Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

Gun-Free Zones Are Not Safe

April 23, 2008

Anyone that reads this blog on even an irregular basis knows that I have been preaching this for years. Yes, even before the Columbine High School incident. “Gun Free Zones” were properly called “Free Fire Zones” at several meetings before the laws were passed, I know, because I was the one making them. Still, it’s nice to have someone such as Dr. Lott confirm ones beliefs.

SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352006,00.html

Americans’ fears over the safety of schools continues.

Last Monday, three colleges and four K-to-12 schools were shut down by threats of violence.

This week over 25,000 college students at 300 chapters in 44 states belong to a group, Students for Concealed Carry on College Campuses, that will carry empty handgun holsters to protest their concerns about not being able to defend themselves.

With the first anniversary of the Virginia Tech attack last week and the discussions that it created, we clearly have not been able to put that and other attacks behind us. There are good reasons why the safety measures adopted over the last year to speed up response times or hiring more police haven’t eliminated the fear people feel.

The attack earlier this year at Northern Illinois University proved that even six minutes was too long. It took six minutes before the police were able to enter the classroom, and in that short time five people were murdered. Compared to the Virginia Tech and other attacks, six minutes is actually record breaking speed, but it was simply not fast enough.

The Thursday before the NIU murders five people were killed in a city council chambers in Kirkwood, Mo. There was even a police officer already there when the attack occurred. But as happens time after time in these attacks, when uniformed police are there, the killers either wait for the police to leave the area or they are the first people killed. In Kirkwood, the police officer was killed immediately when the attack started. People cowered or were reduced to futilely throwing chairs at the killer.

There is a problem that people just are unwilling to recognize.

Just like attacks last year at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb., or Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City or the recent attack at the Tinley Park Mall in Illinois or all the public schools attacks, all these cases had one thing in common: They took place in “gun free zones,” where private citizens were not allowed to carry their guns with them.

The malls in Omaha and Salt Lake City were in states that let people carry concealed handguns, but private property owners are allowed to post signs banning guns and those malls were among the few places in their states that chose to post such signs. In the Trolley Square attack an off-duty police officer fortunately violated the ban and stopped the attack. The attacks at Virginia Tech or the other public schools occured in some of the few areas within their states that people are not allowed to carry concealed handguns.

It is not just recent killings that are occurring in these gun-free zones. Multiple-victim public shootings keep on occurring in places where guns are banned. Nor are these horrible incidents limited to just gun-free zones in the US.

In 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries including France, Germany and Switzerland have experienced multiple-victim shootings. The worst school attack in Germany claimed 17 deaths, another 14 deaths; one attack in Switzerland claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators.

At some point you would think that something is going on here, that these murderers aren’t just picking their targets at random. Yet, when one thinks about it, this pattern isn’t really too surprising.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. The problem is that instead of gun-free zones making it safe for potential victims, they make it safe for criminals.

Criminals are less likely to run into those who might be able to stop them. Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals, but the problem is who is more likely to obey the law.

A student expelled for violating a gun-free zone at a college is extremely unlikely ever to get into another college. A faculty member fired for a firearms violation will find it virtually impossible to get another academic position. But even if the killer at Virginia Tech had lived, the notion that the threat of expulsion would have deterred the attacker when he would have already faced 32 death penalties or at least 32 life sentences seems silly.

Letting civilians have permitted concealed handguns limits the damage from attacks. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone with a gun is able to arrive on the scene.

In cases from the church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., last December, where a parishioner who was given permission by the minister to carry her concealed gun into the church quickly stopped the murderer, to an attack last year in downtown Memphis, to the Appalachian Law School, to high schools in such places as Pearl, Miss., concealed handgun permit holders have stopped attacks well before uniformed police could possibly have arrived.

Twice this year armed Israeli citizens have stopped terrorist attacks at schools (once by an armed teacher and another by an armed student). Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven’t found one multiple-victim public shooting where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.

With about 5 million Americans currently with concealed handgun permits in the U.S. and states starting having right-to-carry laws for as long as 80 years, we have a lot of experience with these laws, and one thing is very clear: Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding and lose their permits for any gun-related violation at hundredths or thousandths of one percentage point. We also have a lot of experience with permitted concealed handguns in schools.

