muscle has been persistent in its opposition to citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Well they finally didn't get it quite their way as the rest of the more conservative state has gotten something pushed through with the aid of the federal circuit court's 2012 decision. There are lots of articles covering the event. Here are excerpts and links to a few.
"Quinn's proposed restrictions include a one-gun limit, not allowing guns in places that serve alcohol and not allowing guns in businesses unless the owner posts a sign saying guns are allowed. As sent to the governor, the bill prohibits guns in businesses where alcohol sales account for more than half of the receipts, and in places where the owner posts a sign prohibiting guns."
Quinn's proposal would have affected restaurants that serve alcohol, which is obviously inclusive of many, instead of being restricted to bars (alcohol sales account for more than half of the receipts) and his "unless the owner posts a sign saying guns are allowed" is exactly opposite how laws work elsewhere where lawful concealed carry is allowed unless owners post restrictions. Quinn knows that human nature would make those postings slow in coming or they wouldn't come at all because they'd require effort and money to implement. I'm thankful more conservative legislators saw through Quinn's scams.
http://www.bnd.com/2013/07/09/2687798/house-overrides-quinns-concealed.html
"The Second Amendment Foundation today congratulated Illinois lawmakers for “courageously overriding Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto” of concealed carry legislation, complying with a federal appeals court mandate that resulted from SAF’s successful civil rights lawsuit against the state’s prohibition on bearing arms for personal protection."
"When the exercise of a civil right is denied to a segment of the population, everyone suffers because a right that appears only on paper is not a right at all...While the new statute is not perfect, it is a huge step forward to comply with the Seventh Circuit Court’s ruling in Moore v. Madigan."
"The Second Amendment, affirmed as protective of an individual right by the U.S. Supreme Court, is not limited to the confines of one’s home or business,” Gottlieb observed. “There is not only a right to keep arms, but to bear them, and that most assuredly applies beyond someone’s doorstep.
“We welcome Illinois to the United States of America,” "
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=450
Although now law, actually carrying of firearms still won't be allowed because "The Illinois State Police would have six months to set up a system to start accepting applications. Spokeswoman Monique Bond said police expect 300,000 applications in the first year." That gives those estimated 300,000 people time to get through the as-yet-fully-determined process that will include "Firearm Owner's Identification card who has passed a background check and undergone gun-safety training of 16 hours -- longest of any state -- to obtain a concealed-carry permit for $150."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/09/illinois-becomes-last-state-in-nation-to-allow-concealed-carry/
Gun control advocating politicians are still towing the party line - that restrictive gun control laws will reduce gun violence, but not a single one can explain how adding more laws and more restrictive laws is going to affect people who are already criminals or who are intending criminal behavior. Were any of those shootings over the weekend done by people lawfully carrying firearms? No, because there wasn't any lawful carrying allowed by non-law enforcement, and yet they happened anyway. Does anyone really believe those shootings wouldn't have occurred if there were more restrictive laws? It's a ridiculous assertion that borders on ignorance or worse.
"The Illinois governor had tried to lobby for the passage of his significantly more restrictive version of the bill—citing a weekend of extreme gun violence in the city of Chicago where over 70 people were shot over the holiday weekend."
"If the full General Assembly overrides Quinn’s rewrite, gun owners will not be able to carry a concealed firearm without a valid concealed carry license issued by the Illinois State Police — a process that state police would have 180 days to develop. Possessing a valid Firearms Owner Identification Card, or FOID card, is not sufficient on its own to carry a concealed firearm, state police say.
The cost for the new concealed carry license would be $150 for five years for Illinois residents, under the legislation. Applicants also would have to complete 16 hours of firearms training, including classroom and range instruction, to qualify. The legislation gives the state police 60 days to license firearm instructors and training courses, which the agency said it will place on its website, www.isp.state.il.us."
"The bill isn’t perfect, admittedly. There are numerous issues such as expensive and time consuming training requirements, off limits locations, and a stripped down version of state preemption which was present in earlier versions of the bill. But at least it’s a start for Illinois citizens who cannot carry outside their homes and will finally be able to when Governor Quinn’s amendment falters."
http://bearingarms.com/breaking-illinois-general-assembly-votes-to-override-governors-veto-of-concealed-carry-bill/
"Quinn had issued a blanket criticism of lawmakers — including gun control allies who supported the bill — as "genuflecting" to the National Rifle Association. Following the vote, he defended his efforts to work with lawmakers but said the General Assembly had "surrendered" to the NRA."
Right, it's all about the big, bad NRA. It's not like it has anything to do with the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the Federal 7th Circuit Court, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), or the desires of millions of people to exercise their rights. Again, ridiculous! Outrageous.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-illinois-concealed-carry,0,4356935.story
In an interesting turn of events, Tazewell County, Illinois decided in June, ahead of the final law being decided for the state, to allow concealed carry within the county. This 6:10 video is an interview with State's Attorney Stewart Umholtz. Umholtz will not prosecute what he believes to be an unconstitutional law per the Supreme Court's position on citizens' rights to "bear arms".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MurD_aKdonk
Here's another detailed article about Governor Quinn's proposed amendments that includes one or two details not covered in the other articles. One of them is the provision for out of state concealed carry licenses. They will be allowed - for double the price - $300 for 5 years.
http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carry-for-chicago/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/illinois-lawful-carry-of-firearms-gets.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
Legal carrying of firearms in Illinois is getting closer. It's time people's constitutional rights there were restored after decades of infringement. In the immortal words of Rafiki, "It is time." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olLxrojmvMg) Illinois is the only state in our nation that does not allow lawful carrying of firearms. And its host to the murder capitol of our country, Chicago.
I agree with the article's author. Enough with making deals. It's time to press the advantage and re-take the rights without making it so burdensome that those otherwise inclined to exercise them won't or won't be able to.
http://news.rtba.co/illinois-gun-laws/
===
May 2, 2013
But the fight even in Illinois is far from over. Gun control advocates there including the Governor, Attorney General and others are doing everything possible to keep firearms carrying as illegal or as restrictive as possible.
In addition to this article, I just watched a video segment on Hannity showing an outraged Republican representative yelling at the gun control Democrats for dirty politics in trying to slip in undebated gun control into a piece of legislation. The vote for it failed but it was only after significant political fireworks.
http://www.examiner.com/article/illinois-ag-madigan-wants-more-time-to-decide-how-to-keep-citizens-defenseless
===
May 16, 2013
The Illinois legislature continues its antics in every desperate way they can think of to continue trampling on the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens.
Here, among other things, they're trying to allow concealed carry in the majority of the state but exclude Chicago and its parent Cook County which includes 40% of state residents. We all know Chicago is the murder capital of our country with over 500 murders in 2012. Apparently Illinois lawmakers think it's okay for the criminals to maintain their reign of terror there and feel so strongly about it that they're enabling murderers by ensuring they're the only ones carrying guns and, in many cases, the only ones that even possess guns since the imposed fees and processes for firearms licensing and registration are, by design, overly burdensome, expensive, restrictive and slow.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/illinois-senate-skirts-right-to-carry-mandate-by-contemplating-vote-on-severely-flawed-bills-this-week.aspx
Can you imagine how the collective heads of the gun control crowd would explode if concealed carry were finally granted in Chicago and there was a directly correlated reduction in violent crime? They couldn't avoid the correlation but I'm sure they'd never acknowledge it as cause and effect - they'd insist it was due to other factors like some nonsensical crackdown on criminals or something. They just can't see that if criminals are shot, or especially if they're killed, in the process of committing their crimes that that 'prevents' all the future crimes they would have committed. It's almost criminal that they can't see the logic in that, or that they're trying to protect the lives of criminals, when they try to use a similar line of argument in thinking that if they can reduce the number of guns in circulation that the related crime will dissipate. The flaw, of course, is that the gun supply they'd affect is from law abiding people, not criminals, and the innocent would remain at risk of victimization up to and including loss of life.
===
May 17, 2013
Gun control advocating lawmakers in Illinois have put together a VERY restrictive piece of legislation that would allow (sort of) concealed carry in the state. It has a minimum of two sets of rules and costs - one for Chicago and one for the rest of the state - but there's a provision for other municipalities to made amendments to where firearms cannot be carried within their borders. The current list of prohibited areas includes "a wide array of places, including trains, buses, bars, hospitals, schools, casinos and private businesses that choose to prohibit weapons. The bill also would provide larger cities with a six-month window of opportunity to designate additional locations where guns would be banned." There's also mention that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants prohibitions in Chicago to include "public transit or at Wrigley Field, concerts and places like the proposed new stadium near McCormick Place for DePaul University's basketball team".
There are other restrictions too. It's clear this is an attempt by the gun control crowd to comply with the 7th US Circuit Court order to the minimum degree and make it as restrictive as they can - a clear "infringement" on 2nd Amendment rights.
Illinois has 2 weeks remaining in their legislative session and 3 weeks before they violate the 7th US Circuit Court's order. The bill may pass in the Senate soon but will have significant resistance in the House. State Attorney General Lisa Madigan hasn't yet decided whether to appeal the 7th US Circuit Court's decision. Time is very short.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-concealed-carry-0517-20130517,0,1062260,full.story
===
May 25, 2013
Another step forward for Illinois citizens' 2nd Amendment rights but still with some troubling provisions. This Illinois Assembly plan is better than the Senate plan in a couple key ways but still has some significant restrictions in it that should be opposed by any person truly supportive of 2nd Amendment rights. Of course the gun control supporting politicians hate it.
"But its obliteration of all local gun laws, including Chicago's ban on assault-style weapons, drew immediate resistance from Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat like Madigan. Quinn said the proposal endangers the public by pre-empting local gun laws, which have nothing to do with concealed carry, the only subject covered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decree.
"We need strong gun-safety laws that protect the people of our state. Instead, this measure puts public safety at risk," Quinn said in a prepared statement.
Apparently Governor Quinn is much more satisfied and comfortable with local laws that support his anti-gun stance and put law abiding citizens of his state in jeopardy of criminal conviction simply by moving from place to place within the state. Do you think he and others with the idea that state preemption of guns laws is "offensive" believe the same about other laws? Should individual communities in Illinois be free to make up their own laws that run counter to other state laws? Or is it only okay in the case of laws restricting the constitutionally provided right to "keep and BEAR arms"? Hypocrisy at its best!
"In fact, with 220 so-called "home-rule" communities — generally larger cities such as Chicago, Peoria, Bloomington and Springfield which are free from state oversight on many local policy decisions — Madigan said there could be just as many different gun standards if there's no statewide standard.
"As people attempted to move about the state, they would contemplate the possibility that there would be a change in the rules up to 220 times," Madigan said."
Imagine if traffic laws changed 220 times within the same state. How could anyone navigate them safely - without risk of being ticketed, fined, arrested, convicted or jailed? We're not talking about the speed limit here - we're talking about fundamental differences that could result in felony conviction, imprisonment and a life-long label as a criminal. Preposterous! Local restrictions MUST GO!
Likewise, some of these restrictions must go for the same reason.
"it significantly broadens the places that would be off-limits to guns, including all of the places Chicago officials requested, such as mass-transit buses and trains, parks and street festivals."
Really? Then how does a daily commuter in Chicago and elsewhere in the state exercise their right to "bear arms" if they cannot travel on mass-transit? How does a parent protect their children from criminals as they play in the local park, or a woman protect herself from rape? Have you seen the news about the recent shootings in New Orleans and, of course, the Boston Marathon Bombing? Parades and festivals are precisely where some criminals target innocent, vulnerable victims. But gun control advocates continue to ignore the obvious, the facts and the reality of what's happening in our society. They continue to insist on making citizens be victims of violence. And they insist on putting law abiding citizens in jeopardy of becoming convicted criminals for the 'crime' of wanting to exercise their constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" and to protect themselves, their families, their property and others. It's much easier to do that and show how tough they are on 'crime' rather than go after the real criminals and real crime. These restrictions will NOT prevent any criminal or intended criminal from carrying a firearm or any weapon of their choice any place they choose! Anyone arguing to the contrary is either a liar or, at best, naive.
Some good parts of the bill include:
"The Phelps bill would wipe out local regulations such as Chicago's assault-weapons ban, gun-purchase taxes and required reporting of lost and stolen guns. Rep. Christian Mitchell called it a "massive dismantling of local administration of gun safety."
