gun control

Quid Pro Quo RE: Gun Rights/Migrants

Says an Oregon Democrat!   (in part)

Calling it the “civil rights battle” for millennials that will decide who controls the the country for the next three decades, Democrat Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon says immigration “will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years,” the Portland Tribune reported Monday. Schraeder’s observation highlights a contention made by Gun Owners of America that amnesty is a threat to the right to keep and bear arms. That position has so far been avoided by other national gun rights groups which refuse to acknowledge the issue, or to score political ratings and endorsements accordingly.

That avoidance is in spite of the fact that Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has stated illegal aliens have “earned the right to be citizens. It’s in spite of all credible polling showing the foreigners to be overwhelmingly Democrat and anti-gun in their sympathies.   (…)

Duh.

Potential new citizens being given the many gifts of citizenship, after having already being given gifts as illegal aliens migrants , it only stands to reason they would vote for the party that gave them all the free stuff.  And align themselves with the Democratic progressive agenda who provided it.

Not knowing part of doing so would further The Republic’s The Nation’s The Oligarchy’s ability to deny their rights!

Quid Pro Quo

(and what sort of name is Jeh, anyway?  Inquiring minds want to know.)

h/t David Codrea

If Nanny Bloomberg Says Only Minorities Should Have Arms, Is That Reverse Racism?

Or simply Affirmative Action?

Bloomberg said that we should restrict guns to minorities. Then, he asked everyone not to release any video and they complied. But here’s the audio.  (SayUncle)

Negative And Positive Spin On Pending National CCW Legislation

First a NEGATIVE, in part…

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

From time to time I read about proposals for a national law requiring reciprocity of concealed carry permits between the states. The most recent example is the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced by Senator John Cornyn, R-TX.

Sadly, I have some bad news about this proposal, and about a national CCW reciprocity law in general: It would be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.  (Fill Yer Hands)

Second, a POSITIVE response, in the comments…

14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

…

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Simply declare that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental right, that denial of the right to carry a firearm for lawful self defense is denial of liberty, and that this law is passed under Congress’s 14th Amendment power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the liberties of our citizens.  (Sean D. Sorrentino)

“BANNING” – As The Republic’s Policy

Or perhaps I should have worded it the former Republic’s government policy…

It was recently announced that the BATFE was moving to ban certain ammunition familiar to users of the AR-15 rifle, specifically:

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

Now, aside from petty power and control, why would they bother to do this?  Because they see a future where armored troops are engaging the citizenry serfs for power and control?  Perhaps.

But I think it’s that time ‘honored’ reason – because they can.  And have.

Which brings us to the larger question.  Should anything be BANNED in a Free Republic?  Or should the marketplace be the controlling factor?

Possessing, manufacturing or distributing child pornography is essentially banned.  This doesn’t stop possession, manufacture or distribution.  How about drugs?  Substandard (or poisonous/dangerous) products from overseas?  Or those domestically produced?  Remember cyclamates and hexaclorophene?

Perhaps it’s a bit callous of me, but I think the marketplace should be the deciding factor.  If you don’t want cyclamates, poisons or substandard foreign crap, don’t buy it!  Child pornography harms children in the production prima facie, so banning that is acceptable and appropriate.   Drugs?  If you are an adult, it should be up to you.  But, driving under the influence or committing crimes to support your habit is another thing altogether.  Then you are bringing others into the mix.  Without their permission.

If you inadvertently purchase something harmful, sue the bastards!  But, you have a responsibility – you should be an informed consumer.

Now, to the proposed ammunition ban.  The ‘sporting purposes’ argument.  Obviously, the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Their regulation and argument is invalid.

h/t Alphecca, NRA

What Are YOU Prepared To Do?

In timor veritas. “Olympia disarms open carriers in hearings.”

Washington State House and Senate officials announced yesterday that the ban on open carry has been extended to include all public hearings in legislative office buildings, the Associated Press and Seattle Times reported.

The original edict is going to be tested on 7 February by the I Will Not Comply folks. It seems certain that someone will, at the least, be arrested this time. My intention, if I can raise the ticket and the expenses, is to go out, participate in this action and give them the chance at me. The fight in Washington state is more important than almost everybody understands and has national, even international, implications.

