Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 31, 2014, 01:34:23 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82095 Posts in 2246 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 32 Print
Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )  (Read 225219 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1350 on: April 18, 2013, 10:33:23 PM »


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/01/Newtown-Votes-To-Put-Armed-Guards-In-Schools
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5871


« Reply #1351 on: April 20, 2013, 07:42:25 PM »

It's too bad the left is unwilling to have an honest debate on anything, in this case guns.  There is an argument to be made (see 28 internet pages with 162,000 reads in this thread) that the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms makes us safer.  One armed citizen positioned near her might have ended the shooting sooner.  The would be confiscators would do well to read this as well:

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I didn't shoot Gabby Giffords.  I feel compassion for what she went through.  I don't care less than she does about the other victims.  I was once mowed down by a car.  I didn't see her visit me or run out to ban vehicles, and I don't impugn her humanity for that oversight.  Having our motives constantly impugned is sickening.  Only the people oblivious to the clause above care about the victims and the tragedies, she believes.  I've had it with that brand of self righteous drivel.  Aren't you lucky, Gabby Giffords, to have "every reasonable American" on your side.  Win over some of the unreasonable and uncaring people and you might have a working majority.  James Taranto picks apart her atrocious logic quite well here:. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430771447679726.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Giffords's 900-word jeremiad should be included in every textbook of logic and political rhetoric, so rife is it with examples of fallacious reasoning and demagogic appeals. Let's go through them:

• The argumentum ad passiones, or appeal to emotion. She leads with this one: "Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them."

• The appeal to motives. Giffords claims that the senators who voted against the measures "looked over their shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby" and "made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association." She also asserts that "their decision was based on a misplaced sense of self-interest" and on "cowardice." These characterizations are mutually inconsistent--can a senator's decision have been based on both unreasoning fear and a cold (but erroneous!) calculation of self-interest?--and they are also entirely unsubstantiated. So is her assertion that "the status quo" is "desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation."

• Guilt by association. See the references to the "gun lobby" in the preceding paragraph.

• Poisoning the well. She reveals that some of the senators who voted against the amendments "have met with grieving parents" and that some "have also looked into my eyes . . . and expressed sympathy" for her and other Tucson victims. Her purpose in citing these facts is to impugn the senators' sincerity: "And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them." In reality, they didn't "do nothing"; they rejected particular legislative proposals. It does not follow, and indeed it seems unlikely and is boorish to assert, that their expressions of sympathy were not heartfelt.

• Begging the question. Giffords characterizes the proposed amendments as "common-sense legislation" that "could prevent future tragedies." She also describes them as "these most benign and practical of solutions." She pretends that the central matter in dispute--whether the benefits would outweigh the costs or indeed whether the proposals would have yielded the benefits their advocates promised at all--has already been settled in her side's favor.

• The no-true-Scotsman move. "These senators have heard from their constituents--who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks," Giffords writes. She ignores the possibility that those polls are flawed and that the senators are hearing a different message from their constituents. Then she qualifies her claim of public unanimity: "I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth . . ." See what she did there? (The switcheroo to every reasonable American reminds us of a probably apocryphal tale about Adlai Stevenson. A woman is supposed to have said to him, "Governor, you have the support of every thinking American," to which he replied: "But madam, I need a majority.")

• The argumentum ad baculam, or argument from the club. This consists in attempting to persuade by making threats. Giffords urges "mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You've lost my vote" and in other ways for those who agree with her to work for the lawmakers' defeat--a call to action, not an argument. There is, of course, nothing objectionable about citizens in a democratic republic engaging in such action, but that goes for those on the other side as well. And it's worth recalling that the "civility" hypocrites back in the day proclaimed themselves troubled and outraged by the phenomenon of citizens confronting their elected representatives at public meetings.

• The argumentum ad misericordiam, or appeal to pity. "Speaking is physically difficult for me," she writes. "But my feelings are clear: I'm furious." It should be obvious that this in no way speaks to the merits of the legislation or even the character of its supporters and opponents.

• The false dilemma. This is Giffords's closing gambit: "To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way."

• The appeal to authority. That would be Giffords's own authority as a former lawmaker. "I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress," she writes. "I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither." Perhaps her legislative experience gives her some insight into the senators' state of mind, but if so, she does not share it with readers, whom she expects to accept her conclusion unquestioningly.
(more at the link)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1352 on: April 22, 2013, 08:02:47 PM »

Note the date this was written:

http://youtu.be/E9UMox1WoTw

Dateline April 12 2013 – Portland Oregon – by Dan Sandini: You might have to wait for Monday to read about it in the Wall Street Journal but you can read about it here right now. An influential gun rights advocate actually helped write the Background Check Bill coming up before the Senate this coming week.

Alan Gottlieb, Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation, speaking candidly at a GOP gathering on Friday claimed that his staff had actually helped write the bill. He went on to describe how the bill would be a step in the right direction for gun control advocates.
“Unfortunately some of my colleagues haven’t quite figured it out yet because they weren’t standing in the room writing it. My staff was. I’ll be perfectly candid about it. This will probably break on Monday in the Wall Street Journal. “
Lacking two cameras I could not catch the multitude of jaws dropping in between bites of succulent sirloin at the Persimmon Country Club where the event was held. If some shutter bug caught the look on former State Chair Allen Alley’s face please facebook it to me. I’m imagining him looking like Marty Feldman.
Gottlieb was discussing Measure Number S.649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013 ): “A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.”
This is the same Bill which Senator Rand Paul sought unsucessfully to fillibuster in order to protect the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens. I could go on but watch the video (above) and see it for yourself, or read the transcript below. But remember … shhhhhh … it’s a secret.
Here’s the transcript
When it comes to the Background Check Bill, some of you might not like what I’m gonna say, but I spent hours and hours, in Senator Manchin, with Senator Manchin and Pat Toomey going over what’s in that Bill. And, I’m a little upset with the one … this whole debates gotten so polarized that it’s really hard for anybody to be intellectually honest about what any of the Bills say. [unintelligible] I’ll be candid, unfortunately with the background check that’s really what the case is right now.
The initial background check bill that Schumer put in was horrible. There’s no way that any of us could support it. It was gun registrations, there’s no two ways about it, The Manchin-Toomey Bill despite some of my colleagues in the Gun Rights Movement talking about that it’s registration, it is not registration. Ahhh .. To be perfectly candid about it, it states in it that no guns can be registered. It also carries a section in it that any federal or any state or any gun dealer with access to the NICS Check Records who misuses those records for registration purposes commits a felony with a 15 year … up to a 15 year prison term. That’s really great protection for us.
Right Now? Any gun sold through a dealer that goes through a background check: there is no protection. If someone were to misuse that list nothing happens to them. Now they will serve 15 years … up to 15 years in prison for misusing that list, if in fact they do so. That’s great protection. It’s the first time we’ve had protection. Other things in that bill which my sides not talking about? We’re not taling about it for a reason.
If we talk about it too much, the other sie’s gonna find out about it and they’re gonna realize we’re gonna win off of this thing. The back ground check is not even a Universal Background Check. It’s at gun shows, commercial venues, or the internet. And, to be candid about it, it doesn’t cover family members, of any kind, or any friends, or any gun transaction, that’s not done at a gun show or basically on the internet. It gives protection, if you do go through the background check, you as an individual will now get both civil and criminal liability protection that you don’t have now. If somebody sold a gun to somebody who’s misused it, nobody can sue you even in a civil court for damages. That’s great protection that you don’t have right now.
There’s about 10 other important things in there. One of them them that some of you have read in the newspapers that a lot of Veterans are being disarmed so to speak once they come back from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and all of a sudden because they were out processed and had stress problems the VA now puts their name into the NICS system they can’t own a gun, this new bill, this Background Check Bill has a provision in it to eradicate that. Their Rights will be restored.
It goes on and on. Traveling across the country. It gives you more protection so that you can take your gun from state to state than you have now.
Another important one, you cannot now legally buy a handgun in a state that you don’t live in. If you’re not a resident of the state you can’t buy a handgun. Under the so-call “Background CHeck Bill,” you’ll be able to buy a handgun in all 50 states, as long as you buy it from a licensed dealer you can buy it from anywhere you want.
There’s a Million other things in there it’s a Christmas Tree. We just hung a Million Ornaments on it. We’re taking the Background Check and making it a pro-gun bill. Unfortunately some of my colleagues haven’t quite figured it out yet because they weren’t standing in the room writing it. My staff was. I’ll be perfectly candid about it. This will probably break on Monday in the Wall Street Journal. So your getting a little of “Inside Baseball.” …


http://daylightdisinfectant.com/gun-...nd-check-bill/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1353 on: April 22, 2013, 08:21:44 PM »

Anyone think she actually wrote this?

I'd guess her attention-whore husband or one of his Soros funded staffers for their astroturf anti-gun group did.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1354 on: April 22, 2013, 10:46:41 PM »

Following up on my prior post (the Dan Sandini one):

While fascinating inside baseball stuff, it seems to me there is a fundamental flaw with the logic in that it seems to find it acceptable that congressional voting be done when virtually no one actually knows what is in the bill.  This is not how a democratic republic should be run.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5871


« Reply #1355 on: April 23, 2013, 12:32:14 PM »

The mass murderers of Massachusetts may be in some real trouble as it turns out the guns used to hijack a car, kill a police officer, and have a firefight with other law enforcement officers were not legally registered.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/5_constitutional_issues_raised_by_Boston_bombings.html
"The brothers reportedly had a stockpile of ammunition and exchanged hundreds of rounds with police."

It would seem that strict gun laws only deter people who strictly follow gun laws.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1356 on: April 23, 2013, 09:50:01 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fkontradictions.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F04%2F20%2Fdear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better%2F&h=lAQHGlm6a
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1357 on: April 24, 2013, 05:53:31 PM »

http://www.examiner.com/article/after-senate-setback-obama-quietly-moving-forward-with-gun-regulation
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1358 on: April 25, 2013, 08:37:00 PM »

DHS Denies Ammo Purchases Aimed at Civilians
By Elizabeth Flock
April 25, 2013


House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. questioned the reasoning for the Department of Homeland Security's massive ammunition purchase.

