Ah… what we need are more liberals like this:
Hundreds of protesters gathered in Atlanta Wednesday to protest “Stand Your Ground” laws, marking the one-year anniversary of the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
One woman even told CBS Atlanta that she’d rather die than use a weapon in self-defense.
“Self defense is not an option, it is not an option,” she told CBS‘ Christopher King. “They’ll just have to kill me, Christopher.”
This is excellent.
From the Washington Times. A report from the Justice Department’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, titled “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” explains that:
… a “complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.” It further noted banning guns with certain scary-looking features “could be effective” if the government outlawed all existing firearms, and bought them all.
Similarly, the Justice report asserts that the only way to achieve the “goal to reduce the lethality of guns” with a ban on magazines over 10 rounds would be by a “massive reduction in supply.” It recommends not “grandfathering” the hundreds of millions of existing magazines, but implementing an “extensive buyback” program. Even then, it would “take decades to realize.”
In a speech on Thursday, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association said the president’s true agenda with his “universal background check” proposal was “the national registration of every single gun owner in the country.” The Justice Department memo recommends the creation of a national gun registry to make background checks for private gun sales useful for the government.
The report says registering every gun purchase in the country would “increase owner responsibility,” enable “monitoring” of multiple gun purchases in a short period of time and “improve law enforcement’s ability to retrieve guns from owners” prohibited from possessing firearms. That’s code for confiscation.
The National Institute of Justice did not respond to questions about who in the administration asked for the research and whether it was given to the White House.
The document puts the administration’s plans into context. Mr. Obama and his allies want to know who owns every single gun in this country, and if they think a gun is scary looking, they will take it away.
Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.
This is from the NRA. These are true.
NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) , and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.
Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.
A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.
“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.
According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration. In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.
Proposed law in Washington:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
Okay, these loons apparently want my book to hit best-seller status. Cool with me.
Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:1 Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;2 Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or3 Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
This is pure insanity and I hope the parents of the child get an attorney. One can NOT be charged with brandishing a weapon UNLESS one brandishes a weapon! A toy is NOT a weapon folks!
But, I guess, when the DHS buys 7000 FULL AUTO M-4 rifles to be deployed in AMERICA and calls them “Personal Defense Weapons,” we should not be surprised with this type of lunacy from leftist school administrators…
ALEXANDRIA, Va. –
A 10-year-old boy has been charged after bringing a toy gun on a school bus in Alexandria.
The boy is a fifth grade student who attends Douglas MacArthur Elementary School.
The trouble for him started Monday afternoon on the school bus ride home. According to Alexandria Police, the boy showed the toy gun, described as a replica silver handgun with a black handle and orange tip.
Police say he neglected to mention the toy was a fake gun. School officials found out, and when the fifth grader arrived at school Tuesday morning, they found the toy gun in his bag.
Police arrested him and charged him with brandishing a weapon. He was taken to the juvenile detention center and later released.
The child has been suspended and Alexandria City Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Morton Sherman, says further action is under consideration, including expulsion.
I finally get it! We really do need to ban guns. It’s clear!
Go read this article:
Dr. Garrow is not known for being a wild crackpot or part of the political fringe, so when he recently made the following post on his Facebook page, it got the attention of a number people:
“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. ‘The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.’ Those who will not are being removed.”
Just imagine if Bork had been nominated… We’d in short order be looking at a 5-4 Supreme Court that believes the Second Amendment DOES NOT apply to individuals.
Robert Bork, the former federal judge whose Reagan-era nomination to the Supreme Court touched off one of the roughest confirmation battles in modern U.S. history, has died.
Looks like I may be asked to speak about this issue.
Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed “mentally incompetent” to have their cases adjudicated by a judge — rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently — and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.
I appeared last night on the Mike Siegel show in the last hour. If you would like to hear the audio, go to Nov. 30 and select the third hour. It’s was a pretty free ranging discussion about guns, the Second Amendment, and the legal use of lethal force.
Obviously, with my title, By Force Of Patriots, I’ve seen the possibility of this coming for some time…
From the Washington Times:
Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
Need I say more?
How it happens in my novel is not so “far-fetched” as to be dismissed…
The Detroit News today reports that a recent shooting at the dock of the Detroit Princess cruse ship arose from an altercation between two families. One woman called her boyfriend, not on the cruse, and instructed him to retrieve a gun from a parked car and to bring it down to the dock. (All passengers are checked for weapons before they get on the cruse, so those disembarking were unarmed). Thus, when the woman got her gun, she opened fire without fear.
