archives

gun control

This tag is associated with 225 posts

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.

Will Wonders Never Cease?

(Courtesy of David Hardy)

NPR story on black Americans and guns

Right here. A short presentation on “All Things Considered,” but a good one, and fair.
Considering the leftist history of NPR, I’m surprised this slipped by the editors.  Regardless, good for all rights-loving people everywhere!

Stinkin’ Badges, Part Two

or rather, stinkin’ permits!

Last week, the Attorney General in Virginia decided to cancel reciprocity with 25 other states. The uproar around the country among gun enthusiasts was considerable. This brought up, once again, the issue of a national reciprocity law, which, as I pointed out, would be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

Now, in no way was that post meant to suggest that I am not a fan of universal reciprocity for carry permits. In fact, I believe that insofar as a government has the right to place prerequisites on the exercise of my civil rights by requiring that I obtain a permit to do so, then no government has the right to decide that the decision of any other government is null and void in its jurisdiction.*

But, given that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to regulate carry permits, or the carry of guns, how then do we accomplish this?

I mentioned in my last posting that one argument cited for government mandated reciprocity is the Driver’s License system. After all, they argue, since my driver’s license is recognized by other states, my carry permit should be as well. While I agree with that premise, most people who argue this route don’t realize that this is the result of an agreement between the States, not because of any law.

What, then, should be our answer?

For me it is simple: abolish the carry permit system altogether.

Why? Because it’s unnecessary, under any understanding of the Second Amendment.

And yet, states require carry permits, and most of us think nothing of it. In fact, we make a big deal of it. “Look at me!” we rejoice. “The Government has acceded to grant me its begrudging permission to exercise a right already guaranteed under the Constitution!”

Naturally, the anti-gunners will argue that without a permit system any criminal would be allowed to carry a gun. How would we be protected from such a thing?

And yet, it should be obvious that criminals carry a gun now without permits. The law does not change their actions, because, by definition, they are criminals.

So, how do we get the permit system revoked?

Unfortunately, we white Americans are going to have to be honest about our white forefathers, and be honest about how it all began – as a way to keep guns out of the hands blacks. So to make the permit system go away, we have to show how racist the whole system was, and how that discrimination carries over to today, by allowing the government to know just who owns guns.

Think about how effective this would be, to tie in the carry permit system with the images of Jim Crow, the Confederacy, and the KKK.

Can we do this? Yes. Will we do this? I don’t know, but I hope so. Because, honestly, it is the best route to national reciprocity – by making every American equal.

At last.

(from Fill Yer Hands, in full)

Out of the hands of Blacks, and undesirable foreigners. (Sullivan Law)

Control is control is control.  It’s what statists, of all flavors, want.

How The NSA Is Working To Threaten Your Second Amendment

Food for thought.

 

h/t Survival Frog

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 394 other followers