“More people are carrying concealed in this country, and yet the gun homicide rate has been dropping precipitously. We are safer today with more guns ‘on the street’ being carried in good people’s hands.” — GOA Communications Director Erich Pratt on WPFL, Florida (July 28, 2014).
There has been incredible news in the 2nd Amendment community over the past several days.
You may have heard that a DC federal judge struck down Washington, DC’s ban on carrying firearms in public on Saturday. Judge Frederick Scullen’s decision referenced the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) — arguing that the carry ban violates the U.S. Constitution.
And last week, a concealed carry holder in Darby, Pennsylvania, saved countless lives when he used his firearm to stop a killer who was bent on taking down even more innocent lives.
Police said the armed doctor “saved lives” and prevented a disgruntled patient from walking down the hall and gunning down people “until he ran out of ammunition.”
See more good stories like this in real time by getting Facebook updates from GOA. Go to the GOA Facebook site and LIKE our page!
One would like to think that such good news would serve as an object lesson for our elected leaders. But not for Harry Reid and his cohorts.
Senate Democrats to Hold More Hearings on Gun Control
Even though the nation just witnessed a perfect example of how guns save lives in Pennsylvania, Senate Democrats are gearing up for another push to restrict 2nd Amendment rights.
It’s an amazing thing, really, especially considering that several D and F-rated Democrats are in tough reelection fights this fall. We are talking about Senators Mark Begich (D-AK), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Al Franken (D-MN) and Mark Warner (D-VA).
So, what would you think Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are working on in order to aid their campaigns?
Answer: GUN CONTROL.
And the gun control which is being pushed on these Senators’ behalf is a particularly nasty piece of work.
ACTION: Contact your Senators. Tell them that Wednesday’s hearings show how much Senate Democrats hate the Second Amendment. Urge them to pass concealed carry reciprocity as the means for making people safer.
—– Conference on Concealed Carry —–
Students for Concealed Carry will hold their third National Conference in Washington, DC on Tuesday, August 5 in Washington. John Lott will be among the speakers. Click here for further information: http://concealedcampus.org/2014-scc-national-conference.
A little over a week ago, President Barack Obama proposed even more Executive Actions on gun control.
Now, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are showing signs they have the President’s back.
That’s because they’re pushing a brand new anti-gun bill.
It’s the “Graham-Cornyn Seek Help, Lose Your Guns Act.”
Insiders warn their new bill could be aimed at expanding the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system to include hundreds of thousands — or millions — of law-abiding citizens under the ruse of “mental health.”
Make no mistake . . .
. . . The President’s agenda has nothing to do with mental health, or keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.
It has everything to do with labeling YOU mentally ill in order to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms without due process.
The goal is simple: seek treatment and lose your gun rights.
So why do Senators Cornyn and Graham have Obama’s Back?
It’s simple. Let me explain . . .
Senators Cornyn and Graham are feeling the heat from the radical anti-gun left.
Instead of standing firm for your Second Amendment rights, they’re desperate to appear “sensible” and “open to compromise” even if it means putting you and I at risk.
But they’re really playing right into the President’s hands.
Last year, the duo sponsored S.480 — the so-called “NICS Reporting Improvement Act.”
Under that Graham-Cornyn bill, virtually any “board, commission, or other adjudicative body” would have the ability to strip you of your gun rights.
One of these so-called “authorities” could order an otherwise law-abiding individual to see a mental health counselor and strip them their gun rights for good.
Let me put it another way:
If your condition is “severe” enough that an hour of outpatient treatment a week is all you need — you could become a “prohibited person” at the whim of some anti-gun bureaucrat.
That’s not due process!
The Graham-Cornyn bill will further erode your Second Amendment rights and strip the due process rights of law-abiding Americans.
This isn’t about being violent or unstable; this is about losing your rights because of something as simple as a stress-induced visit to a therapist.
According to the National Institute of Health, nearly half of all Americans will suffer from a “mental health” issue at some point in their life.
And the simple fact is the gun-grabbers know this.
The Obama Administration has been pushing for these gun control expansions in the name of “mental health” for some time.
It’s clear they will do anything to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans.
Even if it means harming the rights of thousands — or millions — of law-abiding, vulnerable and non-violent individuals.
Over 175,000 veterans have already lost their gun rights, simply by seeking treatment.
But that’s not the worst part.
They aren’t even required to give you a trial.
That’s because “adjudication” no longer means “by a court of law.”