Then, interestingly, when a member of the family being shot at also retrieved a gun, and began returning fire, the original shooter and her boyfriend ran.
John Lott has noted that so-called “gun free” zones are magnets for those intent on mayhem. This scene was no different.
When will liberals learn?
This, today from the Washington Times:
The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.
I guess the mantra, “if it will save only one life,” applies to taking away guns, not criminals…
For anyone interested in an analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, go check out my new sneak peek…
John Lott has noted on Armed American Radio, with Mark Walters, that the movie theater was a “gun free” zone. These monsters are literally attracted to locations where they know that no one is going to shoot back.
Indeed, Mr. Lott has noted, virtually all the the mass (meaning more than three victims) have occurred in gun free zones.
Liberals seem to live in a fantasy land of thinking that putting up signs saying “no guns” will make the world safe. How on earth can they be so misguided? Can anyone explain?
Guns do make it possible for bad things to happen. But they cannot be eliminated, and taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens is, to put it bluntly, akin to shooting ourselves in the foot.
This from Fox and recently headlined on Drudge:
A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations — with Iran playing a key role — could expose the records of America’s gun owners to foreign governments — and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/#ixzz20KyB4wAp
Big Sky News
Ninth Circuit rejects Heller
By Tom Bridger, BSN staff writer.
PASADENA, CA – It was a cool summer night in Seattle, Washington, when Frederick Jones returned home to find his wife on the living room couch, naked from the waist down, throat slashed, and oozing life. With her last breaths, Melinda Jones pointed to the bedroom of their 14 year old daughter.
Sounds coming from the bedroom made Fred Jones’s blood turn to ice. His daughter, Melissa, was gurgling as though cries for help were bubbling through a severed throat; her bed was creaking and the headboard was knocking into the wall in a quickly repetitive cycle. Fred Jones raced down the hall and recovered a .357 Magnum revolver hidden in a utility closet just outside his daughter’s room. He turned the knob on her bedroom door and rushed in.
A year later, Frederick Jones was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison for killing Abdul Saeed with an illegal gun. Mr. Jones six-shot revolver violated a Washington law that prohibits guns from holding more than four cartridges or firing a bullet farther than 75 yards.
Mr. Jones’s appeal was upheld and today, in Jones v. Bouchard, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled, 10-1, en banc, for the State of Washington, agreeing that its “police powers” allowed its legislature to craft reasonable regulations on gun ownership to curb rampant gun violence.
Jones had argued that the 75 yard requirement would render the gun ineffective for self defense. He further argued that limiting guns to four or more cartridges effectively banned virtually every self-defense handgun in existence.
The Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, had found that a ban on handgun possession in the home, as well as storage requirements that rendered rifles and shotguns inoperable for immediate self-defense, violated the Second Amendment’s guarantee that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In the case at bar, Jones argued, the facts were essentially identical to Heller; in both, the laws effectively banned armed self defense.
Two curious footnotes to the majority opinion appear to be aimed at providing additional grounds to support the ruling if, as is expected, the case is appealed to the Supreme Court. In the first, the Ninth Circuit indicated that Heller incorrectly read the history of the Second Amendment’s drafting, and that Justice Stevens “got it right” when he concluded there, in a dissenting opinion, that the founding fathers intended to protect only the military use of personal firearms. In the second footnote, the Court found it “persuasive that the United Nations Department of Disarmament Affairs has proposed exactly this type of limitation on gun ownership.”
The attorney for Appellant Jones, Frank Layton Jr., confirmed that his client would appeal. He said that, “The Supreme Court will see this scheme for what it is: an effective ban on self defense, the most fundamental right inherent in the Constitution.”
Wilber Terrapin, attorney for Washington state, said, “I think the court was impressed with Justice Stevens’s well-reasoned dissent in Heller, and further agreed that it’s wholly proper to utilize the opinions of international bodies to guide interpretation of the Constitution.”
Second Amendment scholar and firearms expert, Professor of Law David Couples, when reached at his office by telephone, noted that, “Any gun useful for self defense will of necessity fire a bullet much farther than 75 yards.” He agreed that states have a right, according to their police powers, to impose reasonable regulations on firearms. “But what’s reasonable,” he asked, “about requiring the use of something that doesn’t even exist, or if it did, wouldn’t work?” When asked about the court looking to the United Nations to interpret what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights, Couples quipped, “it’s worthy of the mad hatter.”