Prior to the 1995 Safe School Zone Act, states with right-to-carry laws let teachers or others carry concealed handguns at school, and several states still allow this today. And there is not a single instance that I or others have found where this produced a single problem. There are today even some universities, including large public universities such as Colorado State University and the University of Utah, that let students carry concealed handguns on school property.

With all the news media coverage of the types of guns used and how the criminal obtained the gun, at some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: they keep occurring in gun-free zones.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks. But, even without the media, considering that 15 more states this year debated legislation to let concealed handguns on school campuses, possibly the issue is becoming clear anyway.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

More on the Obamanation

April 22, 2008

Some time ago a contributor here got mad because I told him to do his own research about Obama. I do things like that from time to time, especially when I have previously posted, with citation. See, there is this old Irish theory about learning that says that what you earn, as in work for, stays with you longer.

Now, I stated that Obama hung out with gangsters. What was the rage a short time ago? Tony Resco, that’s what. I said that Obama attended a racist church. What blew across the newswaves? His pastor, and that’s still going on. I stated that he was a socialist. Whats all across the web now? Obama the collectivist, that’s what. I also said trhat he is anti second amendment, and low and behold. He tries acting like he is a supporter of the Constitution, and it is blowing up in his face.

What got me onto the Obamination early? Well, that can best be summed up over at Make-A-STATEMENT.org.

The Essence Of Obama by Jim Cash

First, Obama refused to display the American Flag on his lapel. Then, he refused to distance himself from his America hating, racist, and self promoting minister, the despicable Reverend Wright. Now, he is giving some lame excuse for not respecting and following proper protocol when our National Anthem is played.

That lame Obama excuse is, “as I have said before, I do not want to be perceived as taking sides”. Further, he says, “There are a lot o people in the world to whom the American Flag is a symbol of oppression. And, the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song—I’d like to teach the World to Sing—If that was our anthem, then I might acknowledge it”. I would sure like to know who he is afraid to take sides with.

This is the man who wants to become the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, leader of the free world, and role model to our children.

Please allow me to share with you the level at which our flag and anthem is honored on all our military bases. First, the flag is never displayed at night unless properly lighted. Early in the morning after sunrise, every military installation in the nation has a ceremony as the flag is hosted. Prior to sunset, a similar ceremony is performed where the flag is brought down, and folded with great care, then stored for the night. It is never allowed to touch the ground. These ceremonies are conducted by impeccably dressed uniformed personnel and accompanied by appropriate music. During the ceremony all traffic on base is brought to a halt, again, in honor of the flag. When the flag becomes old and faded, it is retired with ceremony, and burned. Military personnel love the flag, as it is a symbol of our country, and that is what they have taken an oath to defend—to their deaths.

Military personnel, both active and retired, stand and salute the flag as it passes by. I have seen wheel-chair bound vets struggle to stand when the flag passes by. The same respect is paid when our National Anthem is played. Sometimes, I wonder if our military members are the only America loving group left in this country. Berkley, you should truly be ashamed!!!!

I am sure you can imagine how veterans feel when an America hating, low life individual is allowed to burn the flag, or spit on it, or stomp on it with dirty feet. But, can you imagine how they will feel watching their Commander-in-Chief degrade it, refuse to honor it, and even change our National Anthem to, “I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony”???

How can we justify supporting a man who has spent over two decades attending a church, whose minister instead of proclaiming, “God-Bless America” in front of our children, shouts, “God-Damn America” over and over. Does anyone out there really believe that Obama did not know what was going on in that church? TO DENY IS TO LIE!!! Both right and left all know deep down that he is very good at that.

Never in my life did I think I would look at Hillary Clinton with any kind of positive thought. However, it appears that there is a group of people in this country so ill informed, so blinded by charisma, so deaf to nonsense, that they will support a far-left, anti-American, silver-tongued, foolish man with a Socialist agenda like Barrack Hussein Obama. He makes Hillary Clinton appear angelic. I realize that she is obsessed with winning and totally self-serving also, but I have never heard her say, or do, anything that leads me to believe she hates this country, or openly displays obvious racist tendencies.