"It is the opposite of small government," Mitchell said. "This bill is massive overreach, it is dangerous, it is right in time for summer" when crime heats up."
That first paragraph is all good. As for the "opposite of small government" and "massive overreach" parts, those are laughable. Rarely do you hear a Democrat screaming about either - it's how they conduct their regular business. Again, the hypocrisy is only funny until you really think about it and then it turns sickening. "Dangerous"? What's dangerous is gun control advocates making victims of law abiding citizens! Crime heats up in summer? Is it a surprise that criminals, being human, are more active in warmer weather - just like everyone else. You know who else is more active in the summer? Victims and potential victims!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/25/illinois-lawmakers-approve-gun-plan-opposed-by-governor/
Don't think that violent crime can't happen to you. How do you think this woman felt when she did what she was supposed to do - she called 911 - and was told 'sorry, we can't help you'.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/05/23/911-dispatcher-tells-woman-about-to-be-sexually-assaulted-there-are-no-cops-to-help-her-due-to-budget-cuts/
So much for Mayor Michael Bloomberg's statement about the police being able to protect people. What a ridiculous and outrageous thing for anyone to say! What a lying thing to say! No, this didn't occur in New York City but does it matter? This is a reflection of what's happening all across our country. Police forces are being reduced as often as they're being increased. If police could adequately protect people then we wouldn't be having any of these discussions. There wouldn't be a murder capital or a violent crime problem to talk about.
===
June 1, 2013
2nd Amendment victory in Illinois? Yes! Finally! Could it be better? Yes! Maybe some day!
This short article from the Second Amendment Foundation speaks of "adoption by Illinois lawmakers of the state Firearm Concealed Carry Act" but it doesn't mention the governor's signature, so it may still be one step away.
A "“good step” toward bringing the Prairie State in line with the rest of the nation." Yes!
"It is a shame that this had to go right down to the wire." Yes!
"but the important thing is that Illinois citizens will now have a law that makes it possible for them to exercise their right to bear arms outside the home for personal protection" Yes!
"Under the new law, both residents and non-residents may apply for Illinois carry licenses. The new license will be valid for a period of five years...The new law has a 16-hour training requirement for new license applications, and a three-hour refresher for license renewals." Um, I may have to go download and complete an application after this post, or at least look at the 16-hour training requirement to see if I already meet it or not.
"This Act will give Illinois citizens a great opportunity to demonstrate to reluctant lawmakers that concealed carry can work as it has been working in other states,” Gottlieb observed. “A bright new day is dawning for the good people of Illinois who have waited patiently for years to see this happen." Yes and yes.
http://www.thegunmag.com/saf-lauds-illinois-lawmakers-on-ccw-bill-forced-by-landmark-lawsuit/
As long as Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy doesn't start executing lawful carrying citizens in the streets. Remember this quote? "I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms. People who are not highly trained … putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire, and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front." That's straight from Shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later-McCarthy.
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-moronic-statements-from-chicago.html
===
June 20, 2013
As mentioned in my previous post on this topic, the concealed carry bill is still lacking Illinois Governor Quinn's signature to make it law. In a typical anti-gun move, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan requested and was granted a second 30-day extension to 'decide' whether to appeal the federal court's 2012 ruling that's forcing Illinois to enact a concealed carry law. She's had several months to make this decision already. The excuse for this latest delay is that the Illinois legislature passed the proposed bill very late and didn't allow the attorney general's office time to review it and make their decision. But it's not like the AG didn't know there was something coming. It was making headlines for a long time! Just another excuse to delay and deny Illinois citizens their 2nd Amendment rights.
Governor Quinn is on a separate clock to decide to sign the bill. If he does then the appeal decision becomes moot. If he takes no action then it becomes law but they may still decide to appeal. If he vetoes the bill it'll go back to the legislature where the votes were enough to pass the bill into law anyway but it'd delay implementation that much more. An appeal will undoubtedly also cause a delay of more months. Illinois citizens have waited long enough to be able to exercise their constitutional rights!
What do you think will happen with this appeal and bill?
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x871007557/U-S-Supreme-Court-grants-Madigan-more-time-on-guns#axzz2WekvpNXV
===
June 29, 2013
Illinois gun control zealots just won't give up. The legislature there passed a very limiting bill through both houses that would allow some lawful concealed carry in Illinois, the only state in the nation that currently doesn't allow it. But according to this article, it's not yet restrictive enough, expensive enough, or difficult enough to jump through the hoops for those who would choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
The Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, says she expects Governor Pat Quinn to veto the legislation. It's important to note that the bill passed through the legislature with enough votes to override a veto. Quinn may have a more restrictive counter proposal though. It'll be interesting to see how the legislature responds. Regardless of that, this is yet another way to delay, delay, delay (translate that to deprive) citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/breaking-illinois-governor-quinn-likely-to-veto-conceal-carry-bill/
===
July 2, 2013
It's being reported that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, a well known anti-gun, gun control advocate, intends to use (abuse) his "amendatory veto authority" to add additional restrictions to the lawful concealed carry bill "including limiting the places where someone may carry, the number of cartridges someone can have in a defensive firearm and the level of concealment one must exercise, all in excess of the legislation passed by the State Legislature last month". That will send the bill back for another vote where it already received enough votes to override a veto.
Quinn clearly won't be happy with any lawful concealed carry in the state and is doing everything in his power to make it as restrictive as he possible can - effectively making it an empty law that will result in otherwise lawfully abiding citizens being arrested because of the tyrannical restrictions on their right to "bear arms".
http://www.thegunmag.com/il-gov-quinn-plays-emperor-with-citizens-civil-rights-says-ccrkba/
The Illinois chapter of the 1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, Illinois 2nd Amendment Moms, posted this on their Facebook page urging people to call their Illinois state legislators and get involved in demanding Illinois reject the additional measures and pass a lawful concealed carry bill, as ruled the federal circuit court has ruled must be provided.
Illinois 2nd Amendment Moms/ IL Chapter of 1mmagc ·
This article has a few more of the details of Quinn's amendment veto. It's even worse than I realized! Almost unbelieveable!
http://www.examiner.com/article/ill-governor-quinn-sets-stage-for-ccw-confrontation
===
July 13, 2013
July 2013 was monumental for 2nd Amendment rights of Illinois citizens. Governor Pat Quinn did as expected and provided an "amendatory veto" of the already restrictive lawful concealed carry bill passed by the Illinois Assembly, attempting to make it even more restrictive and more effectively impossible to lawfully carry in the course of a normal person's day by adding bans in restaurants to those already in place for public transportation, parks, bars, etc. The Assembly, however, overrode the governor's amendments and veto and passed the law.
This is a big day for Illlinois and for the country as state citizens finally get to carry lawfully within the state, after undergoing an expensive and burdensome process, and the last state in the nation now has a lawful concealed carry option. That Chicago machine and muscle has been persistent in its opposition to citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Well they finally didn't get it quite their way as the rest of the more conservative state has gotten something pushed through with the aid of the federal circuit court's 2012 decision. There are lots of articles covering the event. Here are excerpts and links to a few.
"Quinn's proposed restrictions include a one-gun limit, not allowing guns in places that serve alcohol and not allowing guns in businesses unless the owner posts a sign saying guns are allowed. As sent to the governor, the bill prohibits guns in businesses where alcohol sales account for more than half of the receipts, and in places where the owner posts a sign prohibiting guns."
Quinn's proposal would have affected restaurants that serve alcohol, which is obviously inclusive of many, instead of being restricted to bars (alcohol sales account for more than half of the receipts) and his "unless the owner posts a sign saying guns are allowed" is exactly opposite how laws work elsewhere where lawful concealed carry is allowed unless owners post restrictions. Quinn knows that human nature would make those postings slow in coming or they wouldn't come at all because they'd require effort and money to implement. I'm thankful more conservative legislators saw through Quinn's scams.
http://www.bnd.com/2013/07/09/2687798/house-overrides-quinns-concealed.html
"The Second Amendment Foundation today congratulated Illinois lawmakers for “courageously overriding Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto” of concealed carry legislation, complying with a federal appeals court mandate that resulted from SAF’s successful civil rights lawsuit against the state’s prohibition on bearing arms for personal protection."
"When the exercise of a civil right is denied to a segment of the population, everyone suffers because a right that appears only on paper is not a right at all...While the new statute is not perfect, it is a huge step forward to comply with the Seventh Circuit Court’s ruling in Moore v. Madigan."
"The Second Amendment, affirmed as protective of an individual right by the U.S. Supreme Court, is not limited to the confines of one’s home or business,” Gottlieb observed. “There is not only a right to keep arms, but to bear them, and that most assuredly applies beyond someone’s doorstep.
"It is time for Illinois residents to join citizens in every other state,” "...They tried to transpose the Second Amendment from a fundamental civil right to a heavily-regulated privilege, and that is not what the court ruling allowed him to do.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=450
Although now law, actually carrying of firearms still won't be allowed because "The Illinois State Police would have six months to set up a system to start accepting applications. Spokeswoman Monique Bond said police expect 300,000 applications in the first year." That gives those estimated 300,000 people time to get through the as-yet-fully-determined process that will include "Firearm Owner's Identification card who has passed a background check and undergone gun-safety training of 16 hours -- longest of any state -- to obtain a concealed-carry permit for $150."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/09/illinois-becomes-last-state-in-nation-to-allow-concealed-carry/
Gun control advocating politicians are still towing the party line - that restrictive gun control laws will reduce gun violence, but not a single one can explain how adding more laws and more restrictive laws is going to affect people who are already criminals or who are intending criminal behavior. Were any of those shootings over the weekend done by people lawfully carrying firearms? No, because there wasn't any lawful carrying allowed by non-law enforcement, and yet they happened anyway. Does anyone really believe those shootings wouldn't have occurred if there were more restrictive laws? It's a ridiculous assertion that borders on ignorance or worse.
"The Illinois governor had tried to lobby for the passage of his significantly more restrictive version of the bill—citing a weekend of extreme gun violence in the city of Chicago where over 70 people were shot over the holiday weekend."
"If the full General Assembly overrides Quinn’s rewrite, gun owners will not be able to carry a concealed firearm without a valid concealed carry license issued by the Illinois State Police — a process that state police would have 180 days to develop. Possessing a valid Firearms Owner Identification Card, or FOID card, is not sufficient on its own to carry a concealed firearm, state police say.
The cost for the new concealed carry license would be $150 for five years for Illinois residents, under the legislation. Applicants also would have to complete 16 hours of firearms training, including classroom and range instruction, to qualify. The legislation gives the state police 60 days to license firearm instructors and training courses, which the agency said it will place on its website, www.isp.state.il.us."
"The bill isn’t perfect, admittedly. There are numerous issues such as expensive and time consuming training requirements, off limits locations, and a stripped down version of state preemption which was present in earlier versions of the bill. But at least it’s a start for Illinois citizens who cannot carry outside their homes and will finally be able to when Governor Quinn’s amendment falters."
http://bearingarms.com/breaking-illinois-general-assembly-votes-to-override-governors-veto-of-concealed-carry-bill/
"Quinn had issued a blanket criticism of lawmakers — including gun control allies who supported the bill — as "genuflecting" to the National Rifle Association. Following the vote, he defended his efforts to work with lawmakers but said the General Assembly had "surrendered" to the NRA."
Right, it's all about the big, bad NRA. It's not like it has anything to do with the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the Federal 7th Circuit Court, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), or the desires of millions of people to exercise their rights. Again, ridiculous! Outrageous.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-illinois-concealed-carry,0,4356935.story
In an interesting turn of events, Tazewell County, Illinois decided in June, ahead of the final law being decided for the state, to allow concealed carry within the county. This 6:10 video is an interview with State's Attorney Stewart Umholtz. Umholtz will not prosecute what he believes to be an unconstitutional law per the Supreme Court's position on citizens' rights to "bear arms".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MurD_aKdonk
Here's another detailed article about Governor Quinn's proposed amendments that includes one or two details not covered in the other articles. One of them is the provision for out of state concealed carry licenses. They will be allowed - for double the price - $300 for 5 years.
http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carry-for-chicago/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/illinois-lawful-carry-of-firearms-gets.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
Monday, April 29, 2013
Statistics Supporting Gun Rights
April 29, 2013
Here's a good ad board showing some of the statistics that favor gun rights. I recommend taking a peek and familiarizing yourself with them. The fight is not over in Washington D.C. or in the states. These will continue to be talked about.