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security denied Thursday that its large-scale ammunition purchases were an effort keep bullets out of the hands of private citizens.

At a hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday, top DHS training officer Humberto Medina said he could "say categorically that was not a factor at all" in the purchases. He also noted that ammunition DHS purchased would be used for both operations and training purchases.
 
The Associated Press reported in February that DHS was planning to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds over the next five years, a number that sparked fears of government stockpiling – which DHS previously denied to Whispers. Officials told lawmakers DHS actually was planning to buy only up to 750 million rounds.
 
But Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said it still looked like the government was unnecessarily amassing ammunition.
 
"The idea that you have to have excess rounds, year after year, flies in the face of common sense," Issa said. Medina argued that DHS keeps a reserve of ammunition because of market fluctuations and because of past problems with vendors.
 
In fiscal year 2012, DHS purchased more than 103 million rounds of ammunition, to be used by about 70,000 DHS officers who are currently authorized to use weapons. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Thursday that "the math" didn't make sense, pointing out that this means an average 1300-1600 rounds per DHS officer – some 1000 rounds more than the average for an officer in the Army.
 
DHS agents and officers need extensive training because they are "exposed to a variety of situations" and "only have that weapon to protect their lives," Medina said. "They can't contact air support [like an officer in an army could.] They have to be proficient at a very high level."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5871


« Reply #1359 on: April 30, 2013, 09:56:28 AM »

Also known as the food stamp President, no one has sold more guns in America than Pres. Barack Obama:

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/04/25/after-the-obama-surge-a-new-rush-on-gun-stores/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-29/barack-obama-gun-salesman-of-the-year.html

Funny how policies have unintended consequences.  Who knew?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1360 on: May 02, 2013, 05:27:15 PM »



http://www.dickmorris.com/backdoor-gun-control-ammo-purchases-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1361 on: May 05, 2013, 10:07:11 AM »

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20039031.html

ATF agent testifies on camera
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1362 on: May 06, 2013, 07:59:26 PM »

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html?TNNoMobile

Snell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned

Posted: Friday, May 3, 2013 12:00 am | Updated: 12:48 am, Fri May 3, 2013.

By Barry Snell, barry.snell@iowastatedaily.com
 



Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it’s all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality. 

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Where the media really didn’t care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today.

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can’t afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation.

We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I’m fine with that; they’re the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don’t. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily’s Opinion section.

It’s been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It’s all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don’t have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns.

Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, “you should write a column about that!” I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the “gun guy” by some folks who use such terms as epithets.

The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I’m as much of a “gun expert” as you’re likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won’t bore you with my “gun resume,” but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too.

Today, however, I’m going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more — and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily.

No experience necessary

In the gun debate, I’ve discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn’t seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I’ve often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does. 

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip.

That is to say, there’s a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to.

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

You might think that’s hyperbole too, but I’ve experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register’s own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampooned, ridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere. 

Hell, it’s even gotten so bad that a little kid was expelled from school recently for biting a Pop Tart into the vague shape of a handgun during lunch break (it looked more like Idaho to me).

Liberals always make the common plea, “We need to get some experts to solve this problem!” for any public policy issue that comes along, which is a good thing. But when it comes to the gun issue, gun expertise is completely irrelevant to the anti-gunner — people who probably have never fired a gun or even touched one in real life, and whose only experience with guns is what they’ve seen in movies or read about in bastions of (un)balanced, hyper-liberal journalism, like Mother Jones. That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn’t stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner.

How can we “gun people” honestly be expected to come to the table with anti-gunners when anti-gunners are willfully stupid about guns, and openly hate, despise and ridicule those of us who own them? There must first be respect and trust — even just a little — before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue.

Death by a thousand cuts

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America. 

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they “respect the Second Amendment” and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don’t trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren’t so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn’t have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that “little book” called the Constitution.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won’t tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a “task force” to “solve” the so-called “gun problem,” who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don’t want to ban guns, only enact what they call “common sense gun laws.” But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere. While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal — proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don’t trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don’t. We know because we know ourselves and we’re not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and “saving children” is why they want to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban had little or no effect on crime. Other studies suggest gun control may even make crime worse (one need only look to high crime rates in places where there’s a lot of gun control to see the possible connection).

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their “We need gun control to save the children” argument, many of us can’t understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I’m personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman’s individual rights. That’s great, but does the individual rights argument sound familiar? Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense.

Truth, treason and the empire of lies

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because suicide is the only human-inflicted leading cause of death in America, and that violent crime has been on the decline for decades. We also know that 10 people die daily in drownings, 87 people die daily by poisoning, more than 20,000 adults die from falls each year, someone dies in a fire every 169 minutes, nearly 31,000 people are killed in car accidents annually and almost 2,000 are stabbed to death. People even kill each other with hammers. Yet fewer than 14,000 people are killed by guns of any kind each year.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too.  We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings. 

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they’re a bigger problem than they really are. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re busy riling up the emotions of the ignorant, who in turn direct their ire upon us, demonizing us because we object to the overreaction and focus on the wrong things, like the mentally ill people committing the crimes.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they look down on us for defending the Second Amendment as vigorously as they defend the First Amendment — a fight we too would stand side-by-side with them on otherwise. We don’t trust anti-gunners because someone defending the First Amendment is considered a hero, but a someone defending the Second Amendment is figured down with murderers and other lowlifes. Where the First Amendment has its very own day and week, both near-holy national celebrations beyond reproach, anti-gunners would use the First Amendment to ridicule any equivalent event for the Second Amendment, like they did for a recent local attempt at the University of Iowa.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.” We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.” One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn’t commit. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed — and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they’re fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they’re against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards —and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren’t important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford.

A dangerous servant and fearful master

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don’t trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists’ muskets and powder. Since the shot heard ‘round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don’t understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions — or at least, ones of which they don’t personally approve.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because in a single breath they tell us that the Second Amendment is irrelevant today and should be repealed because semi-automatic weapons didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written, then turn around and say the First Amendment protects radio, television, movies, video games, the Internet, domain names, Facebook and Twitter. Carrying liberal logic on the Second Amendment through to the First Amendment, it would only cover the town crier, and hand-operated printing presses producing only books and newspapers, and nothing else.  Even anything written with a No. 2 pencil or ballpoint pen would not be included. And those of you belonging to religions that formed after the 1790s? You’re screwed under liberal logic, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because, while liberals seek to expand government regulation and services — things that may not be bad or ill-intended on their own — they simultaneously try to curtail the Second Amendment. We don’t trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and gun control. We don’t trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America’s modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other “undesirables.”

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and military are the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments in the last century, and not a single law seeking to ban the government from possessing guns has ever been submitted. Yet when but a few thousand people are killed by civilian criminals, tens of millions of American citizens like myself who did not commit any crimes at all are subjected to gun restrictions and personal persecution at the hands of emotional anti-gun bigots.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners insult us for our opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the “ATF”). We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know the ATF is hardly a law enforcement agency but is really a glorified tax collection agency that has abused, ruined the lives of, or murdered dozens of innocent gun owners through overzealous enforcement of gun-related tax and paperwork regulations. Just ask Louis Katona, Patty and Paul Mueller, John Lawmaster, Tuscon Police Lt. Mike Lara or any of the dozens of other victims of criminal ATF agents. Where was the ACLU for all that? And it doesn’t help that President Obama tried to appoint known anti-gunner Andrew Traver to be the ATF director. Check out the ATF’s “Good Ol’ Boys Roundup,” “Project Gunrunner” scandal and their loss of department guns for a little F-Troop entertainment sometime, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don’t trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it’s not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence...? We also don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because while they were crying about the victims of 9/11 or Aurora or Sandy Hook, and thanking God they weren’t there, I and many other gun people like me were crying because we weren’t there, and asked God why we couldn’t have been. Many of us wish we were on one of the 9/11 airplanes, and not because we have a death wish but because we have a life wish. Because when we sit in silence and the world’s distractions fall away, the thought creeps in: Could I have made a difference?

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because I and many of us are what they call “sheepdogs” and we’re proud of that. Yet anti-gunners make fun of us, calling us “cowboys” and “wannabes” for it. Wanting to save lives and being willing to sacrifice one’s own to do it used to be considered a virtue in this country. Anti-gunners think they have the moral outrage, but the moral outrage is ours. I have never expressed any of these feelings openly to anyone because they are private and deeply personal. Screw you for demeaning us and motivating me to speak them.

Do unto others

No, anti-gunners, we don’t trust you. And you’ve given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you’re sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars.

We are everywhere and all around you, and we exist with you peacefully. You are our friends, neighbors and countrymen, and we are these things proudly. We mourn with you when radicals crash airplanes into our buildings, when hurricanes destroy the lives of our people, or when the criminal and mentally ill kill dozens of our school children. We cheer with you when USA wins the gold medal, when terrorists like Bin Laden are brought to justice, or when we land a machine built by American hands on Mars.

So what more can we do to earn your trust, your love and your acceptance other than surrender our rights, bow down to you and take your non-stop attacks?

Anti-gunners label people like me “gun nuts” even though we're anything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn’t define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish — including the very same ones anti-gunners do too — like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don’t understand guns, they don’t understand crime, they don’t understand American history and traditions, they don’t understand gun owners and don’t care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they’ve got no clue about. 

Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics. Screw you for destroying that individuality and denying our humanity.

I am proudly one of many: a caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being.  I am an educated and intelligent person, and while I may not be the best-looking guy, friends tell me I have a great personality (yay?). Perhaps more importantly though, I am a proud citizen of this country, and I’d perform any sacrifice for others so that they may not themselves have to sacrifice. 

