Archive for the ‘2nd Amendment’ Category

Trump vs. Clinton on Gun Rights

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016

A fifth liberal Justice could kill the individual right to bear arms.
May 24, 2016 7:22 p.m. ET

Donald Trump is famous for his flights of political exaggeration, but every so often he lands on the truth. Witness his claim to the National Rifle Association on Friday that “the Second Amendment is on the ballot in November” and that Hillary Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

This has offended Mrs. Clinton’s media bodyguards who claim she merely favors background checks and minor regulation. Mrs. Clinton took to Twitter to claim that Mr. Trump is “wrong,” and “We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence.”

Let’s go to the audiotape. http://on.wsj.com/1OM0Ozz

If Mrs. Clinton “gets to appoint her judges, she will, as part of it, abolish the Second Amendment,” Mr. Trump told the NRA. He added that Mrs. Clinton had rebuked the Supreme Court for its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller establishing that the Second Amendment included an individual right to bear arms.

At a private fundraiser last year Mrs. Clinton did criticize the Supreme Court for being “wrong on the Second Amendment.” One of her policy advisers, Maya Harris, tried to muddy that position this weekend by telling Bloomberg Politics that Mrs. Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.”

But that is a fudge. Heller explicitly allowed that the “right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion did not sort through every possible regulation, but it did say that the individual right covers guns that are “in common use for lawful purposes.” And it overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. By implication Heller would also disallow the Clinton Administration’s ban on semi-automatic rifles used for hunting. That ban has since expired, though Mrs. Clinton supports reinstating it.

The question Mrs. Clinton is ducking is whether she agrees with Heller’s ruling that individuals can bear arms. The political left has long held that such a right under the Second Amendment belongs only to a “well regulated Militia.”

This distinction matters because Mrs. Clinton knows that four liberal Justices dissented from Heller on precisely this point about an individual right. And apparently they still do. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters, told a luncheon of the Harvard Club in 2009 that their dissent was crafted with an eye to helping a “future, wiser court” overturn Heller.

Sonia Sotomayor replaced David Souter in 2009, but she joined the liberal bloc on guns. The Supreme Court has over the years applied the Bill of Rights to the states as relevant cases presented themselves. Once Heller established an individual right to bear arms, every Court precedent called for applying it to the states in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. The vote should have been 9-0. Yet the four liberals still dissented in McDonald—confirming Justice Ginsburg’s Harvard boast that they are waiting to overturn Heller.

Justice Elena Kagan (who replaced John Paul Stevens) hasn’t had a chance to rule on the individual right to bear arms, but don’t expect her to be different. If Mrs. Clinton selects Antonin Scalia’s replacement, she knows the Court’s liberals will get their opportunity to overturn Heller. The Second Amendment really is on the ballot this November.

Oh, Obama … What a Chump

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015

Here he goes again. Never miss an opportunity to exploit a tragedy for personal political gain, right? Our pathetic loser, the coward-in-chief community organizer, the least qualified of all presidents ever to serve, again seeks to curtail the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Using the Oregon college campus tragedy as a springboard, our shameless president once again prostitutes himself in front of the American public.

Why oh why do these pathetic left wing looney liberals believe that there is any correlation between legal gun ownership and violent crime? As if pencils misspell words?  Cars kill people. Really? Can it be any more simplistic?

Has anyone ever noticed that the gun control proposals by these worshipers of hollywood and all things of european “enlightenment” are always aimed at curtailing the rights of the law-abiding citizens? Have these ideologues ever proposed any law that would serve to more severely punish those who illegally use weapons? If they have, it has never made the news.

So the left-wing’s “answer” remains the same. Curtail the rights of those who do no wrong. Do not seek to punish those who would harm innocents. Could it be because so many of those violent criminals are democrats? Or at a minimum are more closely affiliated with minority coalitions? But, we cannot speak of such things, right?

Or can we? Why do you think that the left-wing political correctness machine is so laser-focused on making it socially unacceptable to discuss the differences and realities that so obviously contribute to violence in America? If you mention in public that blacks and hispanics make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population, or God forbid try to connect the dots between black teen pregnancy and crime, you are a racist.

