Protection from Firearms Blogs:
Bulletproof Clothing and Backpacks
Bulletproof Whiteboards Intended to Improve School Safety
Anti-rape underwear called "SHE"
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Protection from Firearms Blogs
###
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Gun Control Advocates Suffer Pinocchio's Curse
June 23, 2013
How many times have we heard or read some version of these quotes from the iconic gun control advocates - President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Piers Morgan, et al?
===
"There's a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check … 40 percent of guns are sold that way" - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, July 2012
===
It's too bad for their ideological push to infringe on Americans' constitutionally provided 2nd Amendment rights that that statistic and others they use are false and that they are nothing but liars each and every time they use them.
The 40% number was debunked by several sources shortly after it began circulating in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. So why is it still in use then? Because it's powerful, it sounds so compelling and because influential gun control advocates know that if they led with the truth they'd wouldn't be successful in pushing their anti-gun agenda. The Washington Post originally assigned a "Verdict Pending" status to this in the wake of Newtown. It was later downgraded to 2 Pinocchios. Now it's been further downgraded to 3 Pinocchios.
"...we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.” And the Associated Press, in a March fact check, labeled this factoid “old and surely very tired.”"
"There are two key problems with the president’s use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to “purchases” or “sales” when in fact the original report concerned “gun acquisitions” and “transactions.” Those are much broader categories of data."
"This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment." This is a HUGE factor in data analysis! They have apples and oranges in the same dataset.
"the survey sample was just 251 people"
"when asked whether the respondent bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)
When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although as we noted before, the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent."
So there was uncertainty even at the root source of the data with "probably" answers. Then even with a margin of error of +/- 6%, gun control advocates take the high number and round up to the convenient 40% number.
"when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent"
"...the Senate bill that would expand background checks — supported by the White House — specifically makes an exception for “a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings” as well as “the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will."
"...in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent." HALF the number being spread by gun control advocates - using the same data as re-analyzed by the original author of the study!
"Cook and Ludwig wrote “we don’t know the current percentage — nor does anyone else.” "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/03/obama-criticized-for-using-dated-disputed-gun-stat-to-sell-background-checks/
Here are several other sources that discredit or at least acknowledge the inaccuracy of the oft-used 40% claim:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/police-chief-johnsons-testimony-40-bypass-background-checks-is-false/
"Even in its heyday, the statistic wasn't the kind you could count on.
"OBAMA, on Jan. 16: "It's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks.... But it's hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fact-check-gun-debate-deals-moldy-stats
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/30/kirsten-gillibrand/gillibrand-says-40-percent-guns-sold-today-escape-/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/gun-control-advocates-suffer-pinocchios.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Violent Crime & Firearms Background Checks
How many times have we heard or read some version of these quotes from the iconic gun control advocates - President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Piers Morgan, et al?
===
“Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check?” — President Obama, remarks on gun safety, March 28, 2013
“FACT: Nearly 40% of all gun sales don't require a background check under current law. #DemandAction” — tweet from @BarackObama, March 28
"Today, about 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check." - Kirsten Gillibrand on Thursday, January 24th, 2013 in an interview on MSNBC"There's a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check … 40 percent of guns are sold that way" - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, July 2012
===
It's too bad for their ideological push to infringe on Americans' constitutionally provided 2nd Amendment rights that that statistic and others they use are false and that they are nothing but liars each and every time they use them.
The 40% number was debunked by several sources shortly after it began circulating in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. So why is it still in use then? Because it's powerful, it sounds so compelling and because influential gun control advocates know that if they led with the truth they'd wouldn't be successful in pushing their anti-gun agenda. The Washington Post originally assigned a "Verdict Pending" status to this in the wake of Newtown. It was later downgraded to 2 Pinocchios. Now it's been further downgraded to 3 Pinocchios.
"...we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.” And the Associated Press, in a March fact check, labeled this factoid “old and surely very tired.”"
"There are two key problems with the president’s use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to “purchases” or “sales” when in fact the original report concerned “gun acquisitions” and “transactions.” Those are much broader categories of data."
"This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment." This is a HUGE factor in data analysis! They have apples and oranges in the same dataset.
