archives

gun control

This tag is associated with 228 posts

No – Not Shocked Here

I’ve posted before many times (ironically) about statists wanting control, and my shock at their so wanting. I’ve subsequently posted, I’m no longer shocked.

If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, it’s a f****** duck!

No shock here.

(from Brock Townsend)

 https://i1.wp.com/23cv3m1dndsq45j54q3lf5le.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Zhack-777x437.jpg

Sock it the her!:)

Katie Couric’s deception to promote gun control is being rev …

Wow: How Katie Couric’s new anti-gun movie used deceptive editing 

Katie Couric Anti-Gun Doc Deceptively Edited to Suggest Gun Rights …

Katie Couric’s New Anti-Gun Documentary Deceptively Edited …

In Katie Couric’s New Anti-Gun Documentary, the Facts Don’t Matter

Unethical journalism: Couric alters words of VCDL members …

But, But…she’s so cute?

New Arizona Gun Laws + Fears

The 2016 Legislative session is officially over.  The status and summary of bills that AzCDL monitored this session can be found on our Bill Tracking page.

The Good News

In addition to stopping almost a dozen bad firearms related bills from progressing through the Legislature, AzCDL was instrumental in getting the following bills through both chambers of the Legislature and to the Governor’s desk where they were signed into law.

HB 2224, the AzCDL-requested bill that prohibits state or local governments from requiring any fee, tax, etc. on the private transfer of firearms.

HB 2338, the AzCDL-requested bill that prohibits the governing boards of educational institutions from banning firearms on public rights of way, such as city streets and sidewalks that happen to pass through campuses.

SB 1266 puts teeth into the preemption statutes by allowing for civil actions when state agencies, counties, cities, etc. disregard the law.

SB 1487 requires the Arizona Attorney General to investigate local ordinances that violate Arizona’s Constitution or state law.

The Bad News

For several years we have been pushing legislation to end Arizona’s official policy of allowing armed criminals to enter government buildings through the use of impotent “no weapons” signs as their only means of security.  As long as the bad guys can come and go at will in public facilities, we believe all law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves.  This year’s bill was SB 1257 which said in essence that if state and local governments’ only means of security was a cardboard sign, then CCW permit holders should not be disarmed when entering.  At the request of the Governor’s staff, SB 1257 was amended in the House.  However seeing that the bill only needed one more floor vote to pass out of the Legislature, his staff then lobbied the Senate to kill the bill.  We learned our lesson – cooperating with this Governor is not necessarily a good thing.

We were able to get this year’s version of our interstate firearms compact bill, HB 2524, through both chambers of the Legislature but it was vetoed by Governor Ducey.  You may recall that last year, after Bloomberg’s lobbyists appeared at the Capitol, the compact bill was buried in the Senate Rules Committee while the clock ran out on the session.

HB 2524 would have established an interstate compact between Arizona and other states that prevented the member states from enacting firearms transfer requirements more restrictive than existing federal law.  Enactment of HB 2524 would have neutralized Bloomberg’s ballot measure to criminalize private firearms transfers, which he has promised to file in Arizona.

Stopping Bloomberg

In 2014, after passing a “universal background check” ballot measure in Washington, Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization bragged that Nevada, Maine and Arizona were next.  In Nevada and Maine the groundwork is completed.  They will have “universal background check” measures on their November ballots.  Bloomberg has less than 2 months to accomplish the same thing here in Arizona.  We must operate on the assumption that it will happen and be prepared to not just fight it, but to stop it from becoming the law in Arizona.

With the veto of HB 2524, legislative remedies are no longer available.  We can only stop him at the ballot box.  If Bloomberg’s ballot measure passes, Arizona’s Constitution prevents it from being overturned by a subsequent Legislature. 

From what we’ve seen happen in Washington, Nevada and Maine, we cannot count on outside help.  The reality is that we must fight this battle ourselves.  AzCDL is self-funded and operates from the generosity of our members.  To maintain our independence we are unaffiliated.  We don’t receive corporate grants or have a rich sugar daddy hiding in the shadows.  Your donations determine if we succeed or fail.  In order to win this, we are going to need your support to help us spread the word.  When the next fund raising letter hits your inbox, please remember that we can only defeat Bloomberg with your help.