However, I have heard Obama say several times that, “We live in the greatest nation in the world, and I am going to change it”. Again, my question is, “what does he mean by change? What is he going to change it to?”

I somehow understand the youth of America being taken in by a young, black, silver-tongued, motivational speaker. Their experience is limited, and their attitudes will change as their life progresses, and they feel the sting of a burn or two. However, I have no patience at all with mature Americans who seemingly cannot think their way out of a paper bag. I am speaking of those who go to rallies and act like groupies, applauding Obama when he blows his nose. FOLKS, WE MUST WAKE UP!!!!! There are good people out there who understand what I am talking about here, but they are remaining far too quiet.

It is time for these Americans to stand up for their Country, their Religion, and their Rights. No other nation on earth supports the standard of living that we experience in America. Every living, breathing, citizen of this country should say a little prayer each night recognizing how fortunate they are to have been born here. If we lose that standard, it will be lost because of the apathy of the American people.

George Bush has many faults, and has made many mistakes. However, it defies gravity to me that the far-left can profess such hate for Bush, and then show strong support for the likes of an Obama. Folks, if you think about it long, hard, and with focus, two plus two will normally make four. Another way to look at it is, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it probably is a friggin’ duck.

Jim Cash
B/G, USAF, Ret.

“Pro-Gun” Group Endorses Most Anti-Gun Candidate

April 21, 2008

 

Wolves in sheep’s clothing perhaps? Here’s a fact NRA, none, not one of the three leading candidates supports the second amendment, period.

 

Friday, April 18, 2008
 
As this unusual campaign season has unfolded, we’ve seen the candidates ratcheting up their politically expedient rhetoric in an attempt to distinguish themselves as the “candidate of choice” for every constituency, while testing the far reaches of credibility in the process.  We’ve heard blatantly anti-gun politicians claim to be supportive of the Second Amendment.  We’ve seen hypocrisy, and we’ve heard double-speak and insults to our intelligence. 

When it comes to campaign rhetoric on the Second Amendment, we’ve seen a change in the way many anti-gun politicians campaign.  Rather than talk openly about their desire to ban guns, register gun owners, and regulate firearms sales, anti-gun politicians talk about their “support” for sportsmen.  Rather than admit they oppose the individual right protected by the Second Amendment, they claim they “support firearm ownership for hunting.” 

This is all an effort to mislead and divide the gun owning community and to dilute gun owners’ political impact.  To achieve their goals new organizations have been formed, with names designed to confuse gun owners and hide their real agenda.  The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is one of those groups. 

As we’ve reported in the past, AHSA was created to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsmen’s” group.  In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA’s leadership is well documented.  For instance, AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the nations most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, and Ted Kennedy.  In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign.  AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, a Massachusetts anti-gun group.  And one of the leading organizers of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has served as a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits.  And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 

In keeping with their “pro-gun” stance, this week, AHSA did the last thing one would expect of a pro-gun group—they endorsed Democratic hopeful Barack Obama for President! 

In a statement on the AHSA website titled “Obama: He ‘gets it,’” Schoenke announced the endorsement, saying that Senator Obama’s voting record has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the Second Amendment!  Are you kidding?  Obama’s hostility toward the Second Amendment is so well known and well documented that in the 2004 elections, NRA’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) issued Obama a well-deserved “F” grade.  Obama is anti-gun.  Period.  And no amount of sugar coating or spin by AHSA will change that fact. 

The AHSA statement closes with the line, “Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America’s hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.”  While typical of the rhetoric coming out of AHSA, that line is nothing less than ridiculous. 

AHSA would be more correctly called the “American Association for the Protection of Anti-Gun Politicians.”  No gun owner or sportsman should take the group seriously or fall prey to its carefully crafted lies and deceptions, as clearly demonstrated by their endorsement of Barack Obama.

 

SOURCE: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3848

Straight answers from crooked politicians?