The page may appear in miniaturized form. If you click on the graphic it expands to fit your browser.
http://www.itstactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/how_are_guns_used_by_citizensvia-infothread-dot-org.jpg
Here's a good ad board showing some of the statistics that favor gun rights. I recommend taking a peek and familiarizing yourself with them. The fight is not over in Washington D.C. or in the states. These will continue to be talked about.
The page may appear in miniaturized form. If you click on the graphic it expands to fit your browser.
http://www.itstactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/how_are_guns_used_by_citizensvia-infothread-dot-org.jpg
Companies with Negative Gun Policies
Restaurants:
Buffalo Wild Wings (BWW)
Entertainment:
Carmike Cinema
Retail Sales:
Dick's Sporting Goods
Internet:
Groupon
Financial Institutions:
GE Capital
Insurance Companies:
Continental Western Group (insurance)
EMC Insurance Companies
L&N Insurance Group of Temple, Texas
Wright Specialty Insurance
===
April 29, 2013
It looks like Dick's Sporting Goods didn't get the memo that outdoorsmen and outdoor industries support each other. That should have been plain after the outdoor show in Pennsylvania was cancelled last year after it banned so-called "assault weapons" from appearing at the show and many more than just firearms vendors immediately cancelled in response.
It's bad enough that a sporting goods store that historically has sold firearms has chosen to enter the debate by removing some of the most popular firearms from its shelves. But it's inexcusable that they cancelled the sales that had already been made and delivery was pending. Why would they ever regain customer confidence or support after a move like that?
This poor financial performance doesn't mean Dick's is going out of business. But we can hope.
There are many companies that have chosen to make similar decisions that don't support our 2nd Amendment rights. It's their right to do so, of course, but it's my right to not support them with my consumer dollars. I don't know all the companies that have done so or how to find them all. Ones I know include:
Buffalo Wild Wings (BWW)
Dick's Sporting Goods
Groupon
Dick's and Groupon changed their policies in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I believe BWW's ban on lawful concealed or open carry in their stores precedes Sandy Hook but it's basically a "gun free zone" policy which I firmly believe to be a terrible idea that creates "soft targets" and easy prey for those who want to do evil. It also forces lawful firearms owners to change their behavior. They have to choose between carrying their firearms where they're not allowed by the owner, or not carry when they otherwise would including the trip to and from the location and any other locations en route, or to leave their firearms in their cars which can make them more susceptible to theft.
For those who use the Apple app store, there's an app called GunFreeZone you may be interested in. It's not a complete database of where it's legal or illegal to carry a gun. I believe it's a crowdsourced database that allows consumer input. As a result there are lots of gaps in the data but at least it's something. I don't know if there are equivalents in other app stores.
I believe that eBay at one time allowed firearms sales through their site but that they made a business decision to stop that line of business many years ago. I have no problem with that decision. The difference? It wasn't reactionary and part of a national push for gun control and infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights. I'll continue to support eBay.
http://www.guns.com/2013/04/29/dicks-sales-stocks-drop-following-black-gun-ban/
===
June 5, 2013
Add the Carmike Cinema chain to the list of so-called "gun free zones". It worked so well in Aurora, where the killer avoided closer theaters that allowed lawful concealed carry of firearms and selected a so-called "gun free zone" for his killing field, that this theater company has decided to apply the same policy in the interest of 'public safety'. I recognize the right of a company to implement this policy. I also recognize that those that do are completely lacking in common sense or good judgment and contrary to their intent are actually endangering their customers.
They'll probably get away with this in terms of not contributing to any loss of life simply because the incidents of mass murder are statistically very low, although devastating when they do occur. If they do, it won't be because of their 'safe' policy. It will be because of the statistical odds they're gambling on.
http://www.ketknbc.com/news/carmike-cinemas-not-allowing-firearms-in-their-the
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/companies-with-negative-gun-policies.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Insurance Companies Take Sides in Gun Control Debate
Buffalo Wild Wings (BWW)
Entertainment:
Carmike Cinema
Retail Sales:
Dick's Sporting Goods
Internet:
Groupon
Financial Institutions:
GE Capital
Insurance Companies:
Continental Western Group (insurance)
EMC Insurance Companies
L&N Insurance Group of Temple, Texas
Wright Specialty Insurance
===
April 29, 2013
It looks like Dick's Sporting Goods didn't get the memo that outdoorsmen and outdoor industries support each other. That should have been plain after the outdoor show in Pennsylvania was cancelled last year after it banned so-called "assault weapons" from appearing at the show and many more than just firearms vendors immediately cancelled in response.
It's bad enough that a sporting goods store that historically has sold firearms has chosen to enter the debate by removing some of the most popular firearms from its shelves. But it's inexcusable that they cancelled the sales that had already been made and delivery was pending. Why would they ever regain customer confidence or support after a move like that?
This poor financial performance doesn't mean Dick's is going out of business. But we can hope.
There are many companies that have chosen to make similar decisions that don't support our 2nd Amendment rights. It's their right to do so, of course, but it's my right to not support them with my consumer dollars. I don't know all the companies that have done so or how to find them all. Ones I know include:
Buffalo Wild Wings (BWW)
Dick's Sporting Goods
Groupon
Dick's and Groupon changed their policies in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I believe BWW's ban on lawful concealed or open carry in their stores precedes Sandy Hook but it's basically a "gun free zone" policy which I firmly believe to be a terrible idea that creates "soft targets" and easy prey for those who want to do evil. It also forces lawful firearms owners to change their behavior. They have to choose between carrying their firearms where they're not allowed by the owner, or not carry when they otherwise would including the trip to and from the location and any other locations en route, or to leave their firearms in their cars which can make them more susceptible to theft.
For those who use the Apple app store, there's an app called GunFreeZone you may be interested in. It's not a complete database of where it's legal or illegal to carry a gun. I believe it's a crowdsourced database that allows consumer input. As a result there are lots of gaps in the data but at least it's something. I don't know if there are equivalents in other app stores.
I believe that eBay at one time allowed firearms sales through their site but that they made a business decision to stop that line of business many years ago. I have no problem with that decision. The difference? It wasn't reactionary and part of a national push for gun control and infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights. I'll continue to support eBay.
http://www.guns.com/2013/04/29/dicks-sales-stocks-drop-following-black-gun-ban/
===
June 5, 2013
Add the Carmike Cinema chain to the list of so-called "gun free zones". It worked so well in Aurora, where the killer avoided closer theaters that allowed lawful concealed carry of firearms and selected a so-called "gun free zone" for his killing field, that this theater company has decided to apply the same policy in the interest of 'public safety'. I recognize the right of a company to implement this policy. I also recognize that those that do are completely lacking in common sense or good judgment and contrary to their intent are actually endangering their customers.
They'll probably get away with this in terms of not contributing to any loss of life simply because the incidents of mass murder are statistically very low, although devastating when they do occur. If they do, it won't be because of their 'safe' policy. It will be because of the statistical odds they're gambling on.
http://www.ketknbc.com/news/carmike-cinemas-not-allowing-firearms-in-their-the
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/companies-with-negative-gun-policies.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Insurance Companies Take Sides in Gun Control Debate
Sunday, April 28, 2013
New York Gun Control, 'Acting' Like Its Making People "SAFE"
April 28, 2013
===
May 2, 2013
Here's the latest on New York's "SAFE" embarrassment - another exemption they forgot to make in their urgent fury to pass legislation quickly instead of intellectually, logically or with "common sense" or "reason". This one could cost the state millions in lost revenue from the movie and television industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/nyregion/studios-fret-that-new-yorks-gun-laws-could-hamper-film-production.html
===
May 13, 2013
Another citizen turned criminal due to New York's "SAFE" law.
Did those extra 2 bullets in his ammunition magazine somehow threaten anyone? Or were they 2 more chances that he'd be able to protect himself, his property or others?
From the link, below:
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/gun-grab-full-swing-dutchess-man-arrested-having-9-bullets
New York. What an interesting place, don’t you think? What
would we do without the likes of Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Michael
Bloomberg to keep people ‘safe’ there?
Governor Cuomo raced to enact the nation’s toughest gun
control laws after the tragic incident at Sandy Hook Elementary last December.
He won. He was first. He and his assembly violated their own state constitution
in doing so because it was imperative that they didn’t wait even a few days for
public debate or legislators’ deeper consideration. The verbiage was so poorly
thought out that they didn’t even exempt law enforcement officers from the
7-round limit in their firearms ammunition magazines. They outlawed magazines
containing more than 7 rounds without understanding that for many handguns
there are no magazines of 7 or fewer rounds in existence. They settled on 7
rounds and other restrictions even though their initial goal, leaked by a
Democratic assemblyman, was only 3 rounds. Somehow they managed to find enough
sense to not let that into law.
Once their "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)
Act" was made law, they put it quickly into effect to much criticism and
even embarrassment. They’ve acknowledged the law needs to be rewritten for the
law enforcement exclusion and the non-existent 7 or fewer round magazines. They
won’t increase the number of rounds but they expect all gun owners to know that
they will only be lawfully allowed to load 7 rounds into their 10-round
magazines. I think there may be an exception for when you’re at a shooting
range. But what about in your own home? I haven’t heard that an exception will
exist for that. It’s hard to know because the same urgency with which they
passed bad law is not being applied to fixing its known defects. But that
urgency is being applied to applying the new laws to New York citizens.
There was an early arrest, just days after SAFE became law,
of a Marine veteran, Benjamin M. Wassell. Though I don’t
like it, I have to be fair on the topic. I don’t think what he did was wrong – because
I don’t think the SAFE law is fair or just or that it’s NOT an infringement on
2nd Amendment rights – so far as the possession and sale of
so-called “assault weapons”. However, what he did was clearly illegal under the
new law. And I think he knew it. I can’t imagine being in possession of these
firearms in New York and not being aware of SAFE, although it’s possible he
didn’t know its effective date. On that score I think he’ll be an interesting
test case and challenge to the new law. I don’t think he intended to be the
test case though. But even if he was able to emerge without a felony conviction
or prison sentence from those charges there’s a bigger problem. The agent he
sold one of the firearms to apparently told him that he had a felony domestic
violence conviction against him. That was a clear violation of the law that has
existed long before SAFE. Testimony of the agent would be hard enough to get
past but if the agents can prove that took place with an audio recording, Wassell
will be convicted. I urge my military friends to consider that before they get
their gander up about a Marine veteran being unfairly persecuted. One claim is
that the whole transaction is entrapment. We’ll have to let that be determined
by the courts. Oh, which court? Not the local District Attorney. The Governor’s
office insists that their state prosecutor handle this one.
But that’s not all that’s going on in New York. While
citizens have been assured that the police can ensure their safety in one of
the nation’s most violent cities, there was this “oh, sh!t” moment, a SWAT
officer with his so-called “assault weapon” sight installed backwards while
actively engaged in a call. Oops. This article is not very kind in its brief
discussion of the incident.
Here’s a brief general article that links to the ones above
and some others though it’s not particularly informative about any of them in
its own right: http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/04/11444-new-york-moved-forward-with-gun-confiscation-cops-now-saying-oops/
It does mention, however, that under the new SAFE law,
firearms confiscation has begun. Of course in their urgency to “do something,
now” they got the wrong guy. Oops again. A case of mistaken identity caused law
abiding firearms owner, David Lewis, to have his 2nd
Amendment rights withdrawn and his guns confiscated. I’ve seen this story many
times in the past couple weeks from various news sources. But when I went
looking for its reference for this post, I went to Google. I searched for ‘ “new
York” gun confiscation erie ‘ (Erie is the county.) Google returned lots of
hits. I went through the first 10 pages of the results. Yes, 10 pages. There
wasn’t a single entry from CBS, NBC, MSNBC or CNN. There were a couple from Fox
News and many from other sources. I wonder why that is. Why didn’t this make
the liberal news? I’m not a fan of frivolous lawsuits but I don’t think this is
frivolous. I hope that this denial of constitutional right hurts New York
financially. Maybe in Bloomberg’s generosity he’ll just write a check to cover
Cuomo’s mistakes. Here’s the story:
Here’s what one Republican New York state senator had to say
about the SAFE law: “While I am alarmed by New York’s idiotic and
unconstitutional actions, I am not surprised. Confiscating the legal firearms
of law abiding, taxpaying residents of this state is an abomination and is
exactly why this bill should have been properly vetted before it came law.