And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years — roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal!

An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree — and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we’re just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what’s best for America.

You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.

Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing — an argument often used against us pro-gunners — but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible. It doesn’t help that most street cops (opposed to their politician bosses) are pro-gun, too. And what happens when the civilian industries that support the military stop producing the supplies our military needs?

The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences...Now.

Sleeping dragons and terrible resolve

I do not want to live through a war in my own backyard. I do not want our children to grow up in such an America, either. So anti-gunners: Please stop, I beg you. See the writing on the wall before it’s too late. 

Yes, there is a terrible crime problem, and yes, that problem sometimes involves guns — but it is the perpetrator that is the problem, not the instrument. Yes, there is a great divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of guns. And while I will be the very first person to criticize the Republican Party on its many and frequent mistakes, and even stand with my democratic friends in my disfavor of those things, on the gun issue it is not the conservatives who are mostly in the wrong this time.

We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won’t come to the table to talk with you.

And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn’t beat their swords into plowshares.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barry Snell is a senior in history and political science from Muscatine, Iowa.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1363 on: May 07, 2013, 10:05:17 PM »



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-usa-guns-study-idUSBRE94611020130507

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1364 on: May 10, 2013, 10:15:28 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/05/09/dod-forces-3d-gun-printer-defense-distributed-to-pull-weapon-specs-off-website/
The world's first 3D-printed handgun, The Liberator, has had its liberty taken away by the government.

Plans for the working handgun were posted online by Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed, potentially allowing anyone with access to a 3D printer to make a firearm from plastic. The plans, which had been in the works for months, caused alarm among gun control advocates but were seen by some Second Amendment advocates as a breakthrough. More than 100,000 copies of the plans were downloaded before the federal government took the files.

“[Defense Distributed's] files are being removed from public access at the request of the U.S. Department of Defense Trade Controls," read a banner atop the website. "Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.”

Wilson told FoxNews.com that he decided to comply with the request to remove the gun specs from his website while he weighs his legal options.

"They asked that I take it down while they determine if they have the authority to control the info," he said. "It's clearly a direct response to everything we did this week. 3D printing is clearly not the best way to make an effective weapon."

    "Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.”

- Defense Distributed website

Wilson says he has complied with most laws on the books and feels that the request from the agency, a branch of the Department of State, may be politically motivated.

"If this is an attempt to control the info from getting out there, it's clearly a weak one," he said, adding that the CAD design for the weapon has already spread across the Internet at downloading sites like the Pirate Bay.

All 16 parts of the controversial gun, called the Liberator, are made from a tough, heat-resistant plastic used in products such as musical instruments, kitchen appliances and vehicle bumper bars. Fifteen of the components are made with a 3D printer while one is a non-functional metal part which can be picked up by metal detectors, making it legal under U.S. law. The firing pin is also not made of plastic, though it is easily crafted from a metal nail.

The weapon is designed to fire standard handgun rounds and even features an interchangeable barrel so that it can handle different caliber rounds.

Defense Distributed is a not-for-profit group founded by Wilson, a law student at the University of Texas. He said the Liberator project was intended to highlight how technology can render laws and governments all but irrelevant.

"I recognize that this tool might be used to harm people," Wilson told Forbes. "That’s what it is -- it’s a gun. But I don’t think that’s a reason to not put it out there. I think that liberty in the end is a better interest."

His publishing of the printable blueprints online instantly sparked outrage in the U.S.

Using the file, anyone with access to a 3D printer could theoretically print the gun with no serial number, background check or other regulatory hurdles.

U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., has already called for national legislation to ban 3D-printed guns.

"Security checkpoints, background checks and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser," Israel said.

"When I started talking about the issue of plastic firearms months ago, I was told the idea of a plastic gun is science-fiction," he added. "Now that this technology is proven, we need to act now to extend the ban on plastic firearms."

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story listed the Department of Defense as the source of the take-down request. It came instead from the Department of Defense Trade Controls, an arm of the Department of State. The corrected story is above.

Sky News contributed reporting to this story.


« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 10:17:07 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1365 on: May 15, 2013, 12:09:56 PM »

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/05/13/colorado-voters-fight-back-attempt-to-recall-socialist-gun-grabbers/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1366 on: May 15, 2013, 01:17:38 PM »

This seeems legit; can someone verify?  GM?


Dear Friends,

Several of you have asked me why so many gun owners  are against the
"Background Checks" that have been proposed in Congress?   Why did the Senators
not pass the bill?  Doesn't background checks screen  out the bad guys from getting a gun?  I pass the following information on  to you for a more careful look at the "Background Checks" bill that failed in  the Senate.

Jim Tarro

BACKGROUND CHECK BILL

The "most  popular" part of the defeated-but-sure-to-come back Senate gun control bill  (background checks) sounds like a good idea at first but is more restrictive  than anyone anticipated and will have significant unintended consequences.

There is a huge push to get it through Congress before the public has a chance to consider its contents.

Common activities that we take for  granted will become federal crimes.
These are not irresponsible exaggerations.  Please take a moment to review the requirements of the bill.
Here are a  few examples of the restrictions in the bill:

EXAMPLE #1

Loaning your buddy a shotgun for a duck hunting trip will be considered  a transfer. If the following requirements are not met, YOU HAVE BOTH COMMITTED A  FEDERAL CRIME.

1. He must have already purchased his hunting  license

2. Season is already open (and will not close before he returns  it)

3. He cannot travel with the firearm through a county where season is  not yet open or any area where hunting is prohibited and certainly not across a state line.

He CANNOT stop by your house on the day before season opens, pick up  the shot gun, go to the sporting goods store to buy a license and shells then drive out to the hunting lease. In this scenario, YOU BOTH WOULD HAVE COMMI TTED  MULTIPLE FEDERAL CRIMES, YOUR WEAPONS WILL BE FORFEITED AND YOU WILL LOOSE YOUR  RIGHT TO BUY OR OWN A FIREARM.

EXAMPLE #2

It appears that only you may relocate your weapons. If your weapon  leaves your home without you, the new legislation considers it a transfer of possession. ALL transfers require going through a firearms dealer, paying the transfer fee and a background check for the transferee.

Putting the  weapon, even temporarily in someone else's possession, requires a transfer  through a dealer. There is no exception for putting them in a friend's truck  while moving to your new house or packing them unloaded, locked in a gun safe  into a moving truck.

Any scenario in which your weapon leaves your home without you is considered a transfer. Failure to properly transfer the weapon is a federal  crime which can result in a prison term AND WILL RESULT IN THE FORFEITURE OF  YOUR WEAPON.

In the scenario above, your buddy's truck was used to commit  a federal crime and WILL BE CONFISCATED just like with current Fish and Game  violations.

EXAMPLE #3

Infractions as above which involve 2 guns of any type are considered weapons trafficking. You will be prosecuted under the same federal laws as a terrorist arms dealer.

EXAMPLE #4

Any of the infractions above (or hundreds of other routine scenarios)  may result in federal charges, confiscation of ALL your weapons and being prohibited, like all felons, from ever owning a weapon again.

Please read the text of the bill yourself. Most of it is boring legalese but the sections on transfers and trafficking are critical.

Take a minute to think about all the routine activities like those  above that will make you a federal criminal and result in prison time plus the confiscation of your weapons and other property.

A link to the bill is included below on the official Senate website.  See Section 122 "Firearms  Transfers".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.649:

Read  it and call your congressman's office. Talk to their staff. Tell them how you  feel about this.

Keep in mind, none of the above would have stopped the tragedy's in Columbine or Newtown . The proposed law makes you a criminal and opens the door for confiscation of your weapons and property for otherwise routine activities.

Think and act. Congress is hoping that you will do neither.

If you found the patience to read the entire text, you also learned  that exactly $100 million per year of your tax money is set aside to enforce these restrictions.

*****
Molon  Labe...
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1367 on: May 15, 2013, 04:29:22 PM »

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/foghorn/breaking-details-of-shumers-mandatory-background-check-bill-s-374/

BREAKING: Details of Schumer’s Mandatory Background Check Bill (S. 374)

Posted on March 12, 2013 by Nick Leghorn



 
We’ve finally gotten a look at Chuck Shumer’s proposed mandatory background check bill, and the truth is that this thing is ridiculous. The bill is overly broad, has some crazy penalties, and cracks the door WIDE open for government abuse. The full text of the bill is here, and since it’s in that terrible bill-speak legalese, I’ll try to summarize it for you . . .
 


The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm, no matter how fleeting, needs to go through an FFL and the transferee needs to have a background check performed through the NICS system. There are some exceptions, but they aren’t very good ones. Page 11 starts off the meat and potatoes for those following along at home.
 
In order to qualify for an exception to the rule of all transfers going through an FFL, the following requirements must be met:
 1.The temporary transfer takes place at the owner’s house
 2.The gun can’t be moved from the property
 3.The transfer must last less than 7 days
 
There’s also a poorly worded exception for hunting and “sporting purposes,” as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law. And if I’m reading this right, this applies if you leave your guns with your spouse, but don’t transfer them as a gift.
 
There’s also no exception for lending guns to friends for the afternoon on the range. I regularly loan out my older competition guns to friends who want to compete in local matches, as the guns can be expensive and its easier to figure out if competition shooting is right for you if you can give it a try. Under this new bill, that would be illegal.
 
It also appears that it would be illegal to hand a firearm to someone other than the owner, effectively killing range trips with friends.
 
I quote from the bill the definition of “transfer” includes:
 

shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition
 
Broad much? The only exception appears to be handing a gun to a potential buyer to evaluate and lending guns at a shooting range but ONLY IF:
 

at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
 
So, only facilities where the stated purpose in the incorporation documents is conservation (hunting) or firearms proficiency. And if you’re shooting on your own private property, or on BLM land, ANY lending of guns EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OWNER for recreational shooting would be illegal.
 