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization.

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom .

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.

And don’cha think Bloomberg and his Statist minions will be visiting other States, as well?

Count on it!

A Right Is A Right Is A Right, Part Dos

Social Security moves to block mentally impaired from owning guns

– The Washington Times – Thursday, May 5, 2016

People who get Social Security disability payments by dint of mental impairment and who need help to manage their finances are so dangerous they shouldn’t be able to buy firearms, the Obama administration said in a new proposal published Thursday that could add millions of people to the lists of banned gun owners.

Disability and gun rights advocates said it was a dangerous proposal that threatened to strip constitutional rights from a large number of people, and they vowed to fight it.

But the Social Security Administration said it has a duty under a 2007 law to start sending information from its files to the list of banned purchasers.

Under the new scheme, those who get disability payments because of mental impairment, and who also have someone designated to handle their finances because of their mental impairment, will be deemed too unstable to buy a gun. Their names will be listed in the National Instant Background Check System, which every licensed firearms dealer must check before selling a gun to a customer.

Social Security didn’t provide an estimate of how many people would be affected, but independent calculations suggest there are millions of people receiving benefits who have a “representative payee” managing their affairs.

The public will have 60 days to comment on the rule, and then Social Security will take those comments into account.

It’s already drawing strong opposition from a powerful mix of groups, particularly disability advocates, who called the move “extremely offensive” and based on broad generalizations.

Cheryl Bates-Harris at the National Disability Rights Network said there’s no evidence connecting someone’s ability to manage finances with being a dangerous gun owner. She said drawing that connection was stigmatizing and stereotyping those with disabilities.

Just as troubling is that Social Security isn’t very good at deciding who should get a representative payee, she said. That means government will be denying the gun-buying rights of people who never should have been on the list in the first place.

“We come across beneficiaries all the time who have rep-payees and don’t need them,” she said.

Gun-rights groups have also vowed to register their objections.

“They are set to strip away your constitutional rights just because you meet a set of criteria established by a group of faceless bureaucrats you’ll never meet,” said Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “That puts thousands of Americans in the terrible position of choosing whether to pay their bills or give up their constitutional rights.”

She said there’s no requirement that the government ever make any individual determination on those it strips of gun rights.

Instead, the administration says it will create an appeal after the fact, so those who have already ended up on the banned-purchaser list can ask to be taken off it. Those on the list could also challenge the situation in court, Social Security said in its proposal.

In its proposal, the Social Security Administration signaled it won’t go back and apply the rule retroactively to people already deemed disabled, but will apply it to everyone going forward — including those cases where Social Security conducts a re-review of a previous decision.

Story Continues →

At least this Administration is consistent.  It keeps trying, through all avenues, to restrict the natural rights of law-abiding citizens, by any means necessary.

We have 60 days to comment to the SS Administration.  It may be a lost cause, but, I would suggest we do so.

SOCIAL SECURITY RULE CHANGE COMMENTS PAGE (link)

SO, The Next Time You Visit A Doctor, Remember…

statistically-doctors-are-more-dangerous-than-gun-owners

There’s A New Judge In Town!

…or there could be…

(Via the NRA from Old NFO)

SCOTUS Nomination: Merrick Garland

“With Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right – and four justices do not. President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment and  law-abiding gun owners. Obama has already nominated two Supreme Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach this time. In fact, a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA-

Merrick Garland’s record on the Second Amendment is unacceptable to anyone who respects the U.S. Constitution and an individual’s fundamental right to self-protection.

He is the most anti-gun nominee in recent history. This should come as no surprise, given President Obama’s disdain for the Second Amendment. He has consistently shown a complete disregard of the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Garland’s history of anti-Second Amendment rulings support the conclusion that were he to be confirmed he would vote to overturn Heller.  In 2007, he voted to give D.C. a second chance to have its handgun ban upheld after a three-judge panel struck it down. At the time, this was the most significant Second Amendment case in America.

In 2004, Garland voted against rehearing another Second Amendment case (Seegars v. Gonzales), effectively casting a vote against the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Scalia was the author of Heller v McDonald. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Heller decision stands in the way of gun-control supporters’ ultimate goal of banning and confiscating guns.