There were no hearings, there was no public dialogue. All of this was done for
one purpose in mind, so this Governor could score political points with a
radical national constituency, and that is simply outrageous. Simply put, the
‘Cuomo for President Act’ simply isn’t working,” said Senator Greg Ball. “This
bill has not and will not save a single life. Instead this broken piece of
legislation will continue to violate the constitutional freedoms of good
people, turning them into criminals while doing zilch about the actual
criminals killing our beloved ones everyday using illegal firearms. New York
must immediately suspend enforcement of these harmful SAFE Act provisions and
initiate a swift and full repeal.”
According to these articles and the embedded audio clip in
the second one, this is not an isolated case. I haven’t heard any other reports
of mistaken identity, but letters are going out to New York citizens demanding
they surrender their firearms without due process in a court of law. Isn’t
there another Bill of Rights amendment that covers such things? I just recently
re-read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If memory serves, I think there
is. Maybe it doesn’t apply in New York.
===
May 2, 2013
Here's the latest on New York's "SAFE" embarrassment - another exemption they forgot to make in their urgent fury to pass legislation quickly instead of intellectually, logically or with "common sense" or "reason". This one could cost the state millions in lost revenue from the movie and television industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/nyregion/studios-fret-that-new-yorks-gun-laws-could-hamper-film-production.html
===
May 13, 2013
Another citizen turned criminal due to New York's "SAFE" law.
Did those extra 2 bullets in his ammunition magazine somehow threaten anyone? Or were they 2 more chances that he'd be able to protect himself, his property or others?
From the link, below:
GUN GRAB IN FULL SWING, DUTCHESS MAN ARRESTED FOR HAVING 9 BULLETS
Brewster, N.Y. – (5/13/2013) – Senator Greg Ball (R,C,I-Patterson) Chairman of the Senate Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs Committee issued the following statement in regards to the recent reports of a Dutchess County man being arrested for violating the “NY SAFE Act”.
Gregory D Dean Jr., 31, of Hopewell Junction, was pulled over on Sunday evening in New Lebanon because the vehicle’s license-plate lamp was not working. Troopers found Dean with a legally registered pistol with a magazine that contained nine bullets, two more than the recently passed “SAFE Act” allows. Police charged Dean with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices, third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation and other vehicle infractions.
“This is a very sad day for all fair minded New Yorkers who believe in justice and value freedom. Here we see the full effect of our actions as the SAFE Act turns a law abiding citizen into a criminal. This didn’t save a life, this just destroyed one man’s life,” said Senator Greg Ball. “I continue to plead with this Governor to please allow the common sense changes to this bill, that are obviously necessary.”
For more information, please contact Joe Bachmeier: (845) 200-9716.
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/gun-grab-full-swing-dutchess-man-arrested-having-9-bullets
===
July 23, 2013
Here's the latest development regarding the arrest of Gregory Dean Jr in violation of New York's "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)" law for having 9 bullets loaded in his magazine, 2 more than allowable under SAFE.
This is a 6:52 video about Dean's situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjUaQJj1aDE
I didn't realize until watching the video that Dean is a Marine Corps veteran. It has no bearing on his arrest or situation but adds color to the story.
Here's a short article about it that also has the same video embedded. I particularly like this paragraph:
"So how is the law making New York safer? Simply put: it’s not. [Jonna] Spilbor [Dean's attorney] says she has yet to see a direct correlation between the SAFE Act and keeping New York citizens safer. After all, criminals already don’t care about laws. And [District Attorney Paul] Czajka echoed that point when he said that having been a prosecutor, D.A., judge and public defender, he doesn’t ever remember a criminal checking what the latest statute was before he or she decided to commit a crime. “The only conclusion you can draw [about the law] is that it’s about an agenda,” Spilbor said."
Okay, I guess I like the part about DA Czajka exercising his discretion and choosing NOT to prosecute Dean even better. It proves there actually is SOME "common sense" and "reason" in the world surrounding firearms - just not among gun control advocates.
Thank you, Mr. Czajka. Let's hope this is the first of many defeats of New York's SAFE law. Or that it's the first of few - provided that one of those defeats is the repeal of SAFE.
http://bearingarms.com/video-ny-safe-act-creates-a-new-class-of-criminals/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-control-acting-like-its.html
New York Firearms Blogs
July 23, 2013
Here's the latest development regarding the arrest of Gregory Dean Jr in violation of New York's "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)" law for having 9 bullets loaded in his magazine, 2 more than allowable under SAFE.
This is a 6:52 video about Dean's situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjUaQJj1aDE
I didn't realize until watching the video that Dean is a Marine Corps veteran. It has no bearing on his arrest or situation but adds color to the story.
Here's a short article about it that also has the same video embedded. I particularly like this paragraph:
"So how is the law making New York safer? Simply put: it’s not. [Jonna] Spilbor [Dean's attorney] says she has yet to see a direct correlation between the SAFE Act and keeping New York citizens safer. After all, criminals already don’t care about laws. And [District Attorney Paul] Czajka echoed that point when he said that having been a prosecutor, D.A., judge and public defender, he doesn’t ever remember a criminal checking what the latest statute was before he or she decided to commit a crime. “The only conclusion you can draw [about the law] is that it’s about an agenda,” Spilbor said."
Okay, I guess I like the part about DA Czajka exercising his discretion and choosing NOT to prosecute Dean even better. It proves there actually is SOME "common sense" and "reason" in the world surrounding firearms - just not among gun control advocates.
Thank you, Mr. Czajka. Let's hope this is the first of many defeats of New York's SAFE law. Or that it's the first of few - provided that one of those defeats is the repeal of SAFE.
http://bearingarms.com/video-ny-safe-act-creates-a-new-class-of-criminals/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-control-acting-like-its.html
New York Firearms Blogs
Mayor Michael Bloomberg Out of Touch with Ordinary Citizens
April 28, 2013
Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently showed, once again, how out of touch he is with people. You know, the 'ordinary' non-billionaire types.
"...I would argue if you want to sell your gun to your son, maybe you have a problem in your family,” he said. “Why don't you just give—I don't know if you should have a gun or not, but if you have a commercial transaction of $100 with your son, there's something wrong in your family."
To Bloomberg, $100 is too little money to concern himself with and YOU and I have a problem if we do. I've known people who have gone without eating for lack of money to purchase food. I've known people who have sold their guns and other property to pay bills when times were particularly tough. I've known family members to lend and borrow with interest and to sell property to each other. I don't think it was their problem that they valued the cash more than the assets in their circumstances.
And where is Bloomberg finding $100 guns anyway? Do they exist? Sure, there are some priced that low. Those are the very same ones that gun control advocates have tried to ban in past years - cheap, inexpensive guns like "Saturday Night Specials". If I sell a $500-700 pistol or a $500-2500 rifle to my son or daughter for $100 that IS a gift. If I sell it for its value then it's just a sale for hundreds of percent more than Bloomberg's "there's something wrong in your family" threshold.
It must really be terrible to have Bloomberg's problems. Oh, wait, that's not what I meant. I meant it's really terrible to have Bloomberg as a problem. You know, like when he bans artificial trans fats, attempts to ban large sodas, intends to infringe upon that which "shall not be infringed", and attempts to hide cigarettes from view in retail stores. One might get the impression he thinks New York City is HIS city and that it's not enough for him, as shown by his personal involvement in national anti-smoking and anti-gun rights campaigns. We already know that ordinary citizens don't live in the same world as the rich. Bloomberg clearly wants to keep it that way - where personal freedom and civil liberties are determined for the masses by the few.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bloomberg-if-you-sell-gun-your-son-theres-something-wrong-your-family
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57580744/new-york-city-mulls-proposal-to-increase-smoking-age-from-18-to-21/
===
Related blogs:
New York Firearms Blogs
Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently showed, once again, how out of touch he is with people. You know, the 'ordinary' non-billionaire types.
"...I would argue if you want to sell your gun to your son, maybe you have a problem in your family,” he said. “Why don't you just give—I don't know if you should have a gun or not, but if you have a commercial transaction of $100 with your son, there's something wrong in your family."
To Bloomberg, $100 is too little money to concern himself with and YOU and I have a problem if we do. I've known people who have gone without eating for lack of money to purchase food. I've known people who have sold their guns and other property to pay bills when times were particularly tough. I've known family members to lend and borrow with interest and to sell property to each other. I don't think it was their problem that they valued the cash more than the assets in their circumstances.
And where is Bloomberg finding $100 guns anyway? Do they exist? Sure, there are some priced that low. Those are the very same ones that gun control advocates have tried to ban in past years - cheap, inexpensive guns like "Saturday Night Specials". If I sell a $500-700 pistol or a $500-2500 rifle to my son or daughter for $100 that IS a gift. If I sell it for its value then it's just a sale for hundreds of percent more than Bloomberg's "there's something wrong in your family" threshold.
It must really be terrible to have Bloomberg's problems. Oh, wait, that's not what I meant. I meant it's really terrible to have Bloomberg as a problem. You know, like when he bans artificial trans fats, attempts to ban large sodas, intends to infringe upon that which "shall not be infringed", and attempts to hide cigarettes from view in retail stores. One might get the impression he thinks New York City is HIS city and that it's not enough for him, as shown by his personal involvement in national anti-smoking and anti-gun rights campaigns. We already know that ordinary citizens don't live in the same world as the rich. Bloomberg clearly wants to keep it that way - where personal freedom and civil liberties are determined for the masses by the few.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bloomberg-if-you-sell-gun-your-son-theres-something-wrong-your-family
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57580744/new-york-city-mulls-proposal-to-increase-smoking-age-from-18-to-21/
===
Related blogs:
New York Firearms Blogs
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Newtown Parent Mark Mattioli Does NOT Support Gun Control
April 27, 2013
Two weeks ago, on Saturday, 4/13/2013, President Obama turned over his weekly address to the nation to Francine Wheeler, mother of Ben who was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary. Here's the link to the 4:28 video. As you might expect, it's a very emotional appeal for gun control. I made myself watch it and couldn't help but feel for her. But that's part of the problem. It's an emotional appeal, not a logical one.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/04/12/weekly-address-sandy-hook-victim-s-mother-calls-commonsense-gun-responsibility-refor?utm_source=email207&utm_medium=text1&utm_campaign=nowisthetime
It was suggested to me once that I look at pictures of gunshot wounds as I consider my arguments against gun control. I've seen pictures of various kinds of wounds - from torture, gunshots, knives and other weapons. Very recently we’ve gotten a brief glimpse at the carnage caused by homemade bombs in Boston. I've watched the videos of live Americans being beheaded with knives. They're all grotesque. Some will make some people sick just to look at them, and in the case of the beheadings the sound leaves a very strong impression. But when I looked at them, whether they turned my stomach or not, I didn't blame the weapons, the tools. I blamed the people who used them. In contrast, gun control advocating politicians are virtually ignoring the tools they’ve already provided to prosecutors and judges and instead demonizing the tools used by criminals with an intent of restricting their availability to millions of people who will never use them to inflict illegal harm. And they call it “common sense” and “reasonable” and then additionally demonize those who disagree. And Francine Wheeler is doing the same thing in her emotional plea. When she talks about her sons, the words are hers. When she talks about gun control, she’s saying the same things, using the exact same expressions fed to all Americans who consume media content supporting the decades-old gun control agenda.
A question I’d like to ask the gun control advocates is this: among the various well publicized gun control legislative proposals, which do they think are NOT “common sense” or NOT “reasonable”? Although I’d like for them to answer that question, I don’t think they ever will and I equally believe we can accurately predict their response if they ever did. They’d insist they’re all “common sense” and “reasonable”. It’s in their playbook that way and they don’t dare deviate from the plays drawn up by their coaches. “We must do something, now” even if we have to lie, mislead, misrepresent and abandon logic and data driven analysis and decision making in the process. Why? Because the powerful and influential gun control advocates say we have to and they have a tidal wave of emotional outpouring to ride upon.