Civil War history?  It never happened. The north really could not have imported slaves from africa to sell to the south in order that the south could farm the crops in order to sell all the cotton and tobacco back to the north, right? Because abolitionism was in vogue before the Civil War began?  Wasn’t it?

Reality dose … Abraham Lincoln never mentioned slavery in his declaration letters on the war. He always focused on the financial implications of the war. His emancipation proclamation did not even free all the northern slaves, just the south’s. The “great emancipator” legacy remains today as the man single handedly responsible for more American deaths that anyone else in history.

In sum, it is a sad direction our nation takes. When we have more takers than contributors in society, that society is heading for hell.

What Do George Zimmerman and Roderick Scott Have in Common?

Thursday, August 1st, 2013

In 2009, Roderick Scott was asleep on his couch when he heard noises outside. He grabbed his gun, told his girlfriend to call 911, then went outside. Once there, Roderick Scott confronted three youths who were attempting to break into a neighbor’s vehicle.

His desire was to merely detain the three. He specifically stated it was not his intent to shoot anyone. As he approached the three, he could see that the dome light of the vehicle was on and at least one person was inside rummaging around.

From that point, things start to ramp up. “At that point, Scott testified he pulled his handgun out of the holster, and chambered a round. ‘I wanted to protect myself and I intended to,’ Scott said.” As he approached one individual, that individual began walking away. There were two still left looking through things on the inside of the vehicle.

At this point, Roderick Scott said he took the “shooter’s stance” because he said he did not know what he was up against and did not know if any of the individuals were armed.

He told the individuals to stop, that his girlfriend had called 911, and that he had a gun. The individuals stopped, and a few seconds passed. Scott says the teens were talking, then one of them ran around the front of the truck. The other ran down the driveway toward him, screaming. Scott warned him he had a gun, then shot him.”

Sounds a lot like the Zimmerman/Martin situation, doesn’t it? There are some differences. The shooter – Roderick Scott – was immediately arrested and charged with murder. A citizen’s grand jury recommended the lighter charge of manslaughter, which was what the prosecution went with for Scott.

There was a trial and Scott was acquitted of all charges.

Roderick Scott is black. The person he shot – Chris Cervini – was white and was only 16-years-old. That means that Scott shot a child who was unarmed. In fact, as it turns out, Cervini was an honor student.

Cervini’s father Jim, following the verdict of not guilty said: “The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact…My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered.”

Sounds strangely familiar to what Tracy Martin has said about his son, Travyon. There are some major differences here though. Trayvon had already sucker-punched Zimmerman, most likely breaking his nose and knocking him down. Then, Martin got on top of Zimmerman and allegedly began pounding his head into the concrete slab.

In the case of Roderick Scott and Chris Cervini, Cervini had not even come in contact with Scott yet when Scott opened fire, gunning him down.

There are a lot of people who believe that Zimmerman was at fault for what happened. He didn’t have to follow Martin. He should have stayed in his vehicle, etc. The same could be said about Scott. Did he have to physically go outside and confront the three intruders? Did he have to take out his gun, assume the “shooter’s stance” and then shoot Cervini two times as he ran toward Scott?

Had Roderick Scott remained inside his apartment, or simply followed the three individuals at a safe distance noting where they went, he could have been helpful to the police. Moreover, he also could have taken a video of the individuals from his phone (Zimmerman could have done the same) to help the police track down the suspects later.

Instead, Scott used deadly force against Chris Cervini and he – Scott – didn’t even have a scratch on him. No broken nose. No cuts and bruises on the back of his head. Nothing. Cervini never got close enough to lay a hand on Scott before he was shot down in cold blood.

Mr. Obama very recently stated that had Trayvon Martin been white, the outcome might have been different. We have that scenario and we note that the outcome was NOT different. In fact, comparing the two situations, it appears that Zimmerman was much more careful than Scott.

This situation proves that race-baiters like Obama, Holder, and Sharpton are just that: race-baiters speaking lies that are received as truth. Roderick Scott shot (twice) and killed a child, 16-year-old Christopher Cervini, in cold blood. He was fully acquitted of all charges.