"the survey sample was just 251 people"
"when asked whether the respondent bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)
When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although as we noted before, the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent."
So there was uncertainty even at the root source of the data with "probably" answers. Then even with a margin of error of +/- 6%, gun control advocates take the high number and round up to the convenient 40% number.
"when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent"
"...the Senate bill that would expand background checks — supported by the White House — specifically makes an exception for “a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings” as well as “the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will."
"...in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent." HALF the number being spread by gun control advocates - using the same data as re-analyzed by the original author of the study!
"Cook and Ludwig wrote “we don’t know the current percentage — nor does anyone else.” "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/03/obama-criticized-for-using-dated-disputed-gun-stat-to-sell-background-checks/
Here are several other sources that discredit or at least acknowledge the inaccuracy of the oft-used 40% claim:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html
"Even in its heyday, the statistic wasn't the kind you could count on.
A finding that 30 percent to 40 percent of guns changed hands outside the background-check system was, at best, a rough guide post in the murky gun-ownership universe.
At least it was fresh.
Now it's old and surely very tired. But President Barack Obama, some Democratic lawmakers, a coalition of mayors and others arguing for expanded background checks won't let that statistic rest in peace.
To hear them talk, you'd think it was born yesterday, rather than 20 years ago.""OBAMA, on Jan. 16: "It's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks.... But it's hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check."
MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS, a coalition favoring tighter gun controls, on Tuesday: "Around 40 percent of U.S. gun transfers are conducted by unlicensed 'private sellers' who are not required to conduct a federal check, and who often do business at gun shows and on the Internet."
NEW YORK MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, Dec. 17: "Congress should pass the Fix Gun Checks Act, which would close the 'private sale loophole' that allows more than 40 percent of gun sales to go through without a background check."
REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I., Jan. 26: "More than 40 percent of sales nationally are made without background checks."
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, Jan. 17: "Because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can't say with absolute certainty what I'm about to say is correct. But the consensus is about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the ... background check system." "http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/30/kirsten-gillibrand/gillibrand-says-40-percent-guns-sold-today-escape-/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/gun-control-advocates-suffer-pinocchios.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Violent Crime & Firearms Background Checks
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Handgun Selection Advice for Women
June 22, 2013
Women who are considering purchasing a handgun may be interested in this 1st-time gun buying woman's article about her experience.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/15/what-we-learned-when-we-sent-a-female-reporter-shopping-for-a-home-defense-handgun/
===
July 10, 2013
The description of this book, "The Rookie's Guide to Guns and Shooting, Handgun Edition", looks good. There's probably something in here we could all learn about handgun selection and introduction into the world of firearms. Even those well acquainted might learn how to better introduce their friends and family members.
http://books.broadwayworld.com/article/The-Rookies-Guide-to-Guns-and-Shooting-Handgun-Edition-from-Insanely-Practical-Guides-is-Released-20130709
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/handgun-selection-advice-for-women.html
Firearms Blog Collections
More Women Giving Guns a Shot
Women who are considering purchasing a handgun may be interested in this 1st-time gun buying woman's article about her experience.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/15/what-we-learned-when-we-sent-a-female-reporter-shopping-for-a-home-defense-handgun/
===
July 10, 2013
The description of this book, "The Rookie's Guide to Guns and Shooting, Handgun Edition", looks good. There's probably something in here we could all learn about handgun selection and introduction into the world of firearms. Even those well acquainted might learn how to better introduce their friends and family members.
http://books.broadwayworld.com/article/The-Rookies-Guide-to-Guns-and-Shooting-Handgun-Edition-from-Insanely-Practical-Guides-is-Released-20130709
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/handgun-selection-advice-for-women.html
Firearms Blog Collections
More Women Giving Guns a Shot
Thursday, June 20, 2013
"Bushmaster CEO breaks silence on Newtown school shooting"
June 20, 2013
"George Kollitides, the CEO of Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster, was blamed by some as being complicit in the killings. He has not commented on the controversy, until now.