As one of the provisions designed to “alleviate the fears” of the gun-owning public, it looks like there’s a provision in here that permanently sets the price of all FFL transfer fees to the same amount. That number will be set by the Attorney General, which these days is still Eric Holder. The current speculation is that this FFL fee will be used to do what the NFA tax was originally designed to do — make buying or transferring a gun so expensive that almost no one can do it.
 
In addition to the transfer requirements, it also makes it a federal felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm. If the gun isn’t reported to the authorities within 24 hours, that’s a 5-year stretch in a federal pokey you just earned yourself.
 
The bill also specifically removes the ability for people with state permits to skip the NICS check. Currently in Texas, those with a concealed handgun license can purchase a gun without a NICS check as they’ve already passed a more stringent background check than NICS provides. This puts more strain on the FFL as well as the NICS system.
 
As written, this bill is a trainwreck. It creates felons out of people who may not have been aware that their roommate (on their month long trip through Asia) even owned a firearm, much less that there was one in the house. It allows the government to regulate the price of background checks, enacting a mandatory fee (read tax) to be paid every time you want to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and lets the government set the fee at whatever level they choose with no recourse. It also creates de facto registration through the NICS checks as well as the paperwork preservation requirements already in place.
 
You don’t have to pay a fee to vote, as the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional. But for Chuck Shumer, its okay to charge a fee to exercise your Second Amendment right. And he’ll tell you how much to pay.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1368 on: May 20, 2013, 11:42:47 AM »

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/breaking-new-guns-essentially-banned-in-california-as-microstamping-law-takes-effect/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1369 on: May 20, 2013, 02:44:35 PM »


http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/20/if-your-doctor-asks-you-about-guns-do-you-have-answer
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1370 on: May 21, 2013, 06:45:20 AM »

 *Watchdog report says DOJ official retaliated against ‘Furious’ whistle-blower, lied about it
* (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/watchdog-report-says-doj-official-retaliated-against-furious-whistle-blower/#ixzz2TslkF1En)
By William La Jeunesse

Published May 20, 2013

FoxNews.com


The former U.S. Attorney for Arizona could be disbarred, after an investigation found he lied to the Justice Department about his role in trying to discredit the federal whistle-blower who exposed the botched gun-running scheme known as Fast and Furious.

An Office of Inspector General report showed that Dennis Burke -- the former chief of staff for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano appointed as U.S. Attorney for Arizona by President Obama in September 2009 -- lied when asked if he leaked sensitive documents to the press meant to undermine the credibility of ATF whistle-blower John Dodson.

The IG report also said Burke likely leaked the memo in retaliation for Dodson's whistle-blowing, and challenged the credibility of statements he made to congressional investigators. Dodson first went to Congress in 2010 after his own agency and the Justice Department refused to investigate his complaints that Operation Fast and Furious, an anti-gun-trafficking effort, was out of control.

"We also concluded that Burke's disclosure of the Dodson memorandum was likely motivated by a desire to undermine Dodson's public criticisms of Operation Fast and Furious. Although Burke denied to congressional investigators that he had any retaliatory motive for his actions, we found substantial evidence to the contrary," the IG report, released Monday, said.

Dodson appeared before Congress in June 2011. At the time, the Department of Justice denied his claim that the federal government approved a plan to knowingly assist criminals in smuggling thousands of guns to the Mexican drug cartels.

Dodson's credibility was crucial since nearly everyone above him denied the allegation. The report found that Burke leaked information that sought to undermine Dodson's story to a Fox News producer.

"The report brings into question, yet again, the treatment that whistle-blowers receive from this administration," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Monday. "Instead of examining the allegations that came forward, the Justice Department almost immediately began to attack the credibility and good name of a dedicated federal agent upset with what he was ordered to do."

Burke used his private email account to leak the information to a friend in Washington who then hand-delivered the information to the Fox producer. The IG said in its report it used an "administrative subpoena" to identify the personal email of relevant Department employees to confirm the leak.

Once contacted by IG staff, Burke admitted he was the source. The IG's office had asked 150 Justice Department employees to affirm they were not the leak. 

But the report said he gave misleading information to congressional investigators. Asked about the issue by congressional investigators, Burke said: "I was under the impression that (the Dodson memo) had gone to the Hill and that I was basically giving (the Fox producer) a time advantage."

He also allegedly misled his own superior in Washington, Assistant Attorney General James Cole.

At the time, Cole had seen a New York Times story about Fast and Furious. In it, the paper published a picture which showed the document had been faxed from the U.S. attorney's office in Arizona. When confronted, the report said Burke told Cole, "I don't think we have a fax machine."

The IG report claims Burke was "admonished by Deputy Attorney General Cole for lying to him ... and had been put on notice such disclosures should not occur."

After speaking with Burke, Cole wrote "another horrible incident of bad judgment." The following day, Aug. 13, Burke resigned.

Fox News tried unsuccessfully to contact Burke, who recently formed a security and lobbying firm with former Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, Chicago White Sox and Chicago Bulls Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf and Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano's Chief of Staff Noah Kroloff.

The Office of Inspector General is an investigative arm that monitors the Justice Department. It tried to interview Burke, but he resigned.

The IG said Burke violated numerous federal and professional rules of conduct and it would forward a copy of its report to the Arizona State Bar Association for disciplinary conduct.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1371 on: May 21, 2013, 10:53:58 PM »

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/reason-number-7452-to-stay-out-of-nj-tx-man-transporting-unloaded-firearms-through-nj-doing-3-5-years-in-prison/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1372 on: May 25, 2013, 05:31:48 PM »

An English friend posted this elsewhere:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280  This clearly contradicts my sense of things.  I thought crime was going up after guns were banned?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1373 on: May 25, 2013, 05:40:03 PM »

An English friend posted this elsewhere:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280  This clearly contradicts my sense of things.  I thought crime was going up after guns were banned?


As much as crime stats are manipulated for political reasons, I'd take that with a grain of salt.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1374 on: May 25, 2013, 09:48:50 PM »

But to say that does not give me a reply to my English friend.  I could swear we have several posts in this thread citing data of British crime rates rising considerably but a hotel lobby connection in Buenos Aires is not quite the spot to do the searching.  Anyone inspired to give me a hand with this will be appreciated.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1375 on: May 25, 2013, 10:49:38 PM »

I doubt many jihadists would feel safe beheading someone on a public street in Arizona or Texas as opposed to Londinistan.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1376 on: May 26, 2013, 07:17:18 AM »

That is a separate point.  Right now I am hoping to put my hands on data (perhaps to be found somewhere in this thread about whether crime has gone up or down in the wake of the gun confiscation and new gun and self-defense laws.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1377 on: May 26, 2013, 05:34:45 PM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

UK is violent crime capital of Europe
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
7:00AM BST 02 Jul 2009
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.

The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.



It also recorded the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU, and the highest absolute number of burglaries, with double the number of offences recorded in Germany and France.

Overall, 5.4 million crimes were recorded in the UK in 2007 - more than 10 a minute - second only to Sweden.

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said: "This is a real damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock-on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

"We're now on our fourth Home Secretary in this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction."

The figures were sourced from Eurostat, the European Commission's database of statistics. They are gathered using official sources in the countries concerned such as the national statistics office, the national prison administration, ministries of the interior or justice, and police.

A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 – a 67 per cent increase in the past decade – at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population.

The Home Office says there has been a downtrend in overall violence for the past decade.

But last October it emerged that levels of violent crime in England and Wales had been underestimated for more than a decade because of a blunder in recording methods.

Ministers admitted that some police forces had not been recording offences of grievous bodily harm with intent as serious violent crime. When the offences were included violent crime figures immediately increased by a fifth.

Separate figures disclosed in May showed that the number of people requiring hospital treatment after being seriously hurt in street fights or assaults has risen 50 per cent in five years.

More than 20 people a day were taken to hospital accident and emergency departments in England last year after being hit, kicked, scratched or bitten. Alcohol is blamed as a factor in half of the incidents and raises further questions over 24-hour drinking.

Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. “
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1378 on: May 26, 2013, 09:24:38 PM »

GM, you are amazing.  I can always count on you to come through.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1379 on: May 28, 2013, 10:33:12 PM »

http://www.guns.com/2013/05/28/district-attorney-wont-prosecute-man-for-violating-ny-safe-act-magazine-limit-video/

PS:  My British friend challenges your citation on the basis that the increase is due to changes in counting methodology.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1380 on: May 29, 2013, 09:37:51 PM »

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-automatic-rifle-building-party
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1381 on: May 29, 2013, 10:09:38 PM »

<http://www.nramedia.org/t/1648714/79123757/26284/0/
ek=1330E10010>

Marc,

Last month, with a lot of help from Barack Obama, the United Nations
passed its global gun ban treaty.

And now, Obama is expected to sign this freedom-crushing disaster as
soon as June 3rd — just days from now!!


The only way you and I can stop the Obama-U.N. collusion from
trampling our Second Amendment freedoms is through the U.S. Senate.

Only the Senate can ratify treaties. So I need your help to convince a
strong majority of our Senators to vote NO on the U.N. Arms Trade
Treaty by signing this petition today.
<http://www.nramedia.org/t/1648714/79123757/26284/0/
ek=1330E10010>


<http://www.nramedia.org/t/1648714/79123757/26284/0/
ek=1330E10010>Your signed petition is the best tool we have against
this attack on our gun rights and our national sovereignty. We need to
line the halls of the Senate with boxes and boxes of these petitions — *and
every petition counts, starting with yours!*

We need to send a clear message to every Senator that they have only
two choices: Side with us and stop the U.N. gun ban treaty...or start
looking for a new job at election time.

So please, sign your petition today
<http://www.nramedia.org/t/1648714/79123757/26284/0/
ek=1330E10010>...we have zero time to lose. And after you do, I hope
that you'll make a much-needed contribution to NRA-ILA so we can WIN
THIS FIGHT.