The white community did not come unglued. No one stood up from within the white community to announce a 100-city tour of “Justice for Chris” rallies. White people did not go on a rampage, attacking blacks and other minorities that had nothing to do with this senseless killing. Whether we agreed with the verdict or not, we were content to allow the system to work.

Roderick Scott is a black man who appears to have gone above and beyond. He could have done things differently, but did not. Because of his actions, along with the actions of Chris Cervini, the latter died. It’s too bad that Cervini made that terrible decision to be with his buds that night and it’s too bad they chose to break into a vehicle across from Roderick Scott’s apartment.

It’s too bad that Scott went outside and helped to create a situation where he wound up deliberately shooting a 16-year-old “child.” It’s also too bad that the police hadn’t arrived sooner.

I do not believe for a moment that Roderick Scott “profiled” the three intruders, who were all white. He heard a noise and went out to investigate. Unfortunately, the situation turned bad rather quickly and in Scott’s mind, it forced him to defend himself.

I do not believe Zimmerman profiled Martin either. He saw something, so he said something by calling 911. He followed Martin to see where he was going. At one point, Martin ran past Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the phone to 911, as Zimmerman asked them to send officers quickly. He even said “please.”

After Martin disappeared, he came back and confronted Zimmerman. He sucker-punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him down. He jumped on him and went MMA on Zimmerman’s head.

If Scott felt he was being threatened and was forced to shoot, how much more did Zimmerman believe he was put in the position of wondering whether he was going to lose his own life that night?

Neither the Roderick Scott nor the George Zimmerman case is about race, except to race-baiters everywhere. It’s about poor decisions and justice. Chris Cervini – an honor student – should not have been doing what he was doing that night. It ultimately cost him his life.

Trayvon Martin – a thug – should have kept going to Brandy Green’s townhouse where he was staying. Instead, he circled back and confronted, then attacked George Zimmerman. Each case has its problems. Each case resulted in murder charges being filed. Each case involved blacks and whites (or Hipanics, as Zimmerman saw himself). Each case involved acquittals.

Only one case is being used to stoke the fires of racial discontent. The media did not mention Roderick Scott during the Zimmerman trial. In fact, they did what they could to obfuscate actual facts. They wanted to paint Zimmerman as a racist, as it turns out, to push more gun control.

If Zimmerman is a racist, then so is Roderick Scott. Zimmerman had more reason to shoot than Scott did, but in both cases, juries ruled that the shootings were justified.

If this world did not have professional racists, people would get along a whole lot better. Proof of that is the very low turn outs for the “Justice for Trayvon” rallies held by racist-in-chief, Al Sharpton.

This world would actually be a far better place if people did not constantly stoke the fires of racial hatred. Sometimes, it is simply self-defense.

Freedom Outpost
July 22, 2013
by Fred DeRuvo

Jason Riley: Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial

Thursday, July 18th, 2013

George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder charges in a Florida court has been followed by predictable calls for America to have a “national conversation” about this or that aspect of the case. President Obama wants to talk about gun control. Civil-rights leaders want to talk about racial profiling. Others want to discuss how the American criminal justice system supposedly targets black men.

All of which is fine. Just don’t expect these conversations to be especially illuminating or honest. Liberals in general, and the black left in particular, like the idea of talking about racial problems, but in practice they typically ignore the most relevant aspects of any such discussion.

Any candid debate on race and criminality in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. African-Americans constitute about 13% of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. The U.S. criminal-justice system, which currently is headed by one black man (Attorney General Eric Holder) who reports to another (President Obama), is a reflection of this reality, not its cause.

“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz in “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice.” “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments.”

The left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia, under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.

The jury’s only job in the Zimmerman trial was to determine whether the defendant broke the law when he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year in a gated community near Orlando, Fla. In cases of self-defense, it doesn’t matter who initiated the confrontation; whether Mr. Zimmerman singled out Martin because he was a black youngster in a neighborhood where there had been a series of burglaries by black youngsters; or whether Mr. Zimmerman disregarded what the police dispatcher told him before he got out of his car. Nor does it matter that Martin was unarmed and minding his own business when Mr. Zimmerman approached.