April 18, 2008

Wool pulling, and other shenanigans by candidates…

ABC’s Charlie Gibson seemed to abandon the Leftmedia script on Wednesday night at the Democrat debate in Philadelphia, when he aimed some uncharacteristically tough questions at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the subject of the Second Amendment, Gibson asked Obama whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns was consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms. Obama affirmed his belief in an individual right to bear arms, but then said that, like other rights, it is subject to government constraint.

As is typical of Democrats, Obama went on to mention the importance of firearms in the context of “tradition” and “hunting,” but not once did he say anything about the right to self-defense or the role of firearms in keeping the government accountable to the people. (See: “Revolution, American.”) This is hardly surprising, considering that Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry. When Gibson asked Obama if he still favored registration and licensing of guns, Obama dodged the question by saying that he favored “common-sense approaches,” another favorite phrase from the Democrat playbook. When Gibson mentioned that Obama’s handwriting was on a questionnaire that supported a total ban on handguns, however, Obama denied it, adding, “[W]hat we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.” Obama used Chicago as an example, where “[W]e’ve had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public-school children.” Obama failed to say how many of those children were gang members, and he conveniently left out the fact that Chicago, like DC, has had a total ban on handguns for years.

Hillary Clinton’s responses were similarly vacuous. She said that she would renew the so-called Assault Weapons Ban (or as we say in our shop, “the ban on guns with certain cosmetic features”), and that she supports “sensible regulation.” On the question of whether the DC ban was consistent with Second Amendment rights, Hillary evaded by saying she didn’t know the facts of the case. She also praised Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter for his (illegal) efforts to curb crime (by banning guns). More on that later.

Of course, Hillary is in favor of “federalism” when it comes to allowing states to have their own restrictive laws concerning guns. She said, “What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.” Blanket rules like, you know, the federal “assault weapons” ban?

Speaking of Patriots Day, both gun-grabbing candidates should keep in mind what Justice Joseph Story had to say on the matter. Story was a Supreme Court nominee of James Madison, the author of our Constitution. “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,” he said in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.”

source: Patriot Post

Hezbollah

April 16, 2008

For quite some time I have been posting about Hezbolla already being among us here within these United States, and that their plans for us include complete destruction. Often scoffed at for saying these things I have been ridiculed and called ignorant. Well, it would appear that some other people actually read intelligence reports, and listen to what our erstwhile enemies say.

Hezbollah Training in Iran for War

Kfar Shuba, Lebanon — In south Lebanon, where the 2006 summertime war between Israel and militant Shiite Hizbullah was played out, villages are abuzz with talk of another devastating conflict between the two archfoes.

 

Over the past few weeks, military activity on both sides of the border has contributed to war jitters as both Israel and Hizbullah are seemingly poised to strike.

 

The Israeli military just wrapped up a nationwide war drill it dubbed “Turning Point 2,” and Hizbullah appears to have devised new battle plans that include cross-border raids into Israel and has mounted a sweeping recruitment and training drive, even marshaling non-Shiites and former Israeli-allied militiamen into new reservist units.

 

“The holy fighters are completely focused on the next war, even ignoring families and friends. They are just waiting for the next war,” says Jawad, a Hizbullah fighter.

 

Still, many diplomats and analysts in Beirut say that neither side has an interest in coming to blows again, despite the buildup.

 

“The elements of conflict are still there, and it is possible that something small can get out of hand with neither side wanting it,” says Timur Goksel, a university lecturer in Beirut and veteran observer of the Hizbullah-Israeli conflict. But, he adds, the heightened activity is “mainly posturing.”

 

Hizbullah continues to recruit and train new combatants at a furious pace. Indeed, it has noticeably increased in the past two months, ever since the assassination in Damascus of Imad Mughnieh, Hizbullah’s top military commander, sparked fears of a fresh war.

 

Many recruits are sent to Iran for 45-day advanced training sessions, according to Hizbullah fighters. Jawad says he recently returned from Iran, his second trip in a year, where he was taught how to fire antitank missiles.

 

“There’s a lot of training,” he says. “The holy fighters are leaving universities, shops, places of work to go and train.”