If Heller is overturned, the Second Amendment for all intents and purposes would cease to exist.

In 2000, Garland voted in favor of the federal government’s plan to retain Americans’ personal information from gun purchase background checks despite federal laws prohibiting national firearm registration and requiring the destruction of these records.

Judge Garland weighed in on several significant firearms-related cases, including Parker, Seegars, NRA v. Reno,. He voted against the rights of firearm owners on each occasion.

The examples of Garland’s disdain for the right to keep and bear arms go on and on, including  in a major case upholding the then-existing Clinton “assault weapons” ban against a constitutional challenge

It’s almost certain that Garland agrees with Hillary Clinton when she said “the Supreme Court is wrong” that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

In his nomination, President Obama has again placed partisanship and antagonism towards gun owners above the higher callings of his office.

If Garland is confirmed, Obama would be taking America back in time to an era where Supreme Court justices uphold the anti-gun policies of the president. Obama is hoping Garland will overturn the Supreme Court precedent that stands in the way of confiscatory gun control, like the gun ban and confiscation programs implemented in Australia.

Sigh… There is ALWAYS more to the story than what is making it into the MSM… I haven’t seen ANY coverage of Garland’s 2A stance, has anyone else???

Hopefully the Pubs grow a set and do what the Dems have done to Bush and Reagan. Stop the process until a new President is sworn in. Nothing can happen until next year anyway, since the court is still in session…

Sigh… DAMN these interesting times…

….

I always seem to be sighing in unison with Jim!  I have seen snippets of negative coverage, but as he suggests, not in the MSM – only on the Internet.  I do believe there IS a process in place (God Bless the Founding Fathers!) and even FDR in his four terms was unable to change the Constitution or pack the Court.

Time will tell.

(Write and call your Senators!)

 

From The NRA-ILA

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit announced this afternoon (last week) that it has agreed to an en banc re-hearing in Kolbe v. Hogan. As we previously reported, the Fourth Circuit’s earlier decision in Kolbe has the potential to invalidate Maryland’s ban on common semi-automatic firearms and detachable magazines.  The Kolbe decision is extremely important, as it is the first instance where a United States court of appeals required “strict scrutiny,” the most stringent form of judicial review, for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and detachable magazines. The outcome is the re-hearing is too close to call at this point.  We will keep you apprised of further developments of this NRA-supported case as they occur.

‘Assault weapons’  Another bugaboo; a humbug.

Those which ‘the powers that be’ don’t like – magazine capacity, pistol grip and color are primary factors.

‘The shoulder thing that goes up.’  Seriously?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

PERIOD.  Simple English.

Death, Or Hanging

There was a recent ‘news’ item regarding the ‘debate’ over gun control policy between Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Sanders.

To wit (in part):

Sanders and Clinton clash over guns at debate

Caitlin Dickson

Breaking News Reporter
March 6, 2016

FLINT, Mich. — One of the more heated moments at the CNN-MLive.com debate here Sunday came after moderator Anderson Cooper turned the floor over to Gene Kopf, whose 14-year-old daughter, Abigail, was critically injured in an Uber driver’s shooting spree on Feb. 20, which left six dead in Kalamazoo, Mich.

Kopf asked what Democratic presidential primary candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would do to crack down on mass shootings, adding that he didn’t “want to hear anything about tougher laws for mental health or criminal backgrounds, because that doesn’t work.” Kopf noted that Jason Dalton, the man who was charged with the shooting that nearly killed his daughter, “had no mental health issues recorded, and had a clear background.”

Clinton began by saying, “We have to try everything that works to try to limit the numbers of people and the kinds of people who are given access to firearms,” and she agreed with Kopf that “not every killer will have the same profile.”

But, she continued, “I also believe, so strongly, Gene, that giving immunity to gunmakers and sellers was a terrible mistake.” Clinton was referring to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun manufacturers and sellers from being held liable when their products are used to commit crimes.

Sanders, Clinton pointed out, voted in favor of that bill when it passed in 2005.

“No other industry in America has absolute immunity … and they sell products all the time that cause harm,” Clinton said. “You talk about corporate greed? The gun manufacturers sell guns to make as much money as they can make.”
Her comment drew sustained applause.