All that really mattered in that courtroom is whether Mr. Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger. Critics of the verdict might not like the statutes that allowed for this outcome, but the proper response would not have been for the jury to ignore them and convict.

Did the perception of black criminality play a role in Martin’s death? We may never know for certain, but we do know that those negative perceptions of young black men are rooted in hard data on who commits crimes. We also know that young black men will not change how they are perceived until they change how they behave.

The homicide rate claiming black victims today is seven times that of whites, and the George Zimmermans of the world are not the reason. Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

So let’s have our discussions, even if the only one that really needs to occur is within the black community. Civil-rights leaders today choose to keep the focus on white racism instead of personal responsibility, but their predecessors knew better.

“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

Mr. Riley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

A version of this article appeared July 16, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578608182550247030.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

California Senate approves gun-control bills

Monday, June 24th, 2013

And yet more reasons to flee the liberal wasteland once referred to as the Golden State, so called due to its former status as a “land of opportunity” … Yeah right ….

California Senate approves gun-control bills

Michael Winter, USA TODAY 6:31 p.m. EDT

Measures would ban detachable and large-capacity magazines, and also require background checks to buy or sell ammunition.

Buyers and seller of ammunition would face background checks under one of seven bills approved Wednesday by the California Senate.

Spurred by mass shootings in Connecticut, Colorado and Arizona, the California Senate on Wednesday approved seven bills to tighten regulations on guns and ammunition.

The measures would:

• Outlaw detachable magazines in rifles and so-called button bottoms;

Prohibit magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

• Require background checks for all buyers and sellers of ammunition;

Reclassify certain shotguns as assault weapons;

• Require all gun buyers to take a firearm-safety certificate class;

Expand crimes that would result in a 10-year ban on owning or buying firearms. Additions include drug- and alcohol-related offenses, hazing, violations of protective orders and court-ordered mental health treatment.

The legislation cleared the Democratic-controlled chamber on party-line votes. All Republicans voted against the measures; four Democrats voted against the ammunition background checks.

The bills move to the Assembly, which is also controlled by Democrats.

“We all can recite the horrific acts that have occurred in our country over the last year,” said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat representing Sacramento. “These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized.”

Background checks for ammunition is one of the most controversial measures. Here’s how the Los Angeles Times summarizes it:

Californians who want to buy ammunition, and the vendors who sell it, would have to submit personal information for a background check to determine whether they have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns. Vendors would have to get permits starting July 1, 2015, and purchasers starting two years later. …

Ammunition purchasers would submit their information and a $50 fee to the state Department of Justice which would maintain a list of qualified buyers that would be checked by ammo stores. Purchasers would have to show their driver’s license or other ID at the time they buy bullets.

Republican Sen. Jim Nielsen of Gerber said his colleagues were “criminalizing legal, historic behavior in the state of California and putting onerous burdens and regulations and requirements on law-abiding citizens.”

One Democrat who also opposed the bill cited the constitutional right to own a gun.

“Implied in that is the right to buy the ammo to go with it,” Sen. Roderick Wright of Inglewood.

In early May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed an eighth gun-control bill, SB 140. It boosts funding to confiscate guns from people who have criminal pasts or are mentally ill.

Bank of America Snubs Gun Makers

Friday, February 15th, 2013

B of A Snubs Gun Makers as Banking Becomes Politicized

Jon Matonis
FEB 12, 2013 10:00am ET

In one of the more memorable scenes from Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, the filmmaker walks into a rural bank in Michigan and promptly receives a free rifle for opening a new account. Moore quips, “Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?”

Bank of America thinks it’s more than just a little dangerous – it reportedly wants to discourage some gun manufacturers from even having accounts at the bank. Largely neglected by the mainstream press, two particular firearms manufacturer cases represent an emerging political climate in U.S. banking. I am not accusing anyone in the media of “bias by omission” of the stories of McMillan Firearms Manufacturing and American Spirit Arms, but these are fairly recent episodes with considerable consequence.