“At the time of Sandy Hook, Connecticut had a pre-existing ‘assault-weapon’ ban, which like all gun bans, was based on cosmetic features, which once again proves the looks of a gun have nothing to do with its effectiveness. Any weapon in the hand of a criminal or those bent on destruction is dangerous. Bans don’t work. Preventing access and punishment work,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/14/bushmaster-ceo-reflects-on-newtown/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/bushmaster-ceo-breaks-silence-on.html
Firearms Blog Collections
"George Kollitides, the CEO of Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster, was blamed by some as being complicit in the killings. He has not commented on the controversy, until now.
“It’s very easy to blame an inanimate object. Any kind of instrument in the wrong hands can be put to evil use. This comes down to intent — criminal behavior, accountability and responsibility,”
“He killed the gun’s owner, stole her car, stole her gun and then went to a school and killed innocent kids. No background checks could have prevented that. He illegally obtained the guns,” “Only two things could have potentially stopped him: his mother locking up her guns and an armed guard. Even then, he could have driven his stolen car into a playground full of kids. He was intent on killing, which we know is already illegal.”
“I’m clearly for preventing criminals and the mentally ill from getting firearms. I’m not against well-written background checks, but the devil is in the details,” Mr. Kollitides said. “No matter how well intended, if legislators get the details wrong, we will end up with a backdoor registration, which is where some of the recently defeated federal legislation was taking background checks.”
“The key is to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting firearms, and, when they do, punish them to the maximum extent of the law”.
“A better mental health system. Accountability of neighbors and parents. I have three young kids; at the end of the day, I am a huge proponent of armed guards in schools.”
“We want to make sure we make a quality product, a safe product, it doesn’t misfire, it doesn’t fall apart.”
“However, it’s inherently a dangerous product. When you load it, unsafe it, point and pull the trigger, it’s going to have a devastating affect on anything in its path. That’s why we need to emphasize safety, accountability and responsibility.” "
I generally agree with those statements, as opposed to these shameful ones.
"Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC charged on Feb. 16 that the CEO is “the merchant of death who made the Bushmaster military-style assault rifle used to rip up the bodies of the 20 children and six educators.”
Mr. O'Donnell then put Mr. Kollitides‘ photo on the screen and said, “Leave it up there for a while. I want this merchant of death to be stared at by a national audience for as long as possible.”
The New York Times published an editorial in January that said Bushmaster’s advertising caused criminal behavior, concluding that, “Given their financial success, gun makers have apparently decided that the risk of an occasional massacre is part of the cost of doing business.” "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/14/bushmaster-ceo-reflects-on-newtown/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/bushmaster-ceo-breaks-silence-on.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Insurance Companies Take Sides in Gun Control Debate
June 20, 2013
Wright Specialty Insurance, Continental Western Group and EMC Insurance Companies have taken sides in the gun control debate. They already provide insurance for Kansas school districts but will restrict coverage for concealed carry of firearms or not renew their coverage for districts that allow it.
A "new law lets school boards designate employees who can bring guns to school. The employees must have valid concealed-carry permits."
While I mostly agree with " “We understand that school districts have every right to decide which way they want to go,” Bernie Zalaznik, EMC’s resident vice president in Wichita, said Monday. “But we have to make the decision based on what we perceive to be our best financial interest.” " I remain skeptical that this is a purely financial interest decision. Why? There are schools in other states that have allowed concealed carry for many years without incident. Homeowners insurance already covers incidents involving firearms. There are many high-risk activities that are covered by insurance companies - law enforcement, flying, skydiving, SCUBA diving, motorcycle riding, race car driving, etc. And it seems from the article that they do already provide insurance where firearms are in the schools - in the hands of law enforcement officers. Those officers are not immune to negligent discharges of their firearms of having them taken from them.
http://cjonline.com/news/2013-06-18/no-school-insurance-teachers-guns
Have you seen the YouTube video of an officer discussing firearms safety in a classroom? It's worth watching this 2:49 video to see him shoot himself with his "unloaded gun". I realize this will embolden many gun control advocates, "see, guns in the classroom are dangerous", but we don't need to go there, do we? I don't think we're expecting licensed, trained, authorized school staff to teach firearms safety and we hope they'll never have to draw their firearm in school for any reason - certainly not for classroom demonstration. Firearms safety should be taught in schools but should be provided in a truly safe environment and by trained professionals who provide that service - with better safety performance records than this particular officer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
===
July 2, 2013
Despite 100 years of precedent, no one will be allowed to march in the Independence Day Parade in Belton, Texas while carrying firearms, including the color guard and battle re-enactors.