It’s okay to debate the effectiveness or reason of “universal background checks” or “expanded background checks” or any of the other proposals. But do you really know what they mean? Have you read the bills yourself? Have you looked for the holes, consequences and implications of them – both the intended and perhaps unintended consequences? I’ve read several of them. I haven’t been able to keep up with all of them. One thing that is VERY clear from having done so is that the media and politicians are NOT telling the whole story in their sound bites. They brand them with simple phrases that sound so “common sense” and “reasonable” but, like the iceberg, the real danger lies beneath. Did you notice the subtle switch from “universal” to “expanded” background checks? Did you think it was irrelevant semantics? It wasn’t. They’re different. I think they realized their “common sense” and “reasonable” “universal background checks” had no possibility of passing so they retreated to “expanded background checks”. But the media didn’t explain the change, did they? They hardly acknowledged it.
Speaking of things hardly acknowledged, Francine Wheeler and other family members of Sandy Hook Elementary victims have been given a national spotlight, but have you heard of Mark Mattioli? Gun control advocating family members have been given Vice President Biden’s attention for his gun violence task force, invited to testify in legislative hearings, invited to the State of the Union, given a ride on Air Force One, literally escorted through the halls of Congress to make their personal appeals to US senators who were about to begin debating and voting on gun control measures, and given lots of media exposure from all the major media outlets. About this President Obama and others have gone out of their way to ensure that the ‘victims of Sandy Hook be heard’. Except that he hasn’t. Not all of them anyway. Not the ones who disagree with the gun control agenda. Mark Mattioli is one of those. Here’s a 6:39 interview he gave to Megyn Kelly of Fox News in which he opposes any new gun control laws and gives his reasons for doing so. For any of you who think it’s our responsibility to listen to the pain of the surviving family members of Sandy Hook victims, I’d say it’s equally our responsibility to listen to the opposing view – also expressed by one of those same people. One who hasn’t been in the background as President Obama makes his gun control speeches. Listen to his words. Even in his obvious grief, he recognizes the problems with what’s happening in our national and state capitals.
“I, given this situation, have a seat at the table. I’ve been in the room and they are approaching this in a very incremental way. They will take what they can get and take and take and take…this “group think” is taking place. They’re suspending reason and critical analysis when those are what we need for of these legislators to make reasoned decisions about the 2nd Amendment and other things that affect our liberties…it’s unbelievable.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C37R6za08V0
Two weeks ago, on Saturday, 4/13/2013, President Obama turned over his weekly address to the nation to Francine Wheeler, mother of Ben who was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary. Here's the link to the 4:28 video. As you might expect, it's a very emotional appeal for gun control. I made myself watch it and couldn't help but feel for her. But that's part of the problem. It's an emotional appeal, not a logical one.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/04/12/weekly-address-sandy-hook-victim-s-mother-calls-commonsense-gun-responsibility-refor?utm_source=email207&utm_medium=text1&utm_campaign=nowisthetime
It was suggested to me once that I look at pictures of gunshot wounds as I consider my arguments against gun control. I've seen pictures of various kinds of wounds - from torture, gunshots, knives and other weapons. Very recently we’ve gotten a brief glimpse at the carnage caused by homemade bombs in Boston. I've watched the videos of live Americans being beheaded with knives. They're all grotesque. Some will make some people sick just to look at them, and in the case of the beheadings the sound leaves a very strong impression. But when I looked at them, whether they turned my stomach or not, I didn't blame the weapons, the tools. I blamed the people who used them. In contrast, gun control advocating politicians are virtually ignoring the tools they’ve already provided to prosecutors and judges and instead demonizing the tools used by criminals with an intent of restricting their availability to millions of people who will never use them to inflict illegal harm. And they call it “common sense” and “reasonable” and then additionally demonize those who disagree. And Francine Wheeler is doing the same thing in her emotional plea. When she talks about her sons, the words are hers. When she talks about gun control, she’s saying the same things, using the exact same expressions fed to all Americans who consume media content supporting the decades-old gun control agenda.
A question I’d like to ask the gun control advocates is this: among the various well publicized gun control legislative proposals, which do they think are NOT “common sense” or NOT “reasonable”? Although I’d like for them to answer that question, I don’t think they ever will and I equally believe we can accurately predict their response if they ever did. They’d insist they’re all “common sense” and “reasonable”. It’s in their playbook that way and they don’t dare deviate from the plays drawn up by their coaches. “We must do something, now” even if we have to lie, mislead, misrepresent and abandon logic and data driven analysis and decision making in the process. Why? Because the powerful and influential gun control advocates say we have to and they have a tidal wave of emotional outpouring to ride upon.
It’s okay to debate the effectiveness or reason of “universal background checks” or “expanded background checks” or any of the other proposals. But do you really know what they mean? Have you read the bills yourself? Have you looked for the holes, consequences and implications of them – both the intended and perhaps unintended consequences? I’ve read several of them. I haven’t been able to keep up with all of them. One thing that is VERY clear from having done so is that the media and politicians are NOT telling the whole story in their sound bites. They brand them with simple phrases that sound so “common sense” and “reasonable” but, like the iceberg, the real danger lies beneath. Did you notice the subtle switch from “universal” to “expanded” background checks? Did you think it was irrelevant semantics? It wasn’t. They’re different. I think they realized their “common sense” and “reasonable” “universal background checks” had no possibility of passing so they retreated to “expanded background checks”. But the media didn’t explain the change, did they? They hardly acknowledged it.
Speaking of things hardly acknowledged, Francine Wheeler and other family members of Sandy Hook Elementary victims have been given a national spotlight, but have you heard of Mark Mattioli? Gun control advocating family members have been given Vice President Biden’s attention for his gun violence task force, invited to testify in legislative hearings, invited to the State of the Union, given a ride on Air Force One, literally escorted through the halls of Congress to make their personal appeals to US senators who were about to begin debating and voting on gun control measures, and given lots of media exposure from all the major media outlets. About this President Obama and others have gone out of their way to ensure that the ‘victims of Sandy Hook be heard’. Except that he hasn’t. Not all of them anyway. Not the ones who disagree with the gun control agenda. Mark Mattioli is one of those. Here’s a 6:39 interview he gave to Megyn Kelly of Fox News in which he opposes any new gun control laws and gives his reasons for doing so. For any of you who think it’s our responsibility to listen to the pain of the surviving family members of Sandy Hook victims, I’d say it’s equally our responsibility to listen to the opposing view – also expressed by one of those same people. One who hasn’t been in the background as President Obama makes his gun control speeches. Listen to his words. Even in his obvious grief, he recognizes the problems with what’s happening in our national and state capitals.
“I, given this situation, have a seat at the table. I’ve been in the room and they are approaching this in a very incremental way. They will take what they can get and take and take and take…this “group think” is taking place. They’re suspending reason and critical analysis when those are what we need for of these legislators to make reasoned decisions about the 2nd Amendment and other things that affect our liberties…it’s unbelievable.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C37R6za08V0
Battle for Gun Control Continues in Both Washingtons
April 27, 2013
The battle over gun control continues in both Washingtons.
Gun control advocates have been very loud expressing their disappointment and even anger over failure in the US Senate to pass gun control amendments to S.649. As a result, S.649 was pulled from the floor by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But numerous sources say it will likely be brought forward again before this year is out. There are already senators working on new versions of the amendments.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/25/mccain-schumer-say-gun-control-is-coming-back
In Washington state I was pleased earlier this year at the failure of gun control proposals similar to those in other states more publicized. I was pleased until I read this article.
http://theolympiareport.com/inslee-still-hopes-dui-gun-control-abortion-bills-can-be-passed/
Remember when they gun control advocating politicians said they wanted to have a vote? That the victims of Newtown deserved a vote? There was a vote. They lost. And they still won't give it up and move on to more important business. Apparently, what they really meant was they want a vote in their favor. What they really want is that simply because they've been repeating from their script at every opportunity that their proposals are "common sense" and "reasonable", even though they've been anything but, we should simply accept the moral superiority of their long standing agenda and hand over our constitutional rights. Just the ones they find offensive or inconvenient, of course.
Only 4% of Americans think gun control is among our country's leading problems. That's right - 4%. You don't hear the gun control advocates repeating that number in front of the cameras. Instead you keep hearing that 90% of Americans want what they want, except they use every manipulative trick there is to mask the real implications of their proposals. The average American has not read the legislative proposals. All they have are sound bites. And the people with the overwhelming majority of media support are the gun control crowd. A January 2013 study of gun control in the media showed and 8:1 advantage on the pro-gun control side.
===
May 1, 2013
Senator Manchin stands by the Manchin-Toomey background check bill that failed to pass in the Senate last month and plans to reintroduce it this year. The fight will NOT be over anytime soon.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/manchin-says-working-to-get-another-senate-vote-on-gun-background-check/
===
May 30, 2013
According to this recent poll, 62% of Americans think the Senate should move on from gun control. That's a pretty convincing majority, isn't it? Of course, majorities of Democrats (51%) and liberals (62%) polled think it should be pursued to another vote. Note that neither number approaches 90% any longer. So while those outspoken gun control advocates tried to shame their gun rights supporting opponents for not listening to their constituents, who are these people listening to? Is it the majority 62% that say "move on" or just the Democrats and liberals who support their positions?
Let's not forget that a poll from earlier this year showed that only 4% of Americans thought gun control was the most important thing for Congress to work on. But will the gun control advocates move on? No. There are still plenty of current indications from Vice President Biden, Senator Manchin, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others telling us that gun control is not going away and that we will see another vote this year - probably in September after Congress returns from a break in August. I've spared posting about each of the articles that have shown this but you should believe they were plentiful.
http://reason.com/poll/2013/05/29/poll-two-thirds-of-americans-want-senate
===
June 8, 2013
Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), won't give up on forcing their view of gun control on as many people as they can. When you're powerful and influential, why restrict yourself to just the city you manage (or live in)? Money is power and Bloomberg's billions make him not just powerful but dangerous too.
This article says MAIG is conducting a 100-day bus campaign to 25 states to push gun control legislation. We already know they're not giving up on Congress either.
Don't you love the marketing involved in this? "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" sounds so "common sense" and "reasonable" and righteous, doesn't it? It implies leadership fighting criminals. Who could disagree with that? But they're a little light on some other parts of their group, like:
* MAIG has a higher percentage of criminals among its associates than does the general public, including convicted felons who are ineligible to possess firearms.
* They're much less enthusiastic about pushing to use and enforce the more than 2000 gun related laws already on the books than they are about creating new restrictions.
* They prefer to demonize guns instead of the criminals who use them.
* Their campaign against "illegal guns" is really about making more guns and types of guns "illegal" and then criminalizing otherwise law abiding people than it is about going after criminals in illegal possession of guns.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/bloomberg-gun-group-bus-tour-92350.html
===
June 11, 2013
Here's more recent evidence that the gun control mafia has not given up its fight to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of 300 million Americans. Several of the cover-people for gun control are mentioned in this article, including Vice President Joe Biden, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), Sandy Hook Elementary family members and a group I haven't mentioned before, "The Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with close ties to the White House".
Newtown victims' family members are headed back to Congress to make more emotional appeals. The gun control groups want President Obama to enact a dozen more executive orders on top of the 23 he signed months ago and push harder for firearms background checks to close the so-called "gun shows loophole" (I don't think that term is used in this article but it does talk about gun show purchases.) It makes no mention of the 2004 survey results, cited in a 2013 US Justice Department Special Report on Firearms Violence, 1993-2011, that shows only 0.8% of criminals got their firearms from a gun show. Another 0.6% got them from flea markets. If corporations made emotional decisions and wasted millions of dollars chasing 1.4% of their problems their leaders would be fired or they'd go out of business. That's not the case when its the American taxpayers' dollars at stake. We have a seemingly endless supply of that funding stream to support pursuit of the ideological agenda of gun control advocates. We must, because they keep spending it.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/biden-gun-control-fight-is-far-from-over/
===
Here's a different article that makes some of the same points made in the CBS News article above and made in my previous posts - we're wasting resources and not focusing on what's truly important. We presently have an ocean of government scandals to wade through, all of which are more important the infringing on Americans' constitutional 2nd Amendment rights.