 

New tactics are being taught, including how to “seize and hold” positions, a requirement that Hizbullah’s guerrilla fighters – traditionally schooled in hit-and-run methods – never needed before. One local commander in south Lebanon said that Hizbullah had fought a defensive war in 2006.

 

“Next time, we will be on the offensive and it will be a totally different kind of war,” he says.

 

Jawad says that the next war will be “fought more in Israel than in Lebanon,” one comment of many from various fighters that suggest Hizbullah is planning commando raids into northern Israel.

 

Hizbullah admits that its rocket arsenal has increased since 2006 and it has the ability to strike anywhere inside Israel.

 

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the party’s leader, in February said that Hizbullah had evolved into an “unparalleled new school” that is part guerrilla force and part conventional army.

 

A European diplomat in Beirut, who has been watching Hizbullah’s preparations, likened attacking the organization to “punching a sponge” – it absorbs the blow then bounces back – and questioned whether Israel still fully appreciates what it is up against.

 

Hizbullah’s military buildup is not confined to Shiite Lebanese. Sunnis, Christians, and Druze also are being recruited into reservist units called “Saraya,” or battalions.

 

Building ties to Sunnis serves for Hizbullah the double purpose of expanding support while also helping improve Shiite-Sunni relations, strained due to political divisions in Lebanon.

 

In the southern coastal town of Sidon, a Sunni Islamist militant group called the Fajr Forces, which fought invading Israeli troops in the early 1980s, has been resurrected as a Hizbullah ally.

 

Sheikh Afif Naboulsi, a prominent Hizbullah cleric, last month was quoted as saying that next time “the Israelis will find resistance fighters from all sects and denominations.”

 

Hizbullah has been particularly active, according to residents, in the eastern pocket of the zone patrolled by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The area is the mainly Sunni Arqoub district and faces the Shebaa Farms, an Israeli-occupied mountainside running along Lebanon’s border with the Golan Heights.

 

Having lost ground here to political rivals after the 2006 war, Hizbullah is now seeking to regain its influence through funding a new group called the Arab Resistance Front, a reservist force for local Sunnis. Even former members of the now disbanded Israeli-allied South Lebanon Army militia have joined the new group, according to local residents.

 

“Hizbullah will not turn down anyone who wants to join the resistance,” says Izzat Qadri, the Sunni mayor of Kfar Shuba and an ally of Hizbullah.

 

Despite the frequent recruiting in the border zone, officials with UNIFIL say there is no evidence Hizbullah has reactivated its bunkers and rocket-firing positions that the militants abandoned at the end of the 2006 war.

 

Hizbullah fighters presently are deployed along a new front line above the Litani River, north of the area patrolled by UNIFIL. In the past 18 months, Hizbullah has purchased land from local Druze and Christians, constructed an entire Shiite-populated village, and turned the mountains and valleys of the area into sealed-off military zones.

 

“There are armed and uniformed Hizbullah men crawling all over the hills. We often hear gunfire and explosions from their training,” says one local resident.

 

 

© 2008 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. Reprinted Via Rightslink.

SOURCE: http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Hizbullah_Iran_training/2008/04/15/87992.html

Obama: Change For The Sake Of Expediency

April 13, 2008

Well folks, we have more to show you about this epitome of hypocrisy that is endeavoring to become the President of these United States.

source: NRA-ILA

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Friday, April 11, 2008
 
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it’s somehow appropriate that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is running on a platform of “change.”  Because when it comes to his rhetoric on the issue of gun rights, “change” is an apt description. Last month, we reported on Obama’s hypocrisy.  We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard. 

Last week, we reported on Obama’s attempt at reassuring pro-gun voters by telling them, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,” then telling the Pittsburgh Tribune “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” and that he favors “…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]….”  

Obama is savvy, and he’s a quick study.  His politically expedient stance on the gun issues has morphed from “a ban on all handguns” to his now frequent use of phrases like “protecting sportsmen.”  

Lately, in an effort to curry votes from America’s gun owners, he’s even claiming to believe in the Second Amendment.  A recent campaign “fact sheet” touting Obama’s support for sportsmen claims that Obama “greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms” (note the failure to say “keep” and bear arms).  But read further–to the “fine print” at the end of the statement–and you’ll see his political safety net…an easily down-played but highly significant “qualifier” that he almost always includes in some form.  It reads, “He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.”  In other words, “I support your gun rights, so long as that includes “reasonable” restrictions (wink, wink).”  Very slick.