The L&N Insurance Group of Temple, Texas refuses to insure the event if there are firearms present. That's not that they will charge more - it's that they refuse to insure. As mentioned in the comments of this article, insurance companies measure risk and charge appropriate rates. With firearms incidents by law abiding people at public events, there's no reasonable justification for refusing to insure the town for the event except to make a political statement. Also as suggested in the comments, either the town should get a different insurance company, those who would normally participate with firearms should not march - including the color guard, or the parade should be cancelled. This is another ridiculous pro-gun control statement that shows complete ignorance for the real issues. This does NOTHING to prevent someone from actually committing a crime with a gun there - and that kind of person would likely not be a registered participant of the formal parade. It's also mentioned that it does nothing to prevent firearms in general from being present as many people will have their personal, lawfully carried concealed firearms with them - just not as they march - unless they just don't display them as they march.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/parade-marchers-soldiers-banned-from-carrying-rifles-during-local-parade-for-first-time-in-100-years/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/insurance-companies-take-sides-in-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Insurance Blogs
Companies with Negative Gun Policies
Wright Specialty Insurance, Continental Western Group and EMC Insurance Companies have taken sides in the gun control debate. They already provide insurance for Kansas school districts but will restrict coverage for concealed carry of firearms or not renew their coverage for districts that allow it.
A "new law lets school boards designate employees who can bring guns to school. The employees must have valid concealed-carry permits."
While I mostly agree with " “We understand that school districts have every right to decide which way they want to go,” Bernie Zalaznik, EMC’s resident vice president in Wichita, said Monday. “But we have to make the decision based on what we perceive to be our best financial interest.” " I remain skeptical that this is a purely financial interest decision. Why? There are schools in other states that have allowed concealed carry for many years without incident. Homeowners insurance already covers incidents involving firearms. There are many high-risk activities that are covered by insurance companies - law enforcement, flying, skydiving, SCUBA diving, motorcycle riding, race car driving, etc. And it seems from the article that they do already provide insurance where firearms are in the schools - in the hands of law enforcement officers. Those officers are not immune to negligent discharges of their firearms of having them taken from them.
http://cjonline.com/news/2013-06-18/no-school-insurance-teachers-guns
Have you seen the YouTube video of an officer discussing firearms safety in a classroom? It's worth watching this 2:49 video to see him shoot himself with his "unloaded gun". I realize this will embolden many gun control advocates, "see, guns in the classroom are dangerous", but we don't need to go there, do we? I don't think we're expecting licensed, trained, authorized school staff to teach firearms safety and we hope they'll never have to draw their firearm in school for any reason - certainly not for classroom demonstration. Firearms safety should be taught in schools but should be provided in a truly safe environment and by trained professionals who provide that service - with better safety performance records than this particular officer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
===
July 2, 2013
Despite 100 years of precedent, no one will be allowed to march in the Independence Day Parade in Belton, Texas while carrying firearms, including the color guard and battle re-enactors.
The L&N Insurance Group of Temple, Texas refuses to insure the event if there are firearms present. That's not that they will charge more - it's that they refuse to insure. As mentioned in the comments of this article, insurance companies measure risk and charge appropriate rates. With firearms incidents by law abiding people at public events, there's no reasonable justification for refusing to insure the town for the event except to make a political statement. Also as suggested in the comments, either the town should get a different insurance company, those who would normally participate with firearms should not march - including the color guard, or the parade should be cancelled. This is another ridiculous pro-gun control statement that shows complete ignorance for the real issues. This does NOTHING to prevent someone from actually committing a crime with a gun there - and that kind of person would likely not be a registered participant of the formal parade. It's also mentioned that it does nothing to prevent firearms in general from being present as many people will have their personal, lawfully carried concealed firearms with them - just not as they march - unless they just don't display them as they march.