It now includes “other lawful authorities,” which could include ANY mental health professional in connection with a government program.
Are Senators Cornyn and Graham trying to strip away the gun rights of millions of Americans?
I hope not.
But that’s exactly what insiders are warning that Senators Cornyn and Graham could be doing with their latest proposal.
That’s why I need you to contact Senators Cornyn and Graham IMMEDIATELY.
Tell them not to endanger the gun rights of millions of Americans.
Insist they stop pushing the “Graham-Cornyn Seek Help, Lose Your Guns Act.”
*** You can reach Senator Cornyn at (202) 224-2934.
*** And Senator Graham at (202) 224-5972.
Please let the Senators know how important this issue is and that you will be counting on them to stand up for gun owners.
There’s no time to waste. Please act now.
Executive Vice President
“We are going to finish the job and pass background checks and then move on and do other things we have to do to get guns off the streets and stop gun violence.” — Senator Chuck Schumer, November 13, 2013
Don’t let them get away with it.
Democrats on Capitol Hill want to change the subject, but we can’t let them do it.
The anti-gun aspects of ObamaCare haven’t even been fully implemented yet because the entire “health care” rollout has been imploding — and it’s taking a huge toll on the President.
The Examiner.com reported last week that Democrats are trying to “deflect public attention from a disaster of their own making [on ObamaCare] by shifting the subject to gun control.”
The Hill reports, “Democrats argue that enough pressure on House GOP leaders would return the topic [of gun control] to prominence.”
You can’t blame them. As support for ObamaCare continues to plummet — and the President’s approval rating along with it — many Democrats are scrambling to get the mainstream media to cover any other topic.
Their first choice is to return to their tired ole gun control agenda like the Toomey-Manchin background checks (for private gun buyers) in the Senate or the identical Thompson-King bill (HR 1565) in the House. These are unconstitutional and should never see the light of day.
Their second plan to distract the American public is to blow up the Senate rules — abolishing the filibuster where federal judges are concerned — so that Democrats can pack the courts with liberal, anti-gunners who will uphold ObamaCare. Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully accomplished this yesterday, claiming it was necessary because Republicans were supposedly causing gridlock.
You can see that critical Senate vote here, where YEA was the pro-gun, pro-freedom vote to maintain the filibuster.
Finally, Democrats plan to craft small temporary one-year “fixes” for the health care law in order to fool enough Americans into reelecting senators who were the “deciding votes” on ObamaCare:
* Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat — who sold her soul to vote for ObamaCare in exchange for a political bribe nicknamed “the Louisiana purchase” — is currently up in a tough reelection. She knew how bad ObamaCare was, but she didn’t care until the nation’s pain threatened her reelection.
* Mark Begich, the Alaska Democrat who also cast the deciding vote, also knew Alaskans would suffer. But it didn’t bother him until their suffering threatened his reelection.
* Similarly, several other Democrat Senators — Kay Hagan (NC), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Mark Warner (VA), Mark Udall (CO), Mark Pryor (AR) and Jeff Merkley (OR) — all became “born again skeptics” of ObamaCare when provisions they crafted, knew about, and were indispensable in passing came back to bite them.
All of these senators had a chance to “tweak” ObamaCare during the shutdown fight. Instead, these Senators were all too busy playing politics — gleeful at the prospect of declaring total victory over Republicans.
We need to remind them that the only legitimate option is a total repeal of the anti-gun ObamaCare law. And that a Brady Law anniversary is an excuse to pass more gun control, but rather, a reminder of just how much of our constitutional rights have already been infringed.
ACTION: Contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to ignore calls for gun control or to settle for a temporary one year ObamaCare “fix.” Demand that they repeal this anti-gun travesty and stop trying to change the subject to supporting gun control.
“[GOA’s Larry] Pratt also contends that the U.N. has a terrible track record in protecting human life. He said the horrors in Rwanda are a perfect example of why the U.N. has no business deciding who should and should not have access to guns.” — WorldNetDaily, June 2013
When you’re dealing with an adversary who hates the 2nd Amendment as much as Barack Obama, you have to fight attacks coming from several different directions.
We know we’ve thrown a lot at you lately. But there’s one other issue we’d like to bring to your attention.
As you know, the Obama administration recently signed the virulently anti-gun UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
Although purporting to regulate international trade in arms, the treaty empowers anti-gun administrations (such as Barack Obama’s) to institute internal gun control, including gun bans, gun registration, and more. In fact, the drafters of the treaty made no secret of their goal of imposing measures such as microstamping on countries like the United States.