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/06/gun-control-legislation-again-bring-it-on/
===
June 12, 2013
Here's Senator Dianne Feinstein's own April 17, 2013 statement about the failure of her 'assault weapons ban' in the US Senate and continuing her agenda to ban so-called "military-style assault weapons" ("assault weapon" is a politically invented term that has no standard definition or purpose except to group firearms to be restricted or banned), so called "weapons of war" (they're not used by our military or by modern standing armies) and so-called "high-capacity ammunition magazines" (that are actually "standard capacity" magazines).
Feinstein needs to go!
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8cd2a1c3-576f-40e8-a797-80cdcfcaa8b4
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
The battle over gun control continues in both Washingtons.
Gun control advocates have been very loud expressing their disappointment and even anger over failure in the US Senate to pass gun control amendments to S.649. As a result, S.649 was pulled from the floor by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But numerous sources say it will likely be brought forward again before this year is out. There are already senators working on new versions of the amendments.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/25/mccain-schumer-say-gun-control-is-coming-back
In Washington state I was pleased earlier this year at the failure of gun control proposals similar to those in other states more publicized. I was pleased until I read this article.
http://theolympiareport.com/inslee-still-hopes-dui-gun-control-abortion-bills-can-be-passed/
Remember when they gun control advocating politicians said they wanted to have a vote? That the victims of Newtown deserved a vote? There was a vote. They lost. And they still won't give it up and move on to more important business. Apparently, what they really meant was they want a vote in their favor. What they really want is that simply because they've been repeating from their script at every opportunity that their proposals are "common sense" and "reasonable", even though they've been anything but, we should simply accept the moral superiority of their long standing agenda and hand over our constitutional rights. Just the ones they find offensive or inconvenient, of course.
Only 4% of Americans think gun control is among our country's leading problems. That's right - 4%. You don't hear the gun control advocates repeating that number in front of the cameras. Instead you keep hearing that 90% of Americans want what they want, except they use every manipulative trick there is to mask the real implications of their proposals. The average American has not read the legislative proposals. All they have are sound bites. And the people with the overwhelming majority of media support are the gun control crowd. A January 2013 study of gun control in the media showed and 8:1 advantage on the pro-gun control side.
===
May 1, 2013
Senator Manchin stands by the Manchin-Toomey background check bill that failed to pass in the Senate last month and plans to reintroduce it this year. The fight will NOT be over anytime soon.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/manchin-says-working-to-get-another-senate-vote-on-gun-background-check/
===
May 30, 2013
According to this recent poll, 62% of Americans think the Senate should move on from gun control. That's a pretty convincing majority, isn't it? Of course, majorities of Democrats (51%) and liberals (62%) polled think it should be pursued to another vote. Note that neither number approaches 90% any longer. So while those outspoken gun control advocates tried to shame their gun rights supporting opponents for not listening to their constituents, who are these people listening to? Is it the majority 62% that say "move on" or just the Democrats and liberals who support their positions?
Let's not forget that a poll from earlier this year showed that only 4% of Americans thought gun control was the most important thing for Congress to work on. But will the gun control advocates move on? No. There are still plenty of current indications from Vice President Biden, Senator Manchin, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others telling us that gun control is not going away and that we will see another vote this year - probably in September after Congress returns from a break in August. I've spared posting about each of the articles that have shown this but you should believe they were plentiful.
http://reason.com/poll/2013/05/29/poll-two-thirds-of-americans-want-senate
===
June 8, 2013
Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), won't give up on forcing their view of gun control on as many people as they can. When you're powerful and influential, why restrict yourself to just the city you manage (or live in)? Money is power and Bloomberg's billions make him not just powerful but dangerous too.
This article says MAIG is conducting a 100-day bus campaign to 25 states to push gun control legislation. We already know they're not giving up on Congress either.
Don't you love the marketing involved in this? "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" sounds so "common sense" and "reasonable" and righteous, doesn't it? It implies leadership fighting criminals. Who could disagree with that? But they're a little light on some other parts of their group, like:
* MAIG has a higher percentage of criminals among its associates than does the general public, including convicted felons who are ineligible to possess firearms.
* They're much less enthusiastic about pushing to use and enforce the more than 2000 gun related laws already on the books than they are about creating new restrictions.
* They prefer to demonize guns instead of the criminals who use them.
* Their campaign against "illegal guns" is really about making more guns and types of guns "illegal" and then criminalizing otherwise law abiding people than it is about going after criminals in illegal possession of guns.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/bloomberg-gun-group-bus-tour-92350.html
===
June 11, 2013
Here's more recent evidence that the gun control mafia has not given up its fight to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of 300 million Americans. Several of the cover-people for gun control are mentioned in this article, including Vice President Joe Biden, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), Sandy Hook Elementary family members and a group I haven't mentioned before, "The Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with close ties to the White House".
Newtown victims' family members are headed back to Congress to make more emotional appeals. The gun control groups want President Obama to enact a dozen more executive orders on top of the 23 he signed months ago and push harder for firearms background checks to close the so-called "gun shows loophole" (I don't think that term is used in this article but it does talk about gun show purchases.) It makes no mention of the 2004 survey results, cited in a 2013 US Justice Department Special Report on Firearms Violence, 1993-2011, that shows only 0.8% of criminals got their firearms from a gun show. Another 0.6% got them from flea markets. If corporations made emotional decisions and wasted millions of dollars chasing 1.4% of their problems their leaders would be fired or they'd go out of business. That's not the case when its the American taxpayers' dollars at stake. We have a seemingly endless supply of that funding stream to support pursuit of the ideological agenda of gun control advocates. We must, because they keep spending it.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/biden-gun-control-fight-is-far-from-over/
===
Here's a different article that makes some of the same points made in the CBS News article above and made in my previous posts - we're wasting resources and not focusing on what's truly important. We presently have an ocean of government scandals to wade through, all of which are more important the infringing on Americans' constitutional 2nd Amendment rights.
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/06/gun-control-legislation-again-bring-it-on/
===
June 12, 2013
Here's Senator Dianne Feinstein's own April 17, 2013 statement about the failure of her 'assault weapons ban' in the US Senate and continuing her agenda to ban so-called "military-style assault weapons" ("assault weapon" is a politically invented term that has no standard definition or purpose except to group firearms to be restricted or banned), so called "weapons of war" (they're not used by our military or by modern standing armies) and so-called "high-capacity ammunition magazines" (that are actually "standard capacity" magazines).
Feinstein needs to go!
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8cd2a1c3-576f-40e8-a797-80cdcfcaa8b4
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun Control "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Not quite. Legal Use of Marijuana Threatens 2nd Amendment Rights
April 27, 2013
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Not quite.
Most of you are probably aware that Colorado and Washington have recently passed state law allowing the recreational use of marijuana. There's still a lot of uncertainty about how to implement this new freedom and its implications. And there are potentially lots of implications. One is taxation. We know that governments are eager to tax it and create a new revenue stream. Today I learned of a new one.
Under these states' laws, recreational use of marijuana is legal. Under federal law it is not. From this article and other sources it appears the federal authorities are not interested in tracking down minor drug use or possession - one ounce or less of cannabis. One might imagine that a lot, perhaps a majority, of pot smokers support the left's agenda. President Obama's administration seems content to allow pot smokers to go on about their business without harassment. Unless, of course, you cross them. Be a left-voting pot smoker and you're okay. Be a left-voting pot smoker who wants to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and you're not.
According to this article, possession or use of marijuana can result in losing your 2nd Amendment rights even where it's legal by state law. That includes medicinal use in states other than Colorado and Washington. Doesn't this seem a little like a new version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? If you don't have any drug convictions and you live in one of these states, you should be able to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition, right? Not really. Because on the federal form for purchasing a firearm, you ARE asked about drug use and under federal law, marijuana remains illegal. So, whether used for medicinal or recreational use, that first toke or brownie could represent a removal of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Still thinking, no conviction - how would they ever know? We have an answer to that too. As the debate continues, and it is, we've already seen the slippery slope of privacy being violated when there's a question of gun ownership. New York state, under it's new gun control "SAFE" law, has already confiscated firearms from someone with no lawful reason to do so. The citizen's violation? He shares a name with someone who shouldn't possess firearms. Mistaken identity. And one having specifically to do with medical history. So, get a prescription from your doctor for medicinal use of marijuana and you could find yourself reported to your state by your doctor, nurse or health care administrator and lose your 2nd Amendment rights. Even the Veterans Administration (VA) is doing that already! You'd think that veterans' interests would be strongly supported by the very organization that exists to do so, right? Not so.There's also legislation recently discussed in Congress about making up-until-now private information stored with your ISPs available to federal agencies without a warrant in the interest of community safety. How long before banking records might come under that umbrella? How long before your credit card purchase of marijuana under legal conditions in your state is made available to an agency motivated to remove your 2nd Amendment rights?
And, by the way, don't forget that lying on a federal form for purchase of a firearm is a felony gun charge. This version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means you're safe from federal prosecution for drug use as long as you don't challenge the left's gun control agenda by actually wanting to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and possess a firearm.
It's a darn good thing that NONE of my friends have EVER used marijuana! ;)
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/marijuana-laws-new-tool-to-ban-gun-ownership/
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
Colorado Firearms Blogs
New York Firearms Blogs
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Not quite.
Most of you are probably aware that Colorado and Washington have recently passed state law allowing the recreational use of marijuana. There's still a lot of uncertainty about how to implement this new freedom and its implications. And there are potentially lots of implications. One is taxation. We know that governments are eager to tax it and create a new revenue stream. Today I learned of a new one.
Under these states' laws, recreational use of marijuana is legal. Under federal law it is not. From this article and other sources it appears the federal authorities are not interested in tracking down minor drug use or possession - one ounce or less of cannabis. One might imagine that a lot, perhaps a majority, of pot smokers support the left's agenda. President Obama's administration seems content to allow pot smokers to go on about their business without harassment. Unless, of course, you cross them. Be a left-voting pot smoker and you're okay. Be a left-voting pot smoker who wants to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and you're not.
According to this article, possession or use of marijuana can result in losing your 2nd Amendment rights even where it's legal by state law. That includes medicinal use in states other than Colorado and Washington. Doesn't this seem a little like a new version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? If you don't have any drug convictions and you live in one of these states, you should be able to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition, right? Not really. Because on the federal form for purchasing a firearm, you ARE asked about drug use and under federal law, marijuana remains illegal. So, whether used for medicinal or recreational use, that first toke or brownie could represent a removal of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Still thinking, no conviction - how would they ever know? We have an answer to that too. As the debate continues, and it is, we've already seen the slippery slope of privacy being violated when there's a question of gun ownership. New York state, under it's new gun control "SAFE" law, has already confiscated firearms from someone with no lawful reason to do so. The citizen's violation? He shares a name with someone who shouldn't possess firearms. Mistaken identity. And one having specifically to do with medical history. So, get a prescription from your doctor for medicinal use of marijuana and you could find yourself reported to your state by your doctor, nurse or health care administrator and lose your 2nd Amendment rights. Even the Veterans Administration (VA) is doing that already! You'd think that veterans' interests would be strongly supported by the very organization that exists to do so, right? Not so.There's also legislation recently discussed in Congress about making up-until-now private information stored with your ISPs available to federal agencies without a warrant in the interest of community safety. How long before banking records might come under that umbrella? How long before your credit card purchase of marijuana under legal conditions in your state is made available to an agency motivated to remove your 2nd Amendment rights?
And, by the way, don't forget that lying on a federal form for purchase of a firearm is a felony gun charge. This version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means you're safe from federal prosecution for drug use as long as you don't challenge the left's gun control agenda by actually wanting to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and possess a firearm.
It's a darn good thing that NONE of my friends have EVER used marijuana! ;)
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/marijuana-laws-new-tool-to-ban-gun-ownership/
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
Colorado Firearms Blogs
New York Firearms Blogs
Thursday, April 25, 2013
GE Capital Takes Sides in Gun Control Debate
April 25, 2013
GE Capital appears to be taking sides in the national gun control debate and it looks like Mayor Rahm Emanuel's wish may be coming true, although there's no indication in this article of a direct connection between Emanuel's inappropriate pressure on the banking industry to refuse business with the firearms industries and this specific decision.