B of A justified freezing the deposits of 10-year customer American Spirit Arms for three weeks beginning Dec. 18 by saying that the deposits were held for “further review.” Even though American Spirit Arms is a properly licensed firearms manufacturer which submits to regular audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Homeland Security, Bank of America also said, “We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.” Happily, the Internet played a role in resolving the issue, as business owner Joseph Sirochman told anchorperson Megyn Kelly on Fox News’ America Live.

Another disturbing episode involved McMillan Firearms Manufacturing in April 2012. In expanding a routine “account analysis” meeting to include the larger political issue of overall business purpose, Bank of America directly suggested that the firearms manufacturer take its business elsewhere. Bank of America replied to the allegations here and McMillan responded again here.

Beginning in a visible way with the 2011 full-scale banking and payments blockade against WikiLeaks, politically motivated acts by private financial institutions appear to be on the rise. Banks are beginning to use considerable discretion in deciding what constitutes an illegal act and sometimes even an immoral act. Freeze the funds first – ask questions later. After all, it’s their bank, right?

Yes, private companies can choose who they elect to do business with. However, it has a chilling effect when the directives come in a soft way from regulators or from a financially-supportive government. Historically, banks exercise discretion and that discretion can escalate into subtle differences in treatment. Such as when to file a suspicious activities report or when a customer’s deposits and withdrawals start to look excessively high.

Banks are increasingly in the role of enforcer and watchdog for the regulators. That is the basis of enforcement for many of the country’s anti-money laundering laws and know-your-customer guidelines. The duty falls to the financial institutions and they are periodically reviewed as to their monitoring prowess. For the most part, banks do not have a choice in providing this quasi-enforcement role on behalf of the government, but it does set the stage for further encroachments into business and individual privacy.

Although Sirochman eventually succeeded in getting most of his deposits released, he still proceeded to open new accounts at a different bank.

Afterwards, Bank of America sent The Huffington Post this statement: “This customer’s concerns have been resolved. Any spike in transaction volumes is routinely reviewed by the bank in order to protect our customers. This process is initiated regardless of the industry in which they do business. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.”

Something clearly got bungled at Bank of America. No bank wants that kind of publicity. Either a few rogue regional managers acted on their own behalf or a policy directive from the corporate level was miscommunicated. This is a complex issue and typically wide latitude is given on how policy directives are implemented, including triggers for account freezes and their subsequent release. It is also nearly impossible to ascertain or confirm from where a subtle directive originates, which is probably why these stories weren’t investigated further.

How ironic it would be to have the North Country Bank and Trust from Moore’s film acquired by Bank of America in the next wave of bank consolidations.

Jon Matonis is an e-money researcher and crypto economist focused on expanding the circulation of nonpolitical digital currencies. His career has included senior posts at Sumitomo Bank, Visa, VeriSign, and and Hushmail. Currently, he serves on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation.

Guns haven’t changed

Monday, January 7th, 2013

In the early 1950’s anyone could buy multiple military semiautomatic carbines with 20 or 30 round magazines and folding stocks directly from the U.S. Government. Millions were sold to American citizens. Nine millimeter pistols with 15 round magazines were widely available by the 1930’s.  Yet school shootings were completely unheard of until the 1970’s and barely breached the public consciousness until 1999, which was fully five years into the Clinton-era ban on “assault weapons”.

Obviously, something has changed over the course of these past 60 years. And one thing that has obviously not changed is the types of guns available to the public at large.

Why then are all of the proposals put forward by the left to prevent school violence centered on banning guns that are so very clearly not the cause of school violence?

Feinstein’s New Gun-Ban Bill Likely to be Introduced January 22

Saturday, January 5th, 2013

This is no joke and you will NOT believe what’s in this bill!!!  

Feinstein’s New Gun-Ban Bill Likely to be Introduced January 22
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/1/feinstein’s-new-gun-ban-bill-likely-to-be-introduced-january-22.aspx
Posted on January 4, 2013

Print Share on print Email Share on email Share More Sharing ServicesShare on facebookShare on twitter

Contact your members of Congress and urge them to oppose any “assault weapon” or magazine ban  

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)–author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004–has said for weeks that she will soon introduce an even more restrictive bill.  Leaders in the U.S. Senate have stated that January 22 will be the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed, so that is the most likely date for the new, sweeping legislation to be introduced. 