The next time you hear Obama talking about “protecting sportsmen’s rights,” remember that, among other things, he endorses the D.C. gun ban–which outlaws armed self-defense in the home–declaring that the ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.  And that in a “1998 National Political Awareness Test,” he pledged to support a “Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”  That includes most handguns and many rifles and shotguns. 

Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false.  Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he’s out to destroy it. 

For more information on Barack Obama’s gun control record, please click here.

Colorado Senate Bill 49 utterly destroyed!

April 13, 2008

COLORADO:   Mandatory Storage Defeated in Committee!  Friday, April 11, Senate Bill 49, Colorado’s mandatory storage bill, was defeated by a vote of 9 to 1 in the Senate Appropriations Committee.  SB49 would have forced adults to store all their firearms under lock and key or face an undetermined misdemeanor penalty if a firearm was later used in a suicide or crime.  This dangerous bill would have rendered homeowners defenseless and given criminals a clear advantage in home invasions.  If passed, SB49 would have added to the already cumbersome bureaucracy that affects gun shops, gun shows, or anywhere else firearms are sold, by requiring them to post a sign informing gun owners that they must lock up their guns. Thank you to all of the NRA members and gun owners who called their elected officials in opposition to this bill. 

source: NRA-ILA

Special thanks to Senator Brophy for his personal updates on this dangerous bill that would have resulted in an unknown number of successful home invasions, rapes, and killings.

Firearms News from GOA

April 13, 2008

As The Senate Postpones The National Parks Amendment
— There is a great opportunity for your kids to appear on Nickelodeon!

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Friday, April 11, 2008

Gun Owners of America alerted you on Tuesday to the looming battle over
Senate legislation that will determine whether or not you will be able to
carry a gun on lands controlled by the National Park Service.

The showdown has been postponed until later, as Senator Tom Coburn of
Oklahoma (who had planned to offer the pro-gun amendment) determined he
didn’t have enough votes.  Senator Coburn does plan to find another vehicle
to offer his amendment at a later date.  So please stay tuned.

In other news, here’s an update on what else is happening on Capitol Hill.

* Several bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives to
recognize the right of Americans to carry firearms in national parks:  HR
1897 (Paul), HR 5434 (Hensarling) and HR 5646 (Broun).  All three bills do
basically the same thing, except for Broun’s bill which would also encourage
hunting on federal lands.

* Rep. John Boozman (R-AR) will soon be introducing a solid concealed carry
reciprocity bill.  Modeling the old Hostettler bill from previous
Congresses, this bill would allow anyone — who is recognized by his state
of residence to carry a firearm concealed — to carry his gun anywhere in
the country.  This bill means that even residents of Vermont and Alaska, who
can legally carry without a permit, would be given reciprocity by the
Boozman bill.

* GOA members should be looking for our next mailing, which will be landing
in your mailbox over the next week or so.  It’s a special issue which covers
the Supreme Court case dealing with the DC gun ban.  Gun Owners of America
has been heavily involved in this case, and its brief before the Court is,
to our knowledge, the ONLY one which challenged the Solicitor General’s gun
control brief.

The newsletter also analyzes the Second Amendment views of the top-two
leading contenders in the presidential race:  Senators Barack Obama and John
McCain.

Finally, as next week marks the anniversary of the Virginia Tech killings,
GOA’s newsletter also contains an excellent article from Dr. John Lott, who
demonstrates the REAL solution for stopping murder sprees on college
campuses.

NICK NEWS WANTS YOUR KID

Nickelodeon has contacted Gun Owners of America and offered us a wonderful
opportunity to get out the pro-gun message to young people.

They want some teenagers (between 11-15 years of age) to appear on the May
13 taping of Nick News which will run later that month.  Specifically, they
would like to interview kids from all over the nation:

1. Who can talk about the right to keep and bear arms, or
2. Who have seen an example of armed self-defense in their home.