If things go really south, Bob Wright has offered to truck my bones around the country, Irish-like, to raise money for the cause. I have accepted, since at that point I will no longer have need of them. ;-)

I am not suicidal, but the willingness to trade life for liberty — your own and those that you love — is implicit in the oath we take. The collectivist media has been very successful in serving their masters by deliberately ignoring the armed civil disobedience movement. Even the pukes at CSGV have been holding their tongues, even though the various state campaigns “prove” their “government-needs-a-monopoly-of-force” position. The “authorities” in Olympia are frightened to death, it would seem, about citizens exercising their rights while in the vicinity of their Mandarin personages. To paraphrase the Romans, “In timor veritas” — in fear there is truth. The politicos have demonstrated their fear and an essential truth. The trick will be to give them the opportunity to overreact and demonstrate the bankruptcy of their tyranny where all will see and notice. THAT is a cause worth risking much for.  (Sipsey Street Irregulars)

What are YOU prepared to do?

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Needs Your Support!

It’s a problem as fresh as today’s headlines.

A Pennsylvania woman with a concealed carry license drives over the New Jersey line with a gun in her car.  In a routine traffic stop, she is arrested and charged for violating New Jersey’s unconstitutional gun laws. Only a national campaign saves her from a decade in prison.

And that’s just the point:  In an era where states like New York and California use draconian and labyrinthine gun laws in order to try to outlaw guns by fiat, a legal gun owner shouldn’t risk a life behind bars because he or she drives across a state line into a socialist-leaning state.

A Floridian shouldn’t live in fear of a move that takes him through New York, or a Virginian, of a trip through Maryland.

So it is good news that, after a campaign that has lasted for over a decade, we are now within striking range of passing reciprocity legislation that is friendly to citizens living in constitutional carry states.

Congressman Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) has told Gun Owners of America that he will be introducing this reciprocity bill within the next few weeks.  This bill will prohibit states like New York and California from cancelling the Second Amendment rights of Americans from other states. 

If you have a concealed carry permit — or if you come from a freedom-loving state that doesn’t require one — you can carry anywhere in the country without fear of losing your constitutional rights because of where you are.

With six constitutional carry states — and at least four other states which may pass those laws this year — the Stutzman bill is a particularly important contrast to competing bills which would require states like Vermont to change their pro-gun laws in order to benefit.

Now, we know that some of our members would argue:  “Why shouldn’t principles of federalism allow states to spit on the Second Amendment if they want to?”  We respect this view, but respectfully disagree.  Gun grabbers have no problem creating national rules to take away our Second Amendment rights, irrespective of what we do.  So it’s time they were hoisted on their own petard.

In addition, the Supreme Court (correctly) ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the reach of the Second Amendment extends beyond just the federal government and applies to all 50 states.

In this landmark decision, the Court noted (approvingly) that anti-gun Justice Stephen Breyer was “correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated.” (p. 44)

Why are we so optimistic about Stutzman?  The answer is that we now have a filibuster-proof majority to pass it in the Senate — if we can get the new GOP leadership to give us the opportunity to offer it as an amendment to a must-pass bill. 

ACTION: Contact your Representative.  Ask him or her to call Congressman Stutzman and sign up as an original cosponsor to the Stutzman “constitutional carry” friendly reciprocity bill.

Of course, in a perfect World, all freemen would be able to carry whatever they want anywhere, with impunity.  Riding their unicorns into the sunset.  –  Guffaw

h/t Gun Owners of America

“Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste.”

- Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, former Chief-of-Staff to the President (quoted in the blog title)

One of the most important yet overlooked factors that will occur in the aftermath of a massive terrorist attack on the United States is that such an attack would spark martial law on a national basis. Several national security experts were contacted who have no doubt that martial law will be declared. This declaration would include not only forced curfews but mandatory confiscation of citizen owned firearms.

The very same scenario would be implemented in the event of a devastating national disaster, such as a rare 1000-year volcano, a deadly tsunami that would decimate either the east or west coasts, or a direct hit by an asteroid.

Since the days of the Reagan administration, government has had a blueprint for continuing to operate in secret underground bunkers that have been built all across the United States. It is called simply “Continuity of Government” that establishes specific, detailed protocols for addressing the threat posed to the entire U.S. government. While some of these protocols are prudent and necessary, the section that would implement martial law is particularly troublesome.  (in part from Examiner.com)

Disagree?