L & N Insurance Group, Temple, Texas is the insurer that is refusing coverage:
Main Office Address
4311 West Adams Ste. 209
Temple, TX 76504
Temple, TX 76504
Main Office Phone
tel. (254) 771-5581
fax (254) 771-5589
tel. (254) 771-5581
fax (254) 771-5589
Post Office Box
P.O. Box 366
Temple, TX 76503
Email Us
P.O. Box 366
Temple, TX 76503
Email Us
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/parade-marchers-soldiers-banned-from-carrying-rifles-during-local-parade-for-first-time-in-100-years/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/insurance-companies-take-sides-in-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Insurance Blogs
Companies with Negative Gun Policies
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Illinois Firearms CONFISCATION
June 12, 2013
Incidents of firearms CONFISCATION continue. The latest is in Arlington Heights, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.
Arthur Lovi had 3 antique firearms confiscated because he sought grief counseling in August 2012 due to several losses in his life going back almost 10 years, including his wife 9 years earlier. He admitted to anger over a misdiagnosis of his wife's condition but acknowledged it probably wouldn't have saved his wife. The psychological counselor perceived a threat to the doctor and felt obligated to inform local police but also told them she didn't think Lovi was a danger to himself or others. Regardless, that cover-your-ass (CYA) phone call set the wheels in motion resulting in threats, intimidation, illegal search and seizure, a denial of due process under the law, 'encouraged' (forced) psychological evaluation that lasted less than a day before determining he was not a threat, and months of withholding his property that he only got back (damaged) after getting (and paying for?) a lawyer. This is not the America we all studied in high school.
"Lovi told the therapist about Cindy's death and his bitterness over the incorrect diagnosis.
Without knowledge of all the specifics of the case, one person's general opinion was "if it had ended violently, people would be asking questions about why the police didn't take Lovi's weapons". That's true enough. But by what 'reasonable' standard are we measuring things? The misdiagnosis he was bitter about happened 9 years earlier and he'd shown no outward aggression. The counselor who reported the 'threat' also said she didn't think he'd carry it out or that he was a threat to himself or other. The forced psychological evaluation said he wasn't a threat to himself or others. And they still refused to return his property! They lied to him in the process. They sent him to 'get a note' from a counselor. They didn't return his property until he got a lawyer, months later. What's the statute of limitations on depression being used to infringe on multiple constitutional civil rights?
The article isn't too long but goes into much greater detail describing the whole ordeal.
Good luck, Mr. Lovi, in your pending lawsuit. While you only be pursuing fair compensation and may not be interested in financial gain or penalizing the Arlington Heights Police Department, I'm sitting on the sidelines hoping it hurts them and sends a powerful message that this is NOT acceptable.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130609/news/706099896/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/illinois-firearms-confiscation.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
Illinois Firearms Blogs
Incidents of firearms CONFISCATION continue. The latest is in Arlington Heights, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.
Arthur Lovi had 3 antique firearms confiscated because he sought grief counseling in August 2012 due to several losses in his life going back almost 10 years, including his wife 9 years earlier. He admitted to anger over a misdiagnosis of his wife's condition but acknowledged it probably wouldn't have saved his wife. The psychological counselor perceived a threat to the doctor and felt obligated to inform local police but also told them she didn't think Lovi was a danger to himself or others. Regardless, that cover-your-ass (CYA) phone call set the wheels in motion resulting in threats, intimidation, illegal search and seizure, a denial of due process under the law, 'encouraged' (forced) psychological evaluation that lasted less than a day before determining he was not a threat, and months of withholding his property that he only got back (damaged) after getting (and paying for?) a lawyer. This is not the America we all studied in high school.
"Lovi told the therapist about Cindy's death and his bitterness over the incorrect diagnosis.
"I'll have hard feelings about it until the day I die," Lovi says now. "Not that a day would make a difference, but maybe it would have. I'll never know."
After the session, Lovi's therapist was concerned. She called the Arlington Heights police to report he had made a threat against the first doctor who saw his wife.