On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.”  Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012. 

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners.  Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

  • Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms.  The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law.  Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
     
  • Adopts new lists of prohibited external features.  For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”  Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.”  Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle.  At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
     
  •  Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles.  Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban.  Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
  • Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

    –Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

    –Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

    –Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
     

  • Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA).  The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
     
  • Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.”  Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs.  However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
     
  • Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.  The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect.  Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection.  The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
     
  • Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.”  Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds.  Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
     
  • Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns.  But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.

The Department of Justice study:  On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders.  To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.  Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban.  Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends:  From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, available here.  From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s–all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”–rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

Traces:  Feinstein makes several claims premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (already infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime.  However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime.  As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced.  Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade. 

Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative:  As noted, Feinstein will most likely introduce her bill on January 22nd.  President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.  And yesterday, a story from The Blaze noted that Obama’s point man on gun control–Vice President Biden–has promised that Obama will pass a gun control bill by the end of the month.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban.  Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal.  You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our “Write Your Representatives” tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx 

Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for self-defensetarget shooting, and hunting.  For more information about the history of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com.

2nd Amendment Outrage!!

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Bill to STOP Gun Registration Passed Committee

DATE:       March 9, 2010
TO:           USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM:      Marion P. Hammer
                USF Executive Director
                NRA Past President

SB-530 by Sen. Thad Altman  was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee  today, Tuesday, March 9, 2010 and PASSED unanimously by a VOTE of 9-0.

The bill is now ready for the calendar and hopefully soon for the Senate Floor.

SB-530 is a bill to STOP Florida adoption agencies from forcing potential adoptive parents to register their firearms with the agency as a condition of adoption.  Further, it will stop agencies from forcing these parents to follow gun control regulations regarding storage of firearms and ammunition created by the agency.

This outrageous behavior has been going on too long and it is time to stop it once and for all.

Sen. Altman’s bill will stop this gun registration and regulation.

VOTING FOR THE BILL:

negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov,
baker.carey.web@flsenate.gov,
fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov,
gelber.dan.web@flsenate.gov,
haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov,
joyner.arthenia.web@flsenate.gov,
peaden.durell.web@flsenate.gov,
richter.garrett.web@flsenate.gov,
ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov,

BACKGROUND

Adoption agencies in Florida are effectively profiling prospective adoptive parents who own firearms.

Agencies have been treating applicants for adoption, who chose to exercise the constitutional right to own a firearm, differently than non-firearms owning applicants.

As a condition of adoption, prospective parents who own firearms must agree to regulations and restriction imposed by the agency.

At least one agency requires prospective parents who own a firearm or firearms, to store the firearms and ammunition separately in locked cabinets – rendering the right of self-defense and defense of family virtually impossible.

Further, applicants who own firearms are required to register their firearms and ammunition with the agency. 

The agency not only requires applicants to separately list the firearms and the ammunition they own on a form created by the agency, but also requires them to report to the agency exactly where the firearms and ammunition are stored.

These agencies have set themselves above the law and have ignored the statutes.

State law regulates the safe storage of firearms.  F.S. 790.174, regulates how firearms must be stored and provides criminal penalties when firearms are accessed by minors due to a failure to store firearms safely.

State law prohibits agencies from attempting to regulate firearms.  F.S. 790.33 prohibits any regulation of firearms except by the Legislature.  The Legislature exclusively occupies the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition.

State law prohibits registration of firearms.  F.S. 790.335 prohibits the compiling of and retention of  lists of firearms owners and firearms.  Forms required by some adoption agencies constitute a registry of firearms and firearms owners.

Under  790.335(4)(a), office managers and officials who are a party to the collection and storage of firearms registration documents commit a felony of the third degree.

Under 790.335(4)(c) these agencies or organizations, as licensed agencies acting on behalf of the government, who register firearms are subject to a fine of up to $5 million.