I wonder what other lawful, legitimate businesses or industries GE Capital refuses to do business with.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-75619481/
===
April 30, 2013
I wasn't aware which banks Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had put pressure on to stop doing business with the lawful gun industry. According to this article, it was Bank of America and TD Bank and it was at least temporarily successful.
"Bank of America defended their action by pointing out that Spirit Arms allows customers to order guns over the internet without conducting a background check. BA missed the fact that the guns are not shipped to the customers directly but to a FFL near the customer, where a background check on the buyer is performed before the gun is handed to him or her.
Although BA was eventually shamed into reversing course, the impetus for their action was clear. Now that GE Capital has followed suit, gun control advocates are cheering their victory."
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/gun-control-advocates-revel-in-obamas-economic-war-on-guns/#axzz2RroEN29o
According to this article, GE Capital joins Wells Fargo and Citigroup who made their decisions to stop financing gun purchases years ago.
As the GE Capital story first broke I recall reading that the focus was on loans to gun stores, not consumers, but these latest articles make it sound like it's the consumers who will be denied credit. One article I read questioned, does that mean a consumer's credit card will be denied for use in gun stores? The question wasn't answered.
I'm still wondering, what other lawful, legitimate businesses or industries GE Capital and these other banks refuse to do business with. What other constitutional rights that someone might need help financing would these banks refuse to extend credit for? Do these banks think that criminals finance their gun purchases? If so, maybe they should stop offering credit to criminals. But it appears they've bought into the gun control party line - that it's the gun that is responsible for the crime, not the criminal. And they're willing to demonize lawful firearms owners, or would-be owners, to make their point.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-ge-capital-freedom-group-cerberus-sale-problems-2013-4
===
GE Capital appears to be taking sides in the national gun control debate and it looks like Mayor Rahm Emanuel's wish may be coming true, although there's no indication in this article of a direct connection between Emanuel's inappropriate pressure on the banking industry to refuse business with the firearms industries and this specific decision.
I wonder what other lawful, legitimate businesses or industries GE Capital refuses to do business with.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-75619481/
===
April 30, 2013
I wasn't aware which banks Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had put pressure on to stop doing business with the lawful gun industry. According to this article, it was Bank of America and TD Bank and it was at least temporarily successful.
"Bank of America defended their action by pointing out that Spirit Arms allows customers to order guns over the internet without conducting a background check. BA missed the fact that the guns are not shipped to the customers directly but to a FFL near the customer, where a background check on the buyer is performed before the gun is handed to him or her.
Although BA was eventually shamed into reversing course, the impetus for their action was clear. Now that GE Capital has followed suit, gun control advocates are cheering their victory."
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/gun-control-advocates-revel-in-obamas-economic-war-on-guns/#axzz2RroEN29o
According to this article, GE Capital joins Wells Fargo and Citigroup who made their decisions to stop financing gun purchases years ago.
As the GE Capital story first broke I recall reading that the focus was on loans to gun stores, not consumers, but these latest articles make it sound like it's the consumers who will be denied credit. One article I read questioned, does that mean a consumer's credit card will be denied for use in gun stores? The question wasn't answered.
I'm still wondering, what other lawful, legitimate businesses or industries GE Capital and these other banks refuse to do business with. What other constitutional rights that someone might need help financing would these banks refuse to extend credit for? Do these banks think that criminals finance their gun purchases? If so, maybe they should stop offering credit to criminals. But it appears they've bought into the gun control party line - that it's the gun that is responsible for the crime, not the criminal. And they're willing to demonize lawful firearms owners, or would-be owners, to make their point.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-ge-capital-freedom-group-cerberus-sale-problems-2013-4
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/ge-capital-takes-sides-in-gun-control.html
Companies With Negative Gun Policies
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/ge-capital-takes-sides-in-gun-control.html
Companies With Negative Gun Policies
Firearms Blog Collections
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut Interferes In Standing Sponsorship Relationship Between NASCAR and NRA
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut Interferes In Standing Sponsorship Relationship Between NASCAR and NRA
Gun Control Push and Threat to 2nd Amendment Rights Continues
April 25, 2013
Nope. The push for more gun control in our Senate is not over. Fresh off a major defeat they're determined to bring it back later this year.
They seem to like to publicize selective polling results that encourage their efforts and demonize their opponents. But what about the polls that show that only 4% of Americans think gun control is such a major problem that Congress should be working on it ahead of our other problems. You've heard of those others, haven't you? A few little things called the economy, creating jobs, balancing the budget, the spending problem that doesn't exist according to Democratic leaders. Add to that immigration, a renewed terrorist threat, our continuing presence in Afghanistan and newer threats in North Korea and now Syria. Have I missed any? I'm sure I have. Never mind all those. There are a few overzealous controlling types who insist on pushing gun control at the costs of untold millions of dollars and ignoring our nation's real problems.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/25/mccain-schumer-say-gun-control-is-coming-back
Nope. The push for more gun control in our Senate is not over. Fresh off a major defeat they're determined to bring it back later this year.
They seem to like to publicize selective polling results that encourage their efforts and demonize their opponents. But what about the polls that show that only 4% of Americans think gun control is such a major problem that Congress should be working on it ahead of our other problems. You've heard of those others, haven't you? A few little things called the economy, creating jobs, balancing the budget, the spending problem that doesn't exist according to Democratic leaders. Add to that immigration, a renewed terrorist threat, our continuing presence in Afghanistan and newer threats in North Korea and now Syria. Have I missed any? I'm sure I have. Never mind all those. There are a few overzealous controlling types who insist on pushing gun control at the costs of untold millions of dollars and ignoring our nation's real problems.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/25/mccain-schumer-say-gun-control-is-coming-back
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Hypocrisy of Firearms Background Checks When Privileges Are Given Away
April 23, 2013
Believe it or not I don't post or comment on most articles I read and particularly try to avoid the ones that are most antagonistic or that don't make logical arguments. Here's one though that somehow touched me differently. It points out some of the hypocrisy behind demanding expanded background checks for gun ownership while letting so many other rights and privileges go unchecked. It's more than letting them go, actually. The same parties that have aggressively pursued restricting 2nd Amendment rights actively support these programs, these abuses, these 'personal liberties' and argue against their infringement. I've never understood what's "fair", "common sense" or "reasonable" about making it my responsibility and that of other taxpayers to pay for the abuses allowed by so many programs and taken full advantage of by so many. The Phil Mickelson's of the world pay MORE than their "fair share" in taxes and don't collect many of the services they pay for. Others pay nothing and reap as many benefits as they can. What's fair about that? Why are expensive privileges given away as if they were rights of citizenship or of simply being human when our actual rights are under attack?
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/04/prescription-drug-addicts-in-the-er-have-a-far-easier-time-getting-pain-pills-than-i-do-buying-a-firearm-at-my-local-gun-store/
Believe it or not I don't post or comment on most articles I read and particularly try to avoid the ones that are most antagonistic or that don't make logical arguments. Here's one though that somehow touched me differently. It points out some of the hypocrisy behind demanding expanded background checks for gun ownership while letting so many other rights and privileges go unchecked. It's more than letting them go, actually. The same parties that have aggressively pursued restricting 2nd Amendment rights actively support these programs, these abuses, these 'personal liberties' and argue against their infringement. I've never understood what's "fair", "common sense" or "reasonable" about making it my responsibility and that of other taxpayers to pay for the abuses allowed by so many programs and taken full advantage of by so many. The Phil Mickelson's of the world pay MORE than their "fair share" in taxes and don't collect many of the services they pay for. Others pay nothing and reap as many benefits as they can. What's fair about that? Why are expensive privileges given away as if they were rights of citizenship or of simply being human when our actual rights are under attack?
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/04/prescription-drug-addicts-in-the-er-have-a-far-easier-time-getting-pain-pills-than-i-do-buying-a-firearm-at-my-local-gun-store/
Gun Control Vote Unlikely to Strengthen Democratic Control of Congress in 2014
April 23, 2013
I'm heartened by what I read here about what the next election may or may not hold as a result of the recent failure by gun control advocates to pass their 2nd Amendment restrictive legislation. I'm heartened by the thought that Republicans won't lose presence in Congress as a result. I believe that political conflict and debate can be good, so I don't want to see an overwhelming majority by either major party in Congress. But I think we've seen enough failed policy, weak leadership, outright lies and cover ups in the past few years to last a long while. It's time many Democrats were shown the door as a signal that American citizens are fed up with increased taxation and loss of personal liberties. Not long ago I thought of the Republicans as being obstructionist. Now I'm wishing they'd been more so as I'm seeing the problems through a different filter now. The Republicans were't responsible for the filter change.
This is only opinion, of course, but I recommend anyone still interested in the gun control topic read it even though you may not like the message.
"Actually, I’d be more surprised if there were electoral consequences, for four reasons:
1) The trend lines don’t favor supporters of gun control.
2) The issue is a low priority for most voters.
3) The 2014 elections don’t favor supporters of gun control.
4) Voters mostly use shortcuts."
I tend to agree with these arguments for various reasons. Admittedly, part of it is preference. The one that bothers me the most is argument #4. "...most Americans are relatively low-information voters who are unlikely to dig down into the details..." The author means this and makes his argument in a different way than what bothers me. To me it's been very evident that most people, supporting proposed legislation and answering polls, relying upon their politicians and major media outlets for information about the issues, have been persistently lied to and misled about what the implications are of the proposals. Gun control advocates like President Obama, Senator Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg and others are counting on this as they stick to their well worn scripts. A lie repeated over and over again becomes believed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/22/gun_control_vote_likely_wont_affect_midterms_118045.html
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
California Firearms Blogs
I'm heartened by what I read here about what the next election may or may not hold as a result of the recent failure by gun control advocates to pass their 2nd Amendment restrictive legislation. I'm heartened by the thought that Republicans won't lose presence in Congress as a result. I believe that political conflict and debate can be good, so I don't want to see an overwhelming majority by either major party in Congress. But I think we've seen enough failed policy, weak leadership, outright lies and cover ups in the past few years to last a long while. It's time many Democrats were shown the door as a signal that American citizens are fed up with increased taxation and loss of personal liberties. Not long ago I thought of the Republicans as being obstructionist. Now I'm wishing they'd been more so as I'm seeing the problems through a different filter now. The Republicans were't responsible for the filter change.
This is only opinion, of course, but I recommend anyone still interested in the gun control topic read it even though you may not like the message.
"Actually, I’d be more surprised if there were electoral consequences, for four reasons:
1) The trend lines don’t favor supporters of gun control.
2) The issue is a low priority for most voters.
3) The 2014 elections don’t favor supporters of gun control.
4) Voters mostly use shortcuts."
I tend to agree with these arguments for various reasons. Admittedly, part of it is preference. The one that bothers me the most is argument #4. "...most Americans are relatively low-information voters who are unlikely to dig down into the details..." The author means this and makes his argument in a different way than what bothers me. To me it's been very evident that most people, supporting proposed legislation and answering polls, relying upon their politicians and major media outlets for information about the issues, have been persistently lied to and misled about what the implications are of the proposals. Gun control advocates like President Obama, Senator Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg and others are counting on this as they stick to their well worn scripts. A lie repeated over and over again becomes believed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/22/gun_control_vote_likely_wont_affect_midterms_118045.html
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
California Firearms Blogs
Bulletproof Whiteboards Intended to Improve School Safety
April 23, 2013
There have been a lot of claims of concern for school safety. It's been clear from my past posts that I don't believe all the rhetoric is truly focused on that. Too much of it has been off target and too closely parallels decades old agendas to restrict and remove guns and 2nd Amendment rights. I have also posted a few times that there are professionals who can and would be willing to add value to a constructive conversation about school safety. I've seen enough evidence of that through my research. Here's one development, however, that I didn't see coming - bulletproof whiteboards.
I see this as a potential last line of defense and worry, like it says in the article, that: "they may provide a false sense of security. The prudent thing to do would be to retreat from danger rather than hide behind a whiteboard". Even so, at least there are people out there working on the problem in constructive ways. Let's hope they're affordable ways too.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/24/minnesota-school-district-gets-bulletproof-whiteboards/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/bulletproof-whiteboards-intended-to.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Protection from Firearms Blogs
There have been a lot of claims of concern for school safety. It's been clear from my past posts that I don't believe all the rhetoric is truly focused on that. Too much of it has been off target and too closely parallels decades old agendas to restrict and remove guns and 2nd Amendment rights. I have also posted a few times that there are professionals who can and would be willing to add value to a constructive conversation about school safety. I've seen enough evidence of that through my research. Here's one development, however, that I didn't see coming - bulletproof whiteboards.