We need to hammer key battleground states with hard-hitting radio and
T.V. ads. We need to blanket the Senate with millions of these
petitions. We need to put our grassroots boots on the ground and win
every last vote we need to stop this dangerous treaty before it
becomes the law of the land.

But all of this costs money, and our resources are stretched thin
right now. This year, we've been forced to spend more than we've ever
spent ...because the attacks we're facing have been bigger than
anything we've ever faced before.


So please, sign your petition
<http://www.nramedia.org/t/1648714/79123757/26284/0/
ek=1330E10010> and then make an emergency contribution of $15, $25,
$50, $100, or any other amount you can afford to NRA-ILA today. Every
dollar counts, and every dollar will be spent stopping the Senate from
ratifying the U.N. gun ban treaty.

Again, we have no time to lose...June 3rd is only DAYS away!


Working together, I know we can save our freedom from this
unprecedented attack.

*Please take action now.* Thank you.

In Liberty,

Chris

*Chris W. Cox*
Executive Director
www.NRAILA.org <http://www.nramedia.org/t/1648714/79123757/1590/0/>


P.S. *President Obama is threatening to sign the U.N. gun ban treaty
as soon as June 3rd*. You have to ACT NOW if you want to stop him and
the U.N. from trampling your constitutional Right to Keep and Bear
Arms.

So please, sign this petition as soon as you can. And when you do,
please make an emergency contribution to NRA-ILA to help us win this
fight!

NRA-ILA is putting every last ounce of our strength and energy into
stopping the ratification of the U.N. gun ban treaty. *But our efforts
could fall short unless you help today.*

I know we can win with your support. Thank you.

<http://www.nramedia.org/t/1648714/79123757/26284/0/
ek=1330E10010>

National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action * 11250
Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA 22030
Please do not reply to this email. If you no longer want to receive
future Chris Cox notifications, please click here
<http://www.nramedia.org/t/1648714/79123757/107/0/?90482085=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ucmFtZWRpYS5vcmcvdT9pZD03OTEyMzc1Ny4xMDFiNWUwZTk0ZDQwMDE4MTRiMzJiZWQ0NTMxODZlZCZuPVQmbD1ucmFpbGFfY2hyaXNfY294Jm89MTY0ODcxNA%3d%3d&x=80b5e438>,
and
you will be removed immediately! Thank you!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1382 on: June 18, 2013, 11:04:49 AM »

Gun Owners of America
________________________________________
Nevada's Governor Vetoes Universal Background Checks!

While Biden set to jumpstart push for gun control next week
 
“One of the few who do know what they are doing is Gun Owners of America and Larry Pratt.” -- Peter Moss, “Who is Winning the Gun War?” AmmoLand, June 5, 2013
 
Stunning victory for gun rights in Nevada!
 
You guys did a tremendous job bombarding Governor Brian Sandoval’s office with phone calls, and he has listened to your appeals.
 
Governor Sandoval vetoed the Universal Background Check bill yesterday, and now, the anti-gun Left is in full-mourning.
 
The Associated Press reports that, “It is a significant defeat for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns [MAIG]. The organization spent hundreds of thousands of dollars working to get the bill passed through to the governor.”
 
Despite Bloomberg’s fortune, his anti-gun MAIG simply doesn’t have the grassroots behind it.
 
GOA was joined by other groups on Tuesday, June 4, in asking Nevada gun owners to urge Sandoval to veto the legislation.
 
The next day, reports the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “2,200 people called his office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m....  Four out of five calls [were] for the veto.”
 
According to the Journal, this onslaught was one of the chief reasons that the Governor set up a hotline number.  His office simply couldn’t get work done as they were being “bombarded by calls from people who want the governor to veto the gun control bill passed by the Legislature.”
 
Once the Governor set up a hotline number -- and Bloomberg started running ads urging people nationwide to call it -- GOA urged gun owners nationwide (last Friday) to call Sandoval’s office.
 
As of this past Tuesday, more than 100,000 calls had already been placed to the Governor.  And this just underscores how important it is for gun owners to join GOA’s email service.
 
Every new person you encourage to sign up for our free email alerts or for a new GOA membership gives us a louder voice in Washington and in states across the country!
 
The Governor was inclined to veto the gun control bill all along, but gun owners can be sure that -- had the poll results gone the other way -- he could have been easily persuaded to bow to Bloomberg’s pressure.
 
Nevada is a key state as it is home to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) and to “swing vote” Senator Dean Heller (R).  Defeating Universal Background Checks in the Silver State -- with overwhelming numbers of callers opposing it -- sends a powerful message from a Purple State, that Americans do NOT want additional gun control!
 
Thanks to everyone who emailed our alerts ... who made phone calls ... and who registered their opinion with the Governor’s office.
 
Your activism makes a difference ... and your continued support helps keep us in the fight.
 
Double-barrel Joe Biden set to jumpstart push for gun control
 
Meanwhile, at the national level, the Vice President is planning an event where he will push gun control next week.
 
While he’s keeping the details of the event hush-hush, Biden said, “I personally haven’t given up [efforts at gun control], nor has the President.”
 
GOA will keep you posted on all the latest news and efforts in Washington to restrict our gun rights.
 
Thanks again for your support.  And remember:
 
Every new person you encourage to sign up for our free email alerts or for a new GOA membership gives us a louder voice in Washington and in states across the country!
 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1383 on: June 19, 2013, 07:47:49 PM »

http://therightscoop.com/if-there-ever-was-an-argument-for-owning-a-gun-this-is-it/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1384 on: June 20, 2013, 07:58:43 AM »

Gun Owners Foundation
________________________________________
Taking on Zero Tolerance in Schools
supporting Jared Marcum against overzealous prosecutor
 
Gun Owners Foundation has come to the defense of a West Virginia teenager who is actually being prosecuted (a.k.a., persecuted) for his pro-gun views.
 
Jared Marcum wore a T-shirt to his Logan County middle school in West Virginia on April 18 -- a decision that has since sparked a national controversy.
 
No, Jared’s T-shirt did not depict a Muslim beheading a victim while shouting Alahu Akhbar!  Such depictions of violence would violate the school’s dress code. 
 
Jared’s T-shirt depicted a hunting rifle with the message: “Protect Your Right.”  And now, he faces up to a year in jail for doing so!
 
The outrageousness of this case has prompted the involvement of Gun Owners Foundation, which has agreed to help Jared pro bono.
 
People can help Gun Owners Foundation assist Jared Marcum by going to our foundation’s site and giving a contribution.
 
It all began on April 18.  Everything was fine for the morning classes, but then the day went goofy when an anti-gun teacher confronted Jared in the lunch line and told him to turn his shirt inside out. 
 
Jared pointed out that his shirt did not violate school policy.
 
The teacher sent Jared to the office where the same back and forth was repeated with the administration.  Then a police officer was summoned who ordered Jared to turn his shirt inside out.  Jared told the officer and the administration that he was doing nothing wrong. 
 
According to the officer, Jared’s shirt constituted a terrorist threat.  He did not put that in his written report, but instead charged Jared with obstructing an officer (apparently Jared interrupted the officer while he was talking to the administration).
 
Jared was cuffed, charged and told that he could be fined up to $500 and spend up to a year in jail.  The prosecutor decided to press the charge, and a judge allowed the prosecution to proceed. 
 
In a town of less than 2,000, what are the odds that at least five adults are this insane?  And all on the same day? 
 
Zero Tolerance can be better understood as Zero Judgment. 
 
Jared was suspended for a day.  When he returned to school, around 100 students wore similar shirts, and Jared wore the same shirt that fried the brains of five grownups two days earlier.  Nothing happened.  None of the students heard a word about their T-shirts.
 
Jared and his stepfather, Allen Ladieri, are to be commended for not backing down, and Gun Owners Foundation is actively supporting the case.
 
Usually, Gun Owners Foundation supports individuals appealing convictions on firearms charges that involve constitutional issues.  But we think that Jared’s case warrants special attention, as it involves both First and Second Amendment freedoms. 
 
If we are not allowed to make pro-Second Amendment statements -- all because somebody is offended -- then we can count the days to when we’ll lose the freedoms enshrined in both Amendments. 
 
If Jared prevails in this case, we may have finally reached a turning point regarding Zero Tolerance, which is one of the most insidious policies being inflicted on the nation’s young people. 
 
ACTION:  While GOF is helping defend Jared Marcum pro bono, there are obviously significant costs involved.  So please help by making a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation.  You can assist in the Jared Marcum defense by giving a contribution to GOF here.   
 
To read more about Gun Owners Foundation, click here.

 

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1385 on: June 22, 2013, 08:46:51 PM »

http://infobrodcast.blogspot.com/2013/06/major-recall-of-thompsoncenter-rifles.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1386 on: June 23, 2013, 04:05:57 PM »

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/06/foghorn/bottom-drops-out-of-ar-15-market/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1387 on: June 23, 2013, 05:24:14 PM »


Good,I need a few more. Now, once ammo drops I can go shooting again...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1388 on: June 24, 2013, 05:05:44 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/24/atlanta-crook-makes-fatal-mistake-by-thinking-patrons-in-line-for-180-shoes-wont-exercise-2nd-amendment-right/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1389 on: June 24, 2013, 07:08:05 PM »

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2013/06/michaels-rant-de-jour.html

We live, for at least a little while longer, in an open marketplace of ideas. A key point of living in that open marketplace of ideas is that the individual is responsible for sorting through those ideas. Gosh, doesn't that sound just like what we say about self-defense, that the individual is ultimately the only person responsible for his or her self-defense? Do both those responsibilities put more pressure on the individual? You betcha!
 
Never trust "gate-keeprs," including me. The problem with gate-keepers — people who ostensibly want to steer you toward those blogs/experts/products/whatever that are "certified" (by said gate-keeper) — is first that they want to be gate-keepers at all. LOL! Use your own brain!
 