GOA’s legislative counsel has done a word-by-word analysis of the treaty, which can be seen here. If left unchecked, the treaty language will give rise a wide ranging series of gun control restrictions, as mentioned above.
Plus, it is entirely possible that, under the Supreme Court cases of Missouri v. Holland and Reid v. Covert, Obama could implement these restrictions without further legislation. After all, we’ve already seen the President do an end-around Congress by issuing over 20 executive actions this year.
Gun owners will rightfully counter that the UN — or the Congress or President for that matter — has NO AUTHORITY to impose any of these gun restrictions upon us. And those gun owners would be absolutely correct!
But if the President begins illegally implementing the UN treaty “by executive fiat” — just as he has done through other executive actions — then good people will go to jail for resisting these efforts and will have to defend their rights in court for simply exercising rights that were given to them by God.
This is why we have to raise a holy fuss right now, and thankfully, there are efforts underway in the Senate to do just that.
Earlier this year, with our support, an amendment offered by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) to defund the ATT passed the Senate by a vote of 53-46. But that vote never became law.
Now, Senator Moran (R-KS) is circulating a letter calling upon the administration to withdraw its support of the treaty. A copy of that letter can be seen here.
The Moran letter raises six problems with the treaty that should be alarming, even to Senators who are not strongly pro-gun. These include the fact that the ATT was slammed through without consensus … it’s ambiguous … and it can be amended (and made even more restrictive) by the other nations which are parties to the treaty.
BELLEVUE, WA – A call for banning so-called “assault weapons” in the wake of Thursday night’s shooting in a Chicago park, believed to be part of an ongoing war between two rival gangs, shows the Windy City needs to concentrate on banning gangs, not guns, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
Police Supt. Garry McCarthy was quoted by Chicago reporters insisting that the shooting, which seriously wounded a 3-year-old boy, is ample proof that “assault weapons” should be banned.
But when the Chicago Tribune noted that police think the shooting was the latest episode of violence between the Gangster Disciples and the Black P. Stones, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said this puts the real problem in perspective.
“When you have street thugs opening fire on groups of people in a gang war,” he observed, “that suggests the city has not advanced much since the days of Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Law-abiding Chicago residents continue to face bureaucratic obstacles, wade through red tape and jump through hoops before they can legally own a gun, while criminals obviously don’t bother with any of that, and just drive around shooting people.
“If Superintendent McCarthy and his boss, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, want to make the streets safer,” he continued, “they should concentrate their efforts on ridding the city of its criminal element rather than push for bans on the kinds of firearms that are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. Those citizens haven’t hurt anyone, and neither have their guns.
“McCarthy and his department could pull a little ‘Shock and Awe’ operation, one neighborhood at a time, rousting these thugs, arresting those who have outstanding warrants, jailing those found to be illegally carrying guns and sending a message to straighten up or you’re going down,” Gottlieb suggested. “It’s time for Chicago authorities to face the fact that they’re not going to get rid of their crime problem until they start getting rid of their criminals.”
Our rights are natural, given to us by the Creator. So, with that in mind, understand that The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights are your responsibility.
In today’s America, there is a concerted effort to remove your gun rights. But the right to keep and bear arms is so entrenched in the fabric of our society, the statists that desire to disarm you are also using a method that goes after the ammunition. Bullets are hard to come by, of late. Certain kinds of ammo, like hollow points, are under fire. In California, starting in January of 2014, background checks will be required for the purchase of projectiles, if Jerry Brown signs the bill sitting on his desk.
It almost makes me want to take up the bow and arrow. . . almost.
There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms. In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted. In the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is told it “shall” not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.
The Second Amendment begins with a call for “A well regulated militia.” A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word “regulated.” The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.
We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today’s political atmosphere. The word “regulated,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.
The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.
The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them. A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.
But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative? What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the King’s Army from gaining access to Concord?
In Concord was our largest munitions depot. Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord. So, it can be said that the final straw – what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England – was when they came for our guns.
The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves. The federal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that, if the democrats played their cards right, the guns would be used to kill many Mexicans, and then the party of the jackass could scream, “See what American guns have done?” hoping that American voters would demand a stop be put to the manufacturing of such dangerous weapons.