They need about ten kids.  In some cases, Nickelodeon will fly a team out to
your home to film your kids taking target practice, answering questions,
etc.  In some cases, they will fly your child (along with one parent) for an
all-expenses paid trip to New York on May 12, for the taping which will
occur the following day.

No doubt, they will probably have kids who tout the anti-gun position.  But
if you think you have a well-spoken teen who can handle this challenge,
please contact Gun Owners of America at goamail@gunowners.org or at
703-321-8585.
 

Just when you thought there was no hope!

April 11, 2008

My home state of California well deserves it’s reputation as a bastion of authoritarianism and big government nanny regulations, as well as that of destroyer of liberty and economic roadblock to the success of the rest of the nation. “So goes California, so goes the nation” is a now old saying that has all too often proved true. Perhaps though, sometimes, this is a good thing, read on:

The California Supreme Court ruled this week on San Francisco’s voter-approved ban of handguns. The ban never took effect because the National Rifle Association (NRA) sued the city the day after it passed. The Court upheld rulings by lower courts that the ban violated California’s state law regarding the regulation of firearms, though it did not address the Second Amendment as does the DC case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. “Law-abiding citizens are part of the solution, not part of the problem of violent crime,” said Chuck Michel, lawyer for the plaintiffs in the NRA suit. “The authority of local cities to over-regulate firearms is very limited.” By the Second Amendment, we might add.

source: Patriot Post

S. 2739.

April 8, 2008

 

From: Gun Owners of America [Gun_Owners_of_America@capwiz.mailmanager.net]  
Sent: 4/8/2008 1:13:56 PM
To:
Subject:

“Make-Or-Break” Day On Your Right To Carry A Gun For
Self-Protection In A
National Park
— Tell your Senators to vote against “Cloture” on the Parks Bill

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

What happens tomorrow — Wednesday, April 9, 2008 — will probably determine
whether or not you will be able to carry a gun in a national park.

The first key vote will be a vote to cut off debate on the motion to take up
the “alternate” version of the “parks bill.” That
bill is S. 2739.

Why, you might ask, is such an arcane procedural vote so important?

To answer that question, it is necessary to look at a little history:
Earlier this year, the first “parks” bill came onto the
Senate calendar. It
was not a good bill: In terms of private property rights, it was one of the
biggest federal land grabs in American history. In addition, it would grant
another liberal anti-gun congressman to the Mariana Islands.

But Senator Tom Coburn was able to use the Senate rules to secure a right to
offer his gun amendment to that first bill — an amendment which would
affirm your right to carry a firearm for self-defense in most national
parks.

The Senate Democratic leadership was terrified. If presidential candidates
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were required to cast an anti-gun vote on
the eve of the presidential election, it could arguably cost Democrat states
like Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arkansas, and New
Hampshire in November.

So Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV) came up with a plan: He would kill
the bill on which Coburn had the right to offer his gun amendment. Instead,
he would bring up a similar bill — but one on which Coburn had not secured
a parliamentary right to offer the gun amendment. Once the new
“alternate”
gun bill was pending, Reid would add so many amendments that the Coburn gun
amendment could not be offered.

So, to recapitulate: The “alternate” parks bill — S. 2739 —
exists for
one reason and one reason only: to block consideration of a Coburn
amendment to allow you to use a gun to defend yourself in a national park.

ACTION: Tell your Senator to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed
to the parks bill. You can use the pre-written message below and send it
as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also
available).

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

What happens on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 will probably determine whether or
not Americans will be able to carry a gun in a national park.

The key vote will be a vote to cut off debate on the motion to take up the
“alternate” version of the “parks bill.” That bill
is S. 2739.

This “alternate” parks bill exists for one reason and one
reason only: to
block consideration of a Coburn amendment to allow Americans to use a gun to
defend themselves in many national parks. Coburn had secured the right to
offer this amendment to the original bill, S. 2483.

The procedure which is being used to shut out gun owners is not only unfair;
it is sneaky and underhanded.

Please do not let it succeed.

Gun Owners of America has told me it will rate this vote as a gun vote.

Sincerely,