The second meme that is irritating me to death is the seemingly endless tripe about how the ammo shortage is the result of "hoarders." I have written and talked about on DOWN RANGE Radio my thoughts on the ammo shortage (here's the short list), to wit, that it is the result of a "perfect storm" that includes increased demand from the flood of new shooters (Gun Culture Ver. 2.0) and the changing shooting habits of existing shooters, the increased demand caused by the very real attempts by the state and federal government to restrict ammo purchases/possession, increased world-wide tensions resulting in preparatory ammo purchases by numerous governments, the continued U.S. war footing (including a depletion of the National Reserve of ammo) that guarantees massive Dot.Gov ammo purchases for the foreseeable future, the exhaustion of the massive WW2 and Cold War surplus ammo caches in Europe, the drastic increase in demand for baseline manufacturing commodities like lead and copper, necessary for ammunition production, from countries like China and India and probably a couple of other factors I have totally overlooked.
 
Whenever I read that everything would be just ducky if we all only bought only what ammo we needed instead of a case, it reminds me of where that thinking comes from: "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!" That rollicking Karl Marx! What a card! But in the last couple of weeks I read forum posts where shooters who always picked up a single box of ammo at Wally-World on the way to the Saturday match now bitterly attack "hoarders" who have made this stupid practice impossible; other shooters who explain how they have refused to take up reloading because it is 1) expensive, 2) boring and 3) takes a lot of time and now those damn hoarders have ruined it for them.
 
I have said this before...my definition of a "hoarder" is someone who was smarter than you. Given the current vicious meme about ammo hoarders, what does this tell us should the feces really hit the Schumer (as Jim Rawles says)?  How quickly do you think your neighbors, your friends, your relatives, will turn on you about the "hoarded" food in your basement, your "hoarded" medical supplies, that "Hoarded" Big Berkey water filter you bought to guarantee your family's fresh water or the solar panels you're "hoarding" on your roof? We are a nation of grasshoppers who like to tell ourselves we're ants right up until the point that we're tested on the very things that ants do. And keep in mind that a horde of locust can quite literally overwhelm a country.
 
For years I and many other people have talked about the necessity of taking responsibility for the safety of ourselves and those under our care. We have urged you to simply follow the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared!
 
For those of you bemoaning those damn ammo hoarders, what did you think "Be Prepared!" actually meant?
 
Finally, Niels Bohr's other great quote:
 

Some subjects are so serious that one can only joke about them.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1390 on: June 26, 2013, 12:00:43 PM »



http://knco.com/four-department-of-justice-arrests-in-nevada-county/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1391 on: June 26, 2013, 12:19:28 PM »

second post

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for-defense-leads-to-fewer-injuries
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1392 on: June 26, 2013, 11:35:59 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1393 on: June 27, 2013, 08:39:06 PM »

 
 
 

 
NRA-ILA Legal Update June 2013
It has been several months since the last edition of Legal Update, but not because these have been slow times for Second Amendment supporters. While most of our attention (and the media's) has been focused on legislative battles, there has been plenty of action on pending court cases-and, unfortunately, new litigation has become necessary in several states.
    

 
 
     
 

 
 
   
 
Suit Filed to Strike Down New York's "SAFE" Act

On February 28, NRA President David Keene addressed a rally gathered in Albany, N.Y. to protest the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms (SAFE) Act, telling the crowd of more than 10,000, "We'll help you overcome these statutes in court." On March 21, the NRA made good on that promise, assisting the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Westchester County Firearm Owner Association, the Sportsmen's Association for Firearm Education and the New York Amateur Trap Association, along with several businesses and individuals, in filing suit. The defendants are Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and other state officials.
For those unfamiliar with New York's most recent foray into gun control and bad governance, here is a rundown. After several days of closed-door meetings and deal making, on Jan. 14, Gov. Cuomo sprung the SAFE Act bill on the state Senate only twenty minutes before a scheduled vote. The Senate passed the measure, the House approved it the following day and Cuomo signed it immediately. To bypass any legislative debate, Cuomo invoked a "message of necessity," eliminating the three-day waiting period before legislation may receive a vote, as required by the state constitution. The whole process was described in the New York Times as "classic Cuomo" where "Eggs are broken, speed rules, an open process is sacrificed, and results are achieved—sometimes triumphant, often jagged and imperfect."
"Imperfect" was right. The Times went on to explain, "Before New York's new gun control law was even passed, lawmakers were acknowledging that they would have to pass a second measure to clean up some of its errors." The law's wide-ranging attack on the rights of gun owners had many significant flaws. The complaint in the case tackles many of the most offensive parts of the new law, including the prohibitions on many popular magazines and semiautomatic firearms, the registration of previously "grandfathered" semiautomatics, and prohibitions on ammunition transfers.
READ MORE >>
 

 
Colorado Sheriffs Launch Challenge to Magazine and Private Transfer Ban

While anti-gun legislation rarely comes as a surprise in the Northeast, anti-gun activists were especially proud to pass New York-style gun control in Colorado. What they may not have counted on was determined opposition in the courts-led by most of the state's top elected law enforcement officials.
On May 17, 54 of 64 Colorado county sheriffs, joined by several other groups representing gun owners, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the enforcement of HB 1224, a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds, and HB 1229, which restricts the ways in which gun owners may lawfully transfer firearms. Signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) on March 20, the laws are set to take effect on July 1. NRA counsel is providing assistance to our fellow gun rights advocates and working on behalf of the rights of the disabled plaintiffs.
HB 1224 bans the sale and transfer after July 1 of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. Complicating matters is the problematic wording of the law, which can be interpreted to ensnare nearly all magazines-even those permanently attached to a firearm. The legislation prohibits any magazine that is "designed to be readily converted" to a capacity greater than 15.
READ MORE >>
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Suit Forces Maryland to Clarify Gun Transfer Rules
 
With Maryland residents forced to wait up to 10 weeks for the approval of an application for the transfer of regulated firearms" (handguns or certain semi-automatic long-guns), in mid-June the Maryland State Police and Attorney General finally clarified their position on the state law governing the transfer process. The state was forced to do so by an NRA-sponsored lawsuit filed on behalf of several Maryland residents, along with groups including Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, the Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association and Maryland Shall Issue.
Like many of their counterparts in the rest of the country, in late 2012 and into 2013, Maryland residents--rightly fearful of new restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms--purchased firearms in record numbers. But unlike in most states, purchases of handguns or certain semi-automatic long-guns in Maryland require a seven-day waiting period, during which a background check is conducted by the state police. Unprepared for such demand, the Maryland State Police soon became backlogged with applications, forcing prospective gun buyers to wait months to have their purchases approved in some cases.
READ MORE >>
 
 
State Organizations Lead Charge Against Connecticut Gun Law
 
On April 4, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed the inappropriately named "Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety." On May 22, a coalition of law-abiding gun owners led by the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen and the Connecticut Citizen's Defense League, along with businesses and individuals, filed suit to strike down this new burden to lawful gun ownership. As explained in the complaint, the suit seeks to "vindicate the right to the people of the State of Connecticut to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." The NRA is assisting in this litigation.
The "Constitution State's" unconstitutional legislation is a wide-ranging attack on the Second Amendment that seeks to burden law-abiding gun owners in every facet of exercising their rights. The law immediately bans the sale and transfer of all magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds; bans more than 100 semiautomatic rifles and pistols by name; bans those under 21 from purchasing semi-automatic centerfire rifles; and criminalizes the transfer of any firearm that is not conducted through a federally licensed dealer and subject to federal paperwork. Additionally, those using magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds for self-defense are barred from loading more than 10 rounds into the magazine, and a magazine cannot be carried for self-defense if it extends below the bottom of the pistol grip—language that potentially encompasses the vast majority of pistol magazines.
READ MORE >>
 

 
 
Illinois Right-to-Carry: Litigation Leads to Legislation
 
While recent state attacks on popular firearms and on firearm transfers have been the focus of attention, another major front in the battle involves Right-to-Carry litigation. The epicenter of this litigation is in Illinois—still, as this edition of Legal Update goes out, the only state with no law on the books to provide a legal way for residents to carry firearms for self-defense outside one's home or business for self-defense. But that may be changing, in a way that shows the complex relationship between legislation and litigation.
First, in a major victory for the right of self-defense outside the home, on Dec. 11, 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down Illinois' ban on carriage. In a decision covering the NRA-backed case of Shepard v. Madigan and a similar non-NRA case, Moore v. Madigan, the court rejected the often-heard claim that the Second Amendment's protections apply inside the home but not outside, calling such a distinction "irrational."
READ MORE >>
 
 
Hall v. Chicago Right-to-Carry Case Moves Forward
 
On January 18, following the Seventh Circuit decision striking down Illinois' ban on carrying firearms outside the home, another NRA-supported lawsuit was filed to ensure that Chicago abides by the Seventh Circuit ruling and offers Chicago residents the opportunity to protect themselves outside their homes.
In the Hall v. Chicago complaint, the lawyers for plaintiffs Michael Hall and Kathryn Tyler make clear that Chicago's carry ban should be voided as it is even more restrictive than the state ban struck by the Seventh Circuit. They note that Chicago's ban extends to anywhere outside the walls of one's residence or place of business, including an unattached or attached garage, and "any space outside the dwelling unit, including any stairs, porches, back, side or front yard space." Additionally a person would be unable to take a firearm to and from his home and business as a firearm registration certificate "shall only be valid for the address on the registration certificate."
READ MORE >>
 

 
 