The operation backfired, two border patrol agents were killed, and the scandal grew to reveal what the Obama administration was trying to do. The administration, with no surprise to anyone, has been lying about the operation from day one. The media hopped aboard those lies, and have protected the president as best they could. The democrats have circled the wagons regarding the Fast and Furious scandal, and the scandal that would have brought down any GOP President, thanks to quick damage control by Obama’s minions, remained harmless, and has been all but forgotten.
Prior to the Fast and Furious operation being exposed, the federal government, through the courts, attempted to gain the power of dictating to the States what they can, and cannot, do, regarding firearms by ruling against State Sovereignty in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.
Before the ruling regarding Chicago’s handgun ban, in the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.
We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here. All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 10th Amendment supports the States’ rights regarding this issue, and the 2nd Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.
This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however. Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people. They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue. But in today’s political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights? They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.
My response to that query is always the same: “So don’t let them.” Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights. With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.
Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.
In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government was brought to the surface.
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void (if one believes that the courts have that kind of overpowering rule over the legislative power in the States, and can dictate to the States what they can and can’t do). The courts applying the 2nd Amendment to the States would mean the Second Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms. However, studying the language of the Second Amendment carefully, it says that all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The final words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions. If that is the case, and if the 2nd Amendment also applies to the States, then technically it would also make all State gun laws unconstitutional.
The reason that the Second Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.
The U.S. Constitution applies only to the federal government, except where specifically noted otherwise. Besides, even if on the surface it seems to be for a good cause, do you really want the federal government forcing the States to do something? Do we really want the federal government controlling the States in such a manner? When it comes to the McDonald v. Chicago case, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or State what they have to do.
If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? The case regarding Chicago’s handgun ban created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and in that I recognize a great danger to state sovereignty, and ultimately, to our Gun Rights.
The final argument against gun control is a need for an armed militia. Leftists do not accept the need of an unorganized civilian militia. In fact, the most common argument I hear regarding gun rights is that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past. According to these people, the citizen militia is no longer necessary, and all functions a militia would facilitate are now covered by the military, and more specifically, when it comes to local protection, the National Guard.
The National Guard is indeed much like the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but that does not mean an unorganized militia does not exist, nor is necessary.
Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.
United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. I also think the requirements will go out the window if the unorganized militia ever needs to be called into action. The requirement at that time will be, “If you can aim and fire, you are a part of our militia.”
So, according to the U.S. Code, the unorganized militia exists.
But why, I am often asked, is it so important to have a right to keep and bear arms in this civilized society?
You have a right to keep and bear arms, as the 2nd Amendment says, because it is “necessary to the security of a free State.” Here, the word “State” does not mean “civil government” as assumed, but instead refers to the individual States. So, the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of your State, be it Virginia, Maryland, New York, California, or wherever. And the word “necessary” is a pretty definitive term. So our gun rights are “necessary” to the security of a free State. From whom? Invaders? Don’t we have the organized military forces for protecting our States from foreign invaders?
If we don’t need to be armed to protect our states from foreign invasion, then why was it so important to the Founding Fathers to ensure that Americans remained armed?
Who does that leave as a potential enemy that the founders felt it “necessary” to arm the citizens to protect their States?
I believe the language is as such to remind us that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to protect the States against a tyrannical central government, should one rise at the federal level.
I was once asked, “Does that mean you would fire upon government employees?”
I replied, “If necessary.”
Modified letter from NAGR, if only the NRA had balls like this!
You see, Governor Christie’s long support for gun control is no secret. In fact, in campaign materials, he attacked pro-gun opponents for opposing so-called “assault weapons bans!”
And just last week, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey signed MANY new gun control measures into law!
To add insult to injury, he even bragged about his state’s draconian firearm restrictions, saying his new gun control schemes would worsen “New Jersey’s already tough gun laws.”
The new bills Governor Christie signed into law last Thursday include:
*** A bill to strip law-abiding residents of New Jersey of their Second Amendment rights if the government bureaucrats ever label them “terrorists.”
After the Department of Homeland Security issued warnings about men and women with the “wrong” Presidential candidate’s bumper sticker on their car possibly being “domestic terrorists,” you and I can be sure this power will be abused;
*** A “turn-em-in” bill to coerce otherwise law-abiding New Jersey residents to destroy or surrender certain firearms to the state within 180 days or get stuck with stiff penalties;
*** An “anti-gun trafficking” bill, which would treat ordinary gun sellers like criminals, terrorists, and gang members for minor oversights.