I see this as a potential last line of defense and worry, like it says in the article, that: "they may provide a false sense of security. The prudent thing to do would be to retreat from danger rather than hide behind a whiteboard". Even so, at least there are people out there working on the problem in constructive ways. Let's hope they're affordable ways too.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/24/minnesota-school-district-gets-bulletproof-whiteboards/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/bulletproof-whiteboards-intended-to.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Protection from Firearms Blogs
Friday, April 19, 2013
Open Carry Citizen Disarmed in Temple, Texas
April 19, 2013
This video is disturbing in its portrayal of how the lawful right to carry arms openly was treated by law enforcement officers in Temple, Texas. The accompanying short article and headline are typical of what I consider to be 'alarmist' over-reactive sites, so read that with a grain of salt.
The 13:18 video is missing the initial encounter but it's described verbally later in the video. Assuming what the citizen says is accurate, I think there were mistakes made on both sides.
It seems like the first officer was too aggressive and that they were not respectful of the actual laws regarding open carry in Texas. I have no idea why he was arrested. Perhaps some law enforcement officer or lawyers here can explain?
On the other hand, I think the citizen could have avoided this hassle if he had brought his tone down several notches. I understand his anger and frustration but demonstrating them was not smart. I don't think his body language was particularly threatening.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/texas-gestapo-arrests-soldier-for-rudely-displaying-weapon/
In contrast, he's a selection of videos from a young guy in Oregon who intentionally walks around various towns with an AR-15 slung on his back with the intent of video recording the police response. I've watched a few of them and the police have always been professional and in at least one case were extremely generous of their time and accommodating. This guys goes way too far in my opinion because he's baiting the officers even if he thinks it's for the good cause of creating awareness.
Roseburg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olPkAYsNmQY&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=21
Springfield: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kslYbVVKYE&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=22
Corvallis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHuCiBIbK7g&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=20
Klamath Falls (In this one he's disarmed while the firearm is inspected to ensure it's not a fully automatic version of the MP-5.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj9wahCTz08 Note that the policeman, after inspecting and returning the firearm to its slung position, says that while these individuals are walking around armed that there won't be any crime near them - they're suppressing crime by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and state right to open carry firearms.
There are others here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Markedguardian
===
May 4, 2013
Another media report of someone choosing to live in fear and begging to become a victim. See how this woman responds in an interview to one of her community neighbors who frequently walks the neighborhood with a rifle slung on his shoulder.
I wonder, is she afraid of the dark? If so, does she sleep with a light on and tell her children there are things to be afraid of in the dark so they'll grow up with her phobia too? Is she afraid of heights? If so, does she refuse to climb ladders or stairs and prevent her children from doing so?
"My kids don't even come outside, 'cause they're scared." How about teaching them to not be scared of the sight of a firearm? How about speaking with your community neighbor and trying to understand him and what he's doing? And if that puts you more at ease, how about having your children speak to him too so they can see him not as the boogey man to be frightened of but as a protector?
"He could be good, without the rifle." Doesn't that say it all? The same person could be good without a rifle but is not good with a rifle. Wow. How do you combat that kind of ignorance? That kind of ideology? Does this woman think of herself as good as she lives in fear daily of the very sight of a firearm? Would she think of herself as not good if she were to hold it in her hands? That's essentially what she's suggesting about this community neighbor.
"I think the rifle is what scares everybody. 'Cause why do you need a rifle to pick up trash?" First of all, is "everybody" scared? Or just some like her? The armed citizen says some of his neighbors thank him. Second, does she really think that's why he carries the rifle - to pick up trash? He's out for a walk. He's cleaning up his neighborhood of garbage. He's looking out for their interests by being an observant citizen. And he's exercising his constitutional 2nd Amendment rights. News flash: there's no real connection between picking up trash and carrying the rifle.
"Let the policemen take care of that. Not you." She's apparently one of those brainwashed people who thinks the police can protect her and prevent crime. They do both. But they absolutely cannot do it always, anywhere, at any time, against any offender. To believe anything else is at least naive and probably more.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/gun-control-dont-worry-we-dont-want-your-guns/
This video is disturbing in its portrayal of how the lawful right to carry arms openly was treated by law enforcement officers in Temple, Texas. The accompanying short article and headline are typical of what I consider to be 'alarmist' over-reactive sites, so read that with a grain of salt.
The 13:18 video is missing the initial encounter but it's described verbally later in the video. Assuming what the citizen says is accurate, I think there were mistakes made on both sides.
It seems like the first officer was too aggressive and that they were not respectful of the actual laws regarding open carry in Texas. I have no idea why he was arrested. Perhaps some law enforcement officer or lawyers here can explain?
On the other hand, I think the citizen could have avoided this hassle if he had brought his tone down several notches. I understand his anger and frustration but demonstrating them was not smart. I don't think his body language was particularly threatening.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/texas-gestapo-arrests-soldier-for-rudely-displaying-weapon/
In contrast, he's a selection of videos from a young guy in Oregon who intentionally walks around various towns with an AR-15 slung on his back with the intent of video recording the police response. I've watched a few of them and the police have always been professional and in at least one case were extremely generous of their time and accommodating. This guys goes way too far in my opinion because he's baiting the officers even if he thinks it's for the good cause of creating awareness.
Roseburg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olPkAYsNmQY&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=21
Springfield: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kslYbVVKYE&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=22
Corvallis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHuCiBIbK7g&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=20
Klamath Falls (In this one he's disarmed while the firearm is inspected to ensure it's not a fully automatic version of the MP-5.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj9wahCTz08 Note that the policeman, after inspecting and returning the firearm to its slung position, says that while these individuals are walking around armed that there won't be any crime near them - they're suppressing crime by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and state right to open carry firearms.
There are others here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Markedguardian
===
May 4, 2013
Another media report of someone choosing to live in fear and begging to become a victim. See how this woman responds in an interview to one of her community neighbors who frequently walks the neighborhood with a rifle slung on his shoulder.
I wonder, is she afraid of the dark? If so, does she sleep with a light on and tell her children there are things to be afraid of in the dark so they'll grow up with her phobia too? Is she afraid of heights? If so, does she refuse to climb ladders or stairs and prevent her children from doing so?
"My kids don't even come outside, 'cause they're scared." How about teaching them to not be scared of the sight of a firearm? How about speaking with your community neighbor and trying to understand him and what he's doing? And if that puts you more at ease, how about having your children speak to him too so they can see him not as the boogey man to be frightened of but as a protector?
"He could be good, without the rifle." Doesn't that say it all? The same person could be good without a rifle but is not good with a rifle. Wow. How do you combat that kind of ignorance? That kind of ideology? Does this woman think of herself as good as she lives in fear daily of the very sight of a firearm? Would she think of herself as not good if she were to hold it in her hands? That's essentially what she's suggesting about this community neighbor.
"I think the rifle is what scares everybody. 'Cause why do you need a rifle to pick up trash?" First of all, is "everybody" scared? Or just some like her? The armed citizen says some of his neighbors thank him. Second, does she really think that's why he carries the rifle - to pick up trash? He's out for a walk. He's cleaning up his neighborhood of garbage. He's looking out for their interests by being an observant citizen. And he's exercising his constitutional 2nd Amendment rights. News flash: there's no real connection between picking up trash and carrying the rifle.
"Let the policemen take care of that. Not you." She's apparently one of those brainwashed people who thinks the police can protect her and prevent crime. They do both. But they absolutely cannot do it always, anywhere, at any time, against any offender. To believe anything else is at least naive and probably more.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/gun-control-dont-worry-we-dont-want-your-guns/
- DK: I didn't even watch the video. I'm sure she acts in an uncivilized way. But do you really think people walking the streets with rifles around their shoulders like this is the answer? This is one person in a small neighborhood and it looks crazy to me! Imagine a very populus area (downtown chicago) and thousands of people carrying rifles around their shoulders. Ludicrous! And now we've gone from owning a gun to 'protect your family' to condoning a vigilante to roam the neighborhood and act as an enforcer of the law? Like it or not, most people who saw this man roaming their neighborhood would immediately consider him a person 'to keep an eye on'. And if there was a murder in the neighborhood? Guess whose house would be the first one the cops visit?
- ME: DK, she doesn't act uncivilized at all. She appears to just be a very timid, fearful person - at least where guns are concerned. As mentioned, her statement that "He could be good, without the rifle." is very indicative of her view. And I'm sure it's shared by many. But it's completely flawed. A good person doesn't become a bad person just because they pick up a gun.
No, DK, I don't think this is "the answer". I'm not promoting what he's doing. I don't think it's the "right thing to do". But he's "within his rights to do it" and I know that carrying a gun does not automatically equate to danger or evil. The media floods us with the incidents of guns being used for criminal violence, suicide and incidents of negligence. The same media is grossly negligent in not showing the other side. It's estimated that guns are used between 600k and 2.5 million times per year to defend life, safety or property. In 2011 there were approx. 32k deaths in our country by guns. That includes homicide, justifiable homicide (police and self defense shootings), suicides and 'accidental' death. Even if we split the middle of the 600k-2.5m estimate and call it 1.4 million, even if we use the low end at just 600k positive uses of a gun, that's still a HUGE margin in favor of gun rights. Different states have different laws about open carry, as exercised here, concealed carry and transportation. All gun owners have to decide which to exercise as they live their lives. And there are pros and cons, risks and benefits of all of them. Displaying a firearm in open carry can be a deterrent to crime, as acknowledged by the police officer from Klamath Falls, Oregon in an embedded link at the blog link above. Having concealed firearms in society is also a deterrent because the criminals don't know where the resistance or risks to their plans will come from.
I have posted about 3 people who have done this. I've lightly criticized the guy who goes to different towns throughout Oregon with the intent of being stopped by police officers so he can record the incidents and post them on YouTube. It's easy to think this is an attempt to setup the police. He seems to think he's on a campaign to inform people, including police officers, of gun rights and laws. I've watched at least 4 of his videos and I've never seen him in a negative encounter with police. They've all been very respectful and professional. Some have been extraordinarily patient with the guy. But I think there's a better way than his one-man demonstration. I recently posted about a man and his son who were on a 10-mile hike in Texas for the son's Boy Scout merit badge. The Army veteran father carried an AR-15 in open carry and a .45 pistol concealed. Both were legal. He was stopped by police and the encounter was very much a conflict and resulted in the father being taken into custody. He claims he wasn't carrying for demonstration or statement purposes but because of the potential threat from Texas wildlife. But he seemed well enough versed in his firearms rights, as gun owners sometimes must be. I don't think the police behaved professionally and I think the veteran's response only escalated the situation. Both were in the wrong, in my opinion - but not for carrying the firearms, just for the encounter. The guy in this latest article who's walking his neighborhood, picking up trash and carrying his rifle seems harmless. I don't know if he's making a statement or if he's a one-man neighborhood watch - an armed Guardian Angel. (Yes, I know the GAs weren't armed.) Regardless, he's within his rights and doesn't appear to be a threat to his neighbors. He even says he wouldn't chase after a suspected criminal. But the appearance of the rifle and brandishing it, if necessary, are crime reducers. He's providing a service for which some of his neighbors are thankful and others are not. But he's not doing it just for them. It's his neighborhood too.
Separately, there are open carry demonstrations occasionally throughout the country. I think I've read about a couple in the past few months. Just an hour ago I read about another one that's being planned for Washington DC on July 4th. The ones I've heard about elsewhere were peaceful, non-violent affairs - exercising both 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. The one in DC is worrisome to me. The rhetoric is stronger - 'this will be a non-violent demonstration, unless the government chooses to make it violent' and 'this is civil disobedience (because DC has such strict gun laws that they'll likely be violating), not a permitted activity'. I think this group is asking for trouble. And if they do get arrested and convicted of violations of gun laws in DC, they risk losing their 2nd Amendment rights. That's a whole different topic - whether all felonies should qualify to remove 2nd Amendment rights.
Appreciate your comments and questions, DK, as always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)