Coast-to-Coast Action in Right-to-Carry Cases
 
Just a week before December's NRA victory in Shepard v. Madigan, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments against the abuse of California's permitting structure by local authorities. The NRA-backed case of Peruta v. County of San Diego targets San Diego County, and Richards v. Prieto (a non-NRA case) challenges the practices of Yolo County.
At issue in both cases is the California law that says a resident may only receive a carry license if he or she shows "good cause." Issuing authorities such as county sheriffs or police chiefs have significant leeway in how "good cause" is interpreted, with some officials granting nearly every permit when the applicant passes a background check, and others imposing a nearly impossible standard. Further burdening the right, in 2011, California banned the unlicensed open carry of unloaded handguns, making it impossible to legally carry a handgun in any condition for self-defense outside the home without a license.
READ MORE >>
 
 
NRA and CRPA Orange County Carry Suits Lead to Appeal
 
Opening another front in the Right-to-Carry battle, on Sept. 5, a lawsuit backed by the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association was filed against Orange County, Calif. and Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit (McKay v. Hutchens) was filed on behalf of several Orange County residents who have been denied carry licenses and seeks to remedy Sheriff Hutchens' discriminatory licensing practice of requiring "good cause," which the complaint defines as "a special or contemporaneous 'need' to defend oneself—something more than 'general concerns about personal safety.'"
The complaint argues that bans on the open carry of unloaded handguns and long guns without a license, combined with a discriminatory licensing procedure for concealed carry, infringe on "the right of law-abiding, competent adults to 'possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,'" as stated in Heller.
READ MORE >>
 

 
 
Part-Time Residents' Gun Possession
 
Addressing a longstanding injustice that affects retirees and others who divide their time between different states, the case of Osterweil v. Bartlett challenges New York's refusal to issue handgun permits to part-year residents. The plaintiff lives part of the year in Louisiana and part of the year in upstate New York, where local authorities denied him the permit that is required to possess any handgun in the home under New York law.
Mr. Osterweil (a retired lawyer) sued, rightly arguing that the right to keep arms in one's home is not limited to full-time residents. Unfortunately, in May 2011, a federal district judge rejected his claim. Relying on decisions handed down before Heller, the court ruled that because it's harder for New York to track the eligibility of part-time residents, licenses can fairly be limited to "those people who have the greatest contacts with New York."
READ MORE >>
 
 
Fifth Circuit Wrongly Upholds Ban on Young Adults' Handgun Purchases and Right-to-Carry
 
On Oct. 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the federal law that bans dealer sales of handguns to law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20. The decision, in the case of National Rifle Association v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, involved a challenge to the law by several young adults, joined by the NRA on behalf of its members in the same age group.
In our briefs, we pointed out that the age limit is inconsistent with the laws America's founders passed—such as the Militia Act of 1792, which required 18-year-olds to arm themselves for militia service. The age limit is also in conflict with court decisions interpreting other constitutional rights such as the First Amendment's protection of free speech, as seen in a Second Circuit ruling that barred New York City from restricting the retail sale of spray paint and permanent markers to those under 21 in an attempt to combat graffiti.
Most important, though, is that the age limit is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, which found that the Second Amendment protects the right of "all Americans" to keep and bear arms—handguns in particular—for self-defense.
READ MORE >>
 

 
 
Federal Court Upholds Obama/Holder Gun Registration Scheme
 
On May 31, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Obama administration policy that requires federally licensed firearms retailers in states bordering Mexico to report multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles. The case, National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Jones, was brought by two NRA-backed firearms retailers and the National Shooting Sports Foundation acting on behalf of its members in the Southwest.
The requirement imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives forces all licensed firearm dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report all sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles within five consecutive business days, if the rifles are larger than .22 caliber and use detachable magazines.
READ MORE >>
 
 
Florida Firearm Owners' Privacy Act Under Review
 
On June 29, 2012 a federal district court in Florida blocked enforcement of several provisions of the state's Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, resulting from the case Wollschlaeger v. Governor State of Florida.
The 2011 law was enacted to stop activist doctors from pushing an anti-gun agenda upon the residents of Florida by unnecessarily inquiring about patients' gun ownership, and to protect patients' privacy by making sure doctors cannot record gun ownership information in a patient's medical file. Under the law, medical professionals and insurance companies are also not allowed to discriminate against patients based upon gun ownership. The law also makes clear that patients have a right to refuse to answer health practitioners' questions about gun ownership. The legislation was inspired by the experiences gun owners have faced while receiving medical treatment from anti-gun doctors.
The law is not an outright ban on doctor-patient speech, as has been portrayed in the media. It provides clear exceptions for gun ownership information that is "relevant to the patient's medical care or safety," and for medical personnel to inquire about gun ownership or possession in an emergency. It also does not stop interested patients from inquiring with their physician about firearms.
READ MORE >>
 

 
 
Appeals Under Way in Challenge to San Francisco Laws
 
On Nov. 26, a federal judge denied the plaintiffs' motion (in the case of Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco) for a preliminary injunction to prevent San Francisco from enforcing its locked-firearm-storage requirement and its ban on the sale of popular ammunition that "serves no sporting purpose."
The storage provision requires the locked storage of all handguns inside the home unless "carried on the person." In opposition to the requirement, the motion cited Heller's recognition that defense inside the home is the core of the Second Amendment right and argues that the storage requirement clearly conflicts with this finding. Quoting Heller, the motion said, "'whatever else [the Second Amendment] leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,'" which should make restrictions like the storage law "subject to the highest level of scrutiny."
On the ammunition ban, the motion pointed out that ammunition is clearly protected under the Second Amendment, and no historical justification exists for curtailing the sale of certain types of ammunition. Therefore, under the view of the Second Amendment adopted in Heller, San Francisco's ban must be invalid.
READ MORE >>
 
 
Judge Throws Out One Suit to Ban Traditional Ammunition, While Another Continues
 
On May 23, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia threw out a case brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, which sought to force the Environmental Protection Agency into overstepping its congressionally designated authority by banning lead ammunition.
The suit began in 2012, following the EPA's rejection of a CBD petition urging the EPA to regulate traditional ammunition. Throughout the dispute, the radical anti-hunting group relied on an incorrect reading of the Toxic Substances Control Act, arguing that the EPA has the authority to regulate lead bullets as components of ammunition. In fact, in 1976 pro-gun lawmakers foresaw exactly this type of problem and added language to the legislation specifically exempting ammunition from its terms. Despite these repeated rebuffs and the plain language of the TSCA, CBD has continued its campaign against hunters and shooters.
Undeterred by their failure with the EPA, CBD is now trying to get the United States Forest Service to ban lead for hunting under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, known as RCRA.
READ MORE >>
 

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1394 on: June 28, 2013, 12:12:13 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/27/gun-manufacturers-big-act-of-defiance-ahead-of-new-magazine-ban-in-colorado/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1395 on: July 05, 2013, 12:38:54 PM »

Permits Soar to Allow More Concealed Guns
Proponents Say Practice Cuts Crime; Police Raise Concern
By JACK NICAS and ASHBY JONES

A growing number of Americans are getting permission to carry firearms in public—and under their clothes—a development that has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities.

Applications for "concealed-carry" permits are soaring in many states, some of which recently eased permit requirements. The numbers are driven in part by concern that renewed gun-control efforts soon could constrain access to weapons, along with heightened interest in self-defense in the wake of mass killings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo.



Bob McGinty, a small-business owner in Minnesota, obtained a permit this year to carry his pistol concealed.

Since July 1 of last year, Florida has granted more than 173,000 new concealed-carry permits, up 17% from the year before and twice as many as five years ago, for a total of about 1.09 million permits in the state.

Ohio, meanwhile, is on pace to nearly double last year's total of 65,000 new permits, which would be nearly three times as many as in 2007. And Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming and Nebraska all have nearly matched or surpassed last year's totals with half of 2013 still to go.

A dozen states surveyed for this article, including Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, issued 537,000 permits last year, an 18% increase compared with a year prior and more than double the number issued in 2007. Early figures for 2013 show many states are on pace for their biggest year ever.

About eight million Americans had concealed-carry permits as of last year, the Government Accountability Office said in what it called a conservative estimate.

"I suppose it's the same reason people are reporting gun sales are up and ammunition sales are up," said Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, referring to concern among gun owners about the recent push for gun control. "It's nothing unique in Ohio.…It seems to be a consistent trend across the board."

States across the U.S. have loosened restrictions amid a spate of mass shootings in public spaces, making it easier to get concealed-carry permits and allowing concealed weapons in more places, including schools, churches and bars.

Some leaders in law enforcement call the increasing requests for concealed-carry permits unwelcome, citing safety concerns. Thomas Dart, sheriff of Illinois's Cook County, which encompasses Chicago, said that although the effect on crime is disputed, more people carrying guns "makes our job more difficult."

"Without the gun, it's a fistfight. With the gun, it's a shooting," he said.

Craig Steckler, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said he could remember only "one instance in which someone effectively defended himself" with a firearm during his 21 years as police chief in Fremont, Calif. Otherwise, "it's a whole lot of cases of guns being used not in ways they're designed: kids shooting themselves, gun-cleaning accidents, crimes of passion, that sort of thing."

Research is split on whether more armed citizens deter or exacerbate gun violence. Economist John Lott, a conservative commentator and author of "More Guns, Less Crime," said data show concealed-carry laws reduce violent crime.

But the National Research Council, part of the congressionally chartered National Academies, has disputed links between concealed-carry laws and drops in crime. And the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun control, said that since 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have fatally shot about 500 people, that 128 of them have been convicted of manslaughter or homicide, and 36 have committed murder-suicides.

In 2008 and 2010 rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants broad license to keep and bear arms in the home. But the court left unclear whether and to what degree the right to carry a weapon extends outside the home, leaving states largely free to set up their own rules.

In 2002, seven states banned concealed-carry, according to the GAO. By later this year, every state will allow it.

Ten states require applicants to show "good cause" to get a permit. But 39 states—10 more than in 2002—grant permits to anyone who meets a few basic requirements, such as a clean criminal record and proof of residency.

Residents of Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont don't need permits to carry a concealed weapon. In 2002, that was the case only in Vermont.