While some adoption agencies have attempted to claim their firearms regulations and forms were authorized or required by DCF, DCF actually repealed those regulations in April, 2008.

This bill makes it clear that adoption agencies may not condition adoption on a person’s exercise of a constitutional right or a person’s willingness to disclose private information concerning lawful firearms ownership – nor may adoption agencies impose restrictions on firearms ownership.

This bill codifies in law, that adoption agencies may not violate rights, profile or discriminate against firearms owners who seek to foster or adopt children.

Prospective parents seeking to adopt and make a home for a child are particularly vulnerable to abusive tactics of agency officials and personnel who appear to have a predisposition against firearms owners.

Forcing prospective parents to submit to requirements that usurp their legal rights and violate their privacy is nothing short of coercion.  It must be stopped.

Feds sued to keep out of state’s gun affairs

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Feds sued to keep out of state’s gun affairs
Complaint filed seeking affirmation of Montana Firearms Freedom Act
Posted: October 03, 2009
11:25 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

In the second major front in the war over gun rights that has developed in just days, a lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management of its own firearms.


Montana statehouse

The action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect today.

WND previously reported on the precedent-setting move taken over the course of recent months when the 2009 Montana Legislature approved the bill and the plan was signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check

, waiting periods or paperwork required.

The idea is spreading quickly. Tennessee already has a similar law, and similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

An organization called the Firearms Freedom Act has created a map of such activity nationwide:


Map of gun law activity assembled by FirearmsFreedomAct.org

The move comes at a time the nation has a president who has placed anti-gun activists in several influential positions, including an attorney general who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before the U.S. Supreme Court threw it out.

 

Get “Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense” and learn why you have a responsibility to be armed.

Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

“The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889,” the law states.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

David Codrea, a Gun Rights Examiner writer, noted the federal government already has started attacking the move.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, he wrote, previously had written to Federal Firearms Licensees, warning that they could be prosecuted for following the state laws in Montana and Tennessee

“What if an FFL was not acting in his capacity as a federal licensee to manufacture for personal use, or to transfer firearms strictly within a state? Or what if a person so engaged was not a federal licensee at all?” Codrea asked.

Then he answered: “ATF’s determined intent to hold all accountable under federal law has not wavered. In a letter to MSSA president Gary Marbut, Richard Chase, Special Agent in Charge, Denver Field Division, states: ‘The manufacture of firearms or ammunition for sale to others within Montana requires licensure by ATF.'”

In a statement the SAF said, “The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to federal power under the commerce clause.”

The lawsuit seeks a “declaratory judgment” and is “brought for the purpose of determining a question of actual controversy between the parties.”

“Passage of the MFFA was an express exercise by the State of Montana of powers reserved to the states and to the people under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the lawsuit said.

“The MFFA is also authorized under the conditions of the compact with the United States that Montana entered upon admission to the union. The United States Congress therefore has no authority, under the limited powers granted to it by the United States Constitution, to preempt the MFFA.”

The arguments continued, “Under the 10th Amendment, all regulatory authority of all such activities within Montana’s political borders

 is left in the sole discretion of Montana. Federal law therefore does not preempt the MFFA and cannot be invoked to regulate or prosecute Montana citizens acting in compliance with the MFFA, so long as they do so solely within the political borders of Montana.”

WND also reported this week on a second front in the battle over guns when the Supreme Court agreed to hear a landmark Second Amendment case challenging Chicago’s ban on handguns and onerous registration procedures on other firearms.

The Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago claiming the city enforces a handgun ban identical to the one struck down by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller and that the ban violates residents’ Second Amendment rights.

In Heller, the court rejected a lower court position that claimed the Second Amendment applied only to state “militia,” such as the National Guard. However, the 5-4 ruling referenced the federal jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., and not states and localities.

This case, McDonald v. Chicago, challenges a 7th Circuit court ruling that said the Second Amendment applies only to federal regulation of an individual’s right to guns and not in cases of restrictions by states and municipalities like Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “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.”

Furthermore, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, states:

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.

The plaintiffs argue that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” in the Second Amendment is “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment and applies to both states and localities.