Cooper piggybacked on Clinton’s reference to the gun immunity law, noting that the “families of Sandy Hook victims announced that they are going to sue Remington, who made the AR-15, which was used in the Newtown massacre,” but that the law Sanders supported was likely to prevent them from doing so.

“Tonight, what do you say to those families?” Cooper asked Sanders.

“Well, this is what I say, if I understand it — and correct me if I’m wrong. If you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and then, three days later, if you go out and start killing people, is the point of this lawsuit to hold the gun-shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable?”

Simply put, Sanders argued, illegal gun sales are one thing, but he doesn’t believe that manufacturers should be held responsible for a crime committed with a product that someone purchased legally.

“I think what you do is you hold those people who have used the gun accountable. You try to make guns as safe as possible,” Sanders said.

The sort of liability regulation that Clinton supports would be too onerous and potentially threaten gun manufacturing, said the senator from Vermont. Sanders campaign has made the decline in manufacturing jobs in the United States a major area of focus, and he and Clinton have clashed repeatedly on the gun issue over the course of the campaign.

“What you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America,” said Sanders. “I don’t agree with that.”

I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but to me it sounds like Hitler and Mussolini debating who gets possession of Ethiopia.  A Progressive versus a Socialist.  Splitting hairs comes to mind…

Can you imagine such a discussion regarding The First Amendment?  Which books, blogs, films, and periodicals could be limited or eliminated?  Or publishers?

How To Do Gun Control

  • Pass (or threaten to pass) laws infringing on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
  • Failing that, institute Executive Orders to accomplish the same.
  • Create bureaucracies and bureaucratic rules to confuse and confound the public.
  • Report, using false statistics, the need for more legislation.
  • Break your own laws, in concert with criminal enterprises, furthering the confusion.
  • Ignore facts showing more guns mean less crime.

And now, this (courtesy of Wirecutter)…

FBI stops all appeals of NICS denials

In what was dubbed a “makeshift reorganization” in a January 20 USA Today article, employees tasked with reviewing NICS appeals have been “temporarily” reassigned to assist with the considerable increase in background checks. According to the article, this has created a backlog of 7,100 denial appeals.

Suspending the NICS denial appeal process takes on an even more sinister character when one contemplates the chief gun control measure advocated by the Obama administration. Under a “universal” background check scheme, individuals would be unable to lawfully obtain firearms without subjecting themselves to a NICS check. If such legislation was currently in force, an individual who found themselves erroneously flagged by NICS, no matter how law-abiding, would have no avenue to legally acquire a firearm and no means to challenge their incorrect NICS status, obliterating their ability to exercise their rights in perpetuity, short of judicial intervention.
MORE

They just keep chipping away, don’t they?

Control Means CONTROL!

(from Say Uncle)

Australian Style Gun Control

The police took a T-shirt launcher from a basketball team because it’s a weapon.

 

I can’t comment.

It’s A Trust Issue

(copied in full from my friend Old NFO)

The rest of the story… On how badly BO’s executive orders on gun changes are…

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is moving forward with more gun restrictions under President Obama’s new executive action. The ATF’s latest regulations would affect trusts and legal entities seeking to make or transfer a firearm.

The new rules would define who is the “responsible person” at these organizations that must comply with background check requirements. The current regulations target individuals who apply for guns. But the new rules would expand these regulations to an estimated 231,658 “responsible persons” at these trusts and legal entities. The ATF estimates the rule could cost industry as much as $29 million each year to comply with.

Such trusts have typically been used by collectors, to reduce NFA processing time. This rule change does replace the requirement for prior endorsement by a jurisdiction’s Chief Law Enforcement Officer for transfers to individuals with one for the CLEO to be notified of all NFA transfers.)

The FEDREG link is HERE. The official title is: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm.

It’s read it and weep time… Pretty much obviates most of the existing trusts. I’m having mine re-written to bring it more in line (if possible) with the new rules.

So, there we have it.  Further obfuscation by the Administration with regard to EVERY CITIZEN’S CIVIL RIGHTS.

Can you imagine the outrage if such restrictions had been placed by government fiat on Freedom of the Press or Speech?

Sickening.

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 395 other followers