The surge in applications in recent months is linked at least in part to the Newtown tragedy, which rekindled a national gun-control debate at state and federal levels. Many permit holders say they feel safer carrying a gun, or knowing they could bring one into a potentially dangerous situation.

"Everyone has the right to be responsible for his or her own personal safety," said Bob McGinty, a small-business owner in Golden Valley, Minn., who obtained a concealed-carry permit earlier this year, after Minnesota made them cheaper and easier to get.

While Connecticut, Colorado, California, New York, Delaware and Maryland have tightened gun restrictions this year, at least 20 states have loosened laws on concealed-carry, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks and advocates for gun-control laws. States have streamlined the permit process, made concealed-carry records confidential or lifted bans on carrying concealed firearms in many public places.

Texas stopped requiring concealed-carry permit holders to undergo training to renew their licenses, West Virginia stopped requiring background checks for permit renewals, and Louisiana introduced lifetime permits.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said: "Crime can happen anywhere, and it's reasonable for people to have an effective means of defending themselves and their loved ones."

Write to Jack Nicas at jack.nicas@wsj.com and Ashby Jones at ashby.jones@wsj.com
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1396 on: July 05, 2013, 10:23:14 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/08/gun-confiscation-bill-introduced-in-california-we-can-save-lives/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1397 on: July 06, 2013, 01:31:55 PM »

second post of day

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/05/the-scandal-that-keeps-on-giving-police-chief-murdered-with-rifle-lost-in-operation-fast-and-furious/

et another gun lost in the ATF’s disastrous federal gun-walking operation known as “Fast and Furious” has reportedly been used in a murder.

A high-powered rifle from Fast and Furious was used to kill a Mexican police chief in the state of Jalisco earlier this year, according to internal Department of Justice records. The new revelation suggests “that weapons from the failed gun-tracking operation have now made it into the hands of violent drug cartels deep inside Mexico,” the Los Angeles Times reports.
Police Chief Murdered With Rifle Lost in Operation Fast and Furious

This Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011 picture shows part of a cache of seized weapons displayed at a news conference in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Matt York)

More from the LA Times:

    Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga, the police chief in the city of Hostotipaquillo, was shot to death Jan. 29 when gunmen intercepted his patrol car and opened fire. Also killed was one of his bodyguards. His wife and a second bodyguard were wounded.

    Local authorities said eight suspects in their 20s and 30s were arrested after police seized them nearby with a cache of weapons — rifles, grenades, handguns, helmets, bulletproof vests, uniforms and special communications equipment. The area is a hot zone for rival drug gangs, with members of three cartels fighting over turf in the region.

    A semi-automatic WASR rifle, the firearm that killed the chief, was traced back to the Lone Wolf Trading Company, a gun store in Glendale, Ariz. The notation on the Department of Justice trace records said the WASR was used in a “HOMICIDE – WILLFUL – KILL –PUB OFF –GUN” –ATF code for “Homicide, Willful Killing of a Public Official, Gun.”

The ATF allowed hundreds of guns to walk across the border into Mexico with supposed intentions of tracking them to Mexican cartel leaders.

The ATF declined to discuss the murder of the Mexican police chief. Officials told the LA Times that they are still creating an inventory of all the lost firearms for a complete account of the Fast and Furious operation. The operation was started in 2008.

At least 211 people have been killed or wounded by Fast and Furious guns, according to Mexican authorities. This, of course, includes slain U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was gunned down by Mexican traffickers in 2010.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1398 on: July 06, 2013, 02:57:47 PM »

third post of day

http://godfatherpolitics.com/11605/south-dakota-becomes-first-state-to-allow-armed-teachers/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1399 on: July 08, 2013, 04:15:00 PM »

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6311527-Sheriffs-under-fire-over-gun-control/

Sheriffs under fire over gun control

Some critics say that stance against issue by some sheriffs is stifling debate over what violates, doesn't violate 2nd Amendment





By Andrew Knapp
 The Post & Courier

CHARLESTON, S.C. — When Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon talks about the right to bear firearms, he doesn t just talk about citizens defending themselves against home invaders, carjackers, robbers and murderers.

He talks about the Founding Fathers and the Revolutionary War. He talks about Americans need to oppose tyranny and about Nathan Hale, a colonial spy who died for such a cause when British soldiers hanged him in 1776.


To Cannon, the people's power to resist an overbearing government is what the Second Amendment is all about. That s why, he said, he spoke out this year against any new federal gun-control measures that he thinks would suppress that option, and he vowed to take no role in enforcing them.

Nothing has occurred since (colonial times) that suggests we need to be any less concerned about a central government that's too powerful, he said. The Second Amendment is a fail-safe that protects the country from that government.

He was one of the first South Carolina sheriffs to take such a stance in the wake of the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December. Nearly a dozen sheriffs in the state, including all three in the tri-county area, and more than 470 nationwide have expressed such resistance.



Chief Greg Mullen of the Charleston Police Department said that he supports the Second Amendment, but that not every measure would violate it.

"No matter what you propose, there's always one group that thinks it's against the Second Amendment," Mullen said.

"That prevents us from having a reasonable and intelligent discussion about this."

Analyze and disobey
 The movement among sheriffs is thought to have started in Colorado.

On the day President Barack Obama announced plans for new gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith vowed on his Facebook page not to enforce unconstitutional laws.

That same week in mid-January, Cannon stood before journalists, tipped live rounds out of a revolver's cylinder and said he would ignore new federal laws that he thinks are unconstitutional.

He caught flack for the display. In an interview weeks later, Cannon said he fielded calls from people who thought he shouldn't so publicly express his personal beliefs, and from others who thought it wasn't his job to deem laws unconstitutional.

An online petition calling for him to resign garnered 599 signatures, short of its goal of 750.

He said he doesn't regret the move. His position as an elected sheriff isn't a popularity contest, but a struggle to do what's right, he said.

That he's not alone bolstered his stance, Cannon said.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association assembled a list of 474 sheriffs and 18 sheriffs associations nationwide who took up the cause. Their arguments were similar: Sheriffs swear an oath to defend the state and federal constitutions, and enforcing a law contrary to those documents would break their pledge.

Cannon, who has a law degree, said that his reading of history texts during the past two years has strengthened his position. On his desk he keeps a copy of the Federalist Papers, letters written by forefathers expressing how best to protect rights and liberties.

The sheriff likens his refusal to enforce new gun-control laws to an Army soldier disobeying a commander. He said he would expect the same from one of his own deputies.

"He has an obligation to analyze and disobey an unlawful order," Cannon said. "Included in my oath is an obligation to uphold the Constitution and, to some extent, evaluate whether laws break it."

A day after Cannon spoke, Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt issued a statement invoking the wishes of the nation's founders. He left it to lawmakers to draft legislation consistent with the U.S. Constitution. DeWitt declined to further discuss his stance.

Sheriff L.C. Knight in Dorchester County was not on the list published by the national organization, but he said he played a role in drafting a statement by the S.C. Sheriffs Association. That statement mentioned modern Americans distrust of government, and that sheriffs don't have the authority to enforce federal laws anyway.

Knight, a board member for the state group, added that efforts should instead focus on boosting penalty enhancements for firearm crimes.

"Taking a gun isn't going to stop violence," Knight said. "We've got laws against drinking and driving, but they still do it. We ve got laws against marijuana, but that doesn't stop people from using."

'Pretty daring'
 Cannon spoke out, he said, partially in response to Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, a consistent proponent of gun control who later was depicted in an advertisement for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

A police chief working under a politician such as Riley, the sheriff said, is less likely to speak up against gun control.

Cannon cited research by PoliceOne.com indicating that many of the 15,000 police officers surveyed think new laws would do little to quell violence. Ninety-five percent, for example, thought limiting high-capacity magazines would not affect the crime rate.

Mullen, the Charleston police chief, cited statements from the International Association of Chiefs of Police indicating support for new measures.

He countered viewpoints about sheriffs' hesitancy to help enforce federal laws. Local law officers have a duty to contact federal authorities when they find violations of federal laws, Mullen said. His department, he added, works "hand in hand" with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Police officers may not directly enforce federal laws, Mullen said, but they cannot turn a blind eye because of their personal beliefs.

That practice backfired this spring for one sheriff in Florida.

Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch ordered the release of a man arrested for carrying a concealed pistol without a license because Finch believed in Second Amendment rights, published reports stated.

Last month, Florida's governor suspended the sheriff, who was jailed on a felony charge of official misconduct.

"If any laws are passed, ultimately the Supreme Court will determine whether or not they should be enforced," Mullen said. "I don't think that s a decision that law enforcement should make."

The issue of having local law officers do the federal government's work has popped up before.

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring state law officers to conduct criminal background checks. It violated the Constitution's concept of dual sovereignty, justices said.

Armand Derfner, a Charleston attorney who specializes in constitutional law, said sheriffs should recognize federal law as supreme.

"It's possible that a particular law may be held unconstitutional," Derfner said. "But it's pretty daring that an officer decides on his own that he s going to do that."

Debra DeShong Reed, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, declined to comment on the issue, but local advocates have been outspoken.

Margaret Kelly of Mount Pleasant, a member of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said opponents of new gun control tend to "throw the Second Amendment at me when explaining their position on legislation."

To Kelly, their argument says little: It doesn't explain, for example, why they think people have the right to carry a concealed firearm into a bar.

"There are other people who think the government is going to take their guns and destroy them," Kelly said. "They need to hide in the hills with all the paranoid people."

During her organization's recent march on Washington, Kelly said staffers from only one member of South Carolina s congressional delegation agreed to speak with her. The worker for Republican Tim Scott didn t help explain the senator's position on gun control, she said.

<"He believes in the Second Amendment," she said, referring to what was said during the brief meeting. "That's it. That s all I learned."

Reach Andrew Knapp at 937-5414 or twitter.com/offlede.
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 32 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!