She told them she didn't think he would carry it out or that he was dangerous to himself or others, but she just wanted to do her job and report it."Without knowledge of all the specifics of the case, one person's general opinion was "if it had ended violently, people would be asking questions about why the police didn't take Lovi's weapons". That's true enough. But by what 'reasonable' standard are we measuring things? The misdiagnosis he was bitter about happened 9 years earlier and he'd shown no outward aggression. The counselor who reported the 'threat' also said she didn't think he'd carry it out or that he was a threat to himself or other. The forced psychological evaluation said he wasn't a threat to himself or others. And they still refused to return his property! They lied to him in the process. They sent him to 'get a note' from a counselor. They didn't return his property until he got a lawyer, months later. What's the statute of limitations on depression being used to infringe on multiple constitutional civil rights?
The article isn't too long but goes into much greater detail describing the whole ordeal.
Good luck, Mr. Lovi, in your pending lawsuit. While you only be pursuing fair compensation and may not be interested in financial gain or penalizing the Arlington Heights Police Department, I'm sitting on the sidelines hoping it hurts them and sends a powerful message that this is NOT acceptable.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130609/news/706099896/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/illinois-firearms-confiscation.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
Illinois Firearms Blogs
New Jersey Sidesteps Senate Committee Rules in Push for Gun Control
June 12, 2013
It appears from this 'article' that the New Jersey Senate has taken a lesson from Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. The embedded audio clip shows they're trying to set aside committee procedure because they're finding it doesn't suit their intent to pass stricter gun control legislation. They won't allow the voting on a particularly bad piece of gun control legislation to conclude and try to move on to other business because they realize they don't have enough votes to pass it. Despicable.
'Oops, we've introduced an amendment, started the voting process and will now table it before voting concludes because in the midst of the voting it's clear it's not going our way. So we'll just table it for now until we can be more certain of an outcome favorable to our position. We cannot allow the vote to conclude because then it would actually have failed.'
This short 'article' is mostly an email, so don't consider it objective journalism. Its description of the proposed legislation is VERY concerning though. If the description is accurate and if it gets passed it would represent a huge infringement on 2nd Amendment rights for New Jersey residents.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/tv-star-tweets-on-guns-loses-half-her-following/
===
June 26, 2013
People in favor of gun rights will 'love' this story.
Firearms owners too often have to abide by laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment that "shall not be infringed" but gun rights groups in New Jersey won't stand for "vote-rigging" in the otherwise already tainted legislative process.
The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society have served legal notice to Democratic New Jersey Assembly Speaker Shelia Oliver that anti-gun bill A4182 AND 10 other bills with action taken must be rescinded due to manipulation of the legislative process in violation of explicit assembly rules. This is sweet!
In short, when taking the votes on the gun control bill, the process was put "on hold" once the Democrats in control of the committee realized they didn't have enough votes to pass it. They moved on to other business instead in spite of the opposition voicing its concern for legislative process and committee rules. (It's all on video and available in my previous post on this topic.) That's one violation. The roll call cannot be interrupted for new business until complete and the results announced.
Then they went a step further and transferred to bill to another committee where they knew they would get enough votes to pass it. That's where the "vote-rigging" comes in and is also in violation of assembly rules.
As a result, 11 pieces of legislation, including the gun control bill, have no valid status. They must first complete the roll call / vote for A4182 in the same committee where it has already received enough nay votes that it cannot pass. They they'd have to reintroduce and re-vote on the 10 other bills.
This kind of blatant manipulation, sacrificing the democratic process, to achieve a desired result should be criminal and those responsible should lose their positions and be banned from serving public office!
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/BREAKING--NJ-Gun-Groups-Serve-Legal-Notice-on-Vote--Rigging-.html?soid=1104412490596&aid=9VxHD-SgQLs
Here's the actual legal notice. It's a short letter of only 1.5 pages of real content that's a joy to read in that it's direct and concise. It says 'you cheated, we're calling you on it, this bill shall NOT pass!'
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Legal_Motions___Briefs/DLS_to_Assembly_Speaker_v1.pdf
And here's a 1:24 video showing the bipartisan expression of concerns over this poor and overly restrictive legislation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hCvJxQoSE
===
June 27, 2013
I saw this on Facebook today. I don't have an original source at this time and don't know what was in this specific legislation.