Under this legislation, not only would you be arrested, and have your firearms confiscated for minor infractions, the government of New Jersey could even seize your car!
The gun-grabbers and their anti-gun national media can hardly get enough of Christie’s attacks on guns and pro-gun members of his own Republican Party!
In fact, the anti-gun left-wing website, The Nation, ran a headline asking, “Can Chris Christie Change the Gun Control Debate?”1
Mentioning a possible future presidential run for the governor, The Nation wrote:
“[Governor Christie] will have little choice but to defend those [gun control] bills during the 2016 Republican primaries. Perhaps that will allow a forceful — and with Christie, one would expect no less — defense of sensible gun control on the national stage, and one directed at his own party.”
After eight years of President Obama’s madness, what a slap in the face this would be!
Worse, if nominated, gun-grabbers will know they’ll have someone they can “work with” in the White House regardless of who wins in November of 2016.
But, Patrick, as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, it could be very tempting for Chairman Priebus to start pushing and praising Governor Christie as the “future of the GOP.”
After all, when else does the anti-gun national media “ooh” and “ah” about a fellow Republican?
If all Republicans have to do is ignore their pro-Second Amendment party platform plank to get praised, why not just do it?
Why not just start asking for Republican candidates all over the country to start “easing up” on their defense of the Second Amendment?
Please don’t delay.
And if you could, please agree to a generous contribution, as well.
Even if all you can do is chip in $10 or $20, it will help me send the message to GOP Chairman Reince Priebus that you and I are serious about protecting our Second Amendment rights.
But most importantly, please sign the open letter to Chairman Priebus at once.
Executive Vice President
P.S. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey just signed many new gun control bills into law and bragged about it!
Is this the future of the Republican Party?
With all the national media attention Governor Christie is getting, it could be very easy for Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to start promoting Chris Christie as the future of the GOP.
You and I can’t let that happen.
As I look across this nation at all the protests related to the verdict rendered in the Travon Martin shooting I had to think about all those people from the past that had been imprisoned for properly and effectively defending themselves, a family member, or even an unknown stranger from a ruthless crime.
I watched once as a prosecutor, in Arvada, Colorado, drummed into the jury how a friend “had the duty to run,” when his son was being unmercilessly beaten by three others. To allow his son to be killed in other words. Four years later after he was released from the Department of Corrections I, and many others told him that he had done the right thing. The law be damned!
This was quite a few years ago, and just goes to show that political correctness has been around for longer than I have been living. That said…
George Zimmerman could have easily defused this entire situation simply by holding back and waiting for the police to show up. He could have watched from his vehicle from a distance and monitored Travon’s whereabouts and communicated that to the police.
Nevertheless he did have the right to defend himself when Travon started beating his head into the sidewalk. With deadly force I might add. The Jury agreed with that, and the prosecution, the entire team should be brought up on charges of malicious prosecution. It was in fact that bad.
This tragedy was turned into something else by the race baiters, hucksters, and the main stream media, and continues to do so. What has not happened, at least has not been reported to the best of my knowledge so far? The rioting and such. The race war by The New Black Panthers that would accomplish what so many race hatred groups and individuals have tried to get going in the past, like Charles Manson for one example.
I am very much in favor of Stand Your Ground Laws, Castle Doctrine, and Self Defense laws. I support their expansion, and would be in favor of full rights restoration after a person has proved that they are rehabilitated if convicted of a crime. After all, didn’t we lock them up long enough to pay for their transgressions? If not that is our fault. I am also in favor of laws that would imprison those that seek to abuse our laws by twisting them to push their agenda. Such as media types that knowingly alter evidence. Prosecutors that know, or should have known that they were abusing the law, and any other grand-standers that abuse our system of justice.
In January, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, President Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence” along with 22 other “initiatives.” That study, subcontracted out to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, was completed in June and contained some surprises for the president who in January announced his push for three major gun control initiatives (universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons”, and a ban on “high-capacity” magazines) to prevent future mass shootings.
He was, no doubt, hoping that the CDC study would oblige him by providing evidence that additional gun control measures were justified to reduce gun violence. On the contrary, that study refuted nearly all of the standard anti-gun narrative and instead supported many of the positions taken by gun ownership supporters.
For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:
Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
In addition, defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence”, according to the study:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
Furthermore, the key finding the president was no doubt seeking – that more laws would result in less crime – was missing. The study said that “interventions” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy – from friends, family members, or gang members – well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
Also, the report noted that mass shootings like the one that took place in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”