The Administration (and their socialist minions) use every criminal shooting to continue to beat the drum for civilian disarmament – even if the firearms chosen had nothing to do with the crime.  Every oil spill, however slight, is an ecological disaster.  Every attempt to increase private business growth is viewed as a product of the evil 1%.  Every attempt to privatize (translation – let the people decide instead of the government) pretty much anything is de facto evil, because it takes power and control away from the all-powerful, and knowledgeable OZ government.

The gun control movement began in this country as a means of keeping firearms away from freed slaves (in Kentucky, in 1809) and the great unwashed (in New York City 1911).  And the same forces responsible continue to push for civilian disarmament, especially of the poor.  (Cheap guns are dangerous and only used in crime).

How racist is gun control?

Now that the gun rights folks have achieved CCW statutes in most States, even in Illinois, their only response is the bigger picture.

Foment nationwide discord and just wait for the next big terrorist attack.  Then institute martial law and disarm the populous.

I’m sure Al Qaeda and company are just waiting so they can attack a second time.  From Saudi Arabia.

Or Dearborn.

h/t The Liberty Sphere

Beware – The AZ Legislature Is In Session!

“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”  –  Mark Twain

Now pending in the Arizona Legislature…

HB 2320 would exempt CCW permit holders from being disarmed when entering “public” (state and local government buildings and property, unless security measures (guards, metal detectors, etc.) are in place to screen every person entering for weapons.

HB 2431 would establish an interstate “compact” that restricts member states from enacting firearms transfer requirements different than existing federal law.  Compacts between states supersede individual state law.  An example of an interstate compact is the uniform recognition of drivers’ licenses.  Assuming HB 2431 is enacted in Arizona and at least one other state becomes a party to the compact, a subsequent state law, or even a ballot measure, cannot override it.

With the pending Bloomberg-sponsored effort to establish Gun Owner Registration using Arizona’s Initiative/Referendum process, there are non-firearms bills that help insure that the process is proper and lawful.

HB 2407 would require strict compliance to the requirements (signatures, dates, etc.) for getting a measure on the ballot.

SB 1056 focuses on the validity of petition signatures.  If the address of the signer on the petition is not the same as on their voter registration, the signature is not valid.

At this early point in the session, none of the bills we are monitoring have been schedule for committee hearings.

I’m not certain I agree that any registration is ‘proper and lawful’, but different strokes and all that.

h/t Arizona Citizen’s Defense League

D’UH! (How DOES One Say D’UH in Hebrew?)

One of Europe’s most prominent Jewish organizations is petitioning the European Union to pass new legislation that would permit Jewish community members to carry guns “for the essential protection of their communities,” according to a letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sadly, a leader in the European Jewish community  NAMED COOPER (ironically), disagrees.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that while guns could help Jews defend themselves against an individual attack, only authorities can protect them against a mass attack like those carried out in France.

“As to personally being armed, such a move could help when a Jewish person is threatened by thugs, but won’t help if G-d forbid, Charlie-type terror attacks are launched,” Cooper said.

And, of course, the ever more anti-Semitic Europe will continue to debate this, while not only the Jewish community, but most Europeans, are unable to defend themselves against crime or terror.

Except, of course, the Swiss!

While France, in response to the recent attacks, pushes for MORE gun control laws!

D’UH, indeed.

h/t Firehand

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other

Brock Townsend shares with us:

I came across this article today, entitled Are Militias a Menace?  It mainly focuses on pro-government militias during times of civil war abroad, however, there are some very important takeaways from this article.  To wit:

The distinction between “gang” and “militia” — ties with the government

Unlike rebels or criminals, whose actions are necessarily illegal and opposed by the state, these groups enjoy semi-official or informal ties with the government.

Liberal use of state-backed militias (i.e., “gangs”) to abuse the populace and disabuse themselves of the blame

Their statistical findings (published here and summarized here) show that the appearance of militias is strongly correlated with violations of human rights, particularly when governments want to maximize harm to civilians while minimizing blame for the action of armed groups that are, ostensibly, “free agents.”

More @ Guerrilla America  (end)