"**BREAKING** A friendly New Jersey assembly member just passed along the news that the anti-gun NJ Bill S2467 / A3668 was VETOED by Governor Christie today. Thank you to the thousands of people who took action at FPC! WE CAN DO THIS - KEEP UP THE PRESSURE at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/. Remember to LIKE and SHARE to spread the word!"
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/new-jersey-sidesteps-senate-committee.html
Firearms Blog Collections
New Jersey Firearms Blogs
New York Governor Cuomo Violates State Constitution in Pushing "SAFE" Gun Control Legislation
It appears from this 'article' that the New Jersey Senate has taken a lesson from Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. The embedded audio clip shows they're trying to set aside committee procedure because they're finding it doesn't suit their intent to pass stricter gun control legislation. They won't allow the voting on a particularly bad piece of gun control legislation to conclude and try to move on to other business because they realize they don't have enough votes to pass it. Despicable.
'Oops, we've introduced an amendment, started the voting process and will now table it before voting concludes because in the midst of the voting it's clear it's not going our way. So we'll just table it for now until we can be more certain of an outcome favorable to our position. We cannot allow the vote to conclude because then it would actually have failed.'
This short 'article' is mostly an email, so don't consider it objective journalism. Its description of the proposed legislation is VERY concerning though. If the description is accurate and if it gets passed it would represent a huge infringement on 2nd Amendment rights for New Jersey residents.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/tv-star-tweets-on-guns-loses-half-her-following/
===
June 26, 2013
People in favor of gun rights will 'love' this story.
Firearms owners too often have to abide by laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment that "shall not be infringed" but gun rights groups in New Jersey won't stand for "vote-rigging" in the otherwise already tainted legislative process.
The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society have served legal notice to Democratic New Jersey Assembly Speaker Shelia Oliver that anti-gun bill A4182 AND 10 other bills with action taken must be rescinded due to manipulation of the legislative process in violation of explicit assembly rules. This is sweet!
In short, when taking the votes on the gun control bill, the process was put "on hold" once the Democrats in control of the committee realized they didn't have enough votes to pass it. They moved on to other business instead in spite of the opposition voicing its concern for legislative process and committee rules. (It's all on video and available in my previous post on this topic.) That's one violation. The roll call cannot be interrupted for new business until complete and the results announced.
Then they went a step further and transferred to bill to another committee where they knew they would get enough votes to pass it. That's where the "vote-rigging" comes in and is also in violation of assembly rules.
As a result, 11 pieces of legislation, including the gun control bill, have no valid status. They must first complete the roll call / vote for A4182 in the same committee where it has already received enough nay votes that it cannot pass. They they'd have to reintroduce and re-vote on the 10 other bills.
This kind of blatant manipulation, sacrificing the democratic process, to achieve a desired result should be criminal and those responsible should lose their positions and be banned from serving public office!
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/BREAKING--NJ-Gun-Groups-Serve-Legal-Notice-on-Vote--Rigging-.html?soid=1104412490596&aid=9VxHD-SgQLs
Here's the actual legal notice. It's a short letter of only 1.5 pages of real content that's a joy to read in that it's direct and concise. It says 'you cheated, we're calling you on it, this bill shall NOT pass!'
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Legal_Motions___Briefs/DLS_to_Assembly_Speaker_v1.pdf
And here's a 1:24 video showing the bipartisan expression of concerns over this poor and overly restrictive legislation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hCvJxQoSE
===
June 27, 2013
I saw this on Facebook today. I don't have an original source at this time and don't know what was in this specific legislation.
"**BREAKING** A friendly New Jersey assembly member just passed along the news that the anti-gun NJ Bill S2467 / A3668 was VETOED by Governor Christie today. Thank you to the thousands of people who took action at FPC! WE CAN DO THIS - KEEP UP THE PRESSURE at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/. Remember to LIKE and SHARE to spread the word!"
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/new-jersey-sidesteps-senate-committee.html
Firearms Blog Collections
New Jersey Firearms Blogs
New York Governor Cuomo Violates State Constitution in Pushing "SAFE" Gun Control Legislation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)