- Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
- Ignatius Piazza – founder of Front Sight
- Ignatius Piazza Blog
- Ignatius Piazza – in Forbes Magazine
- Front Sight – in Black Belt Magazine
- Front Sight – in Icon Magazine
- Front Sight – in The Mail on Sunday Review
- Front Sight – on USA Today
- My Experience at Front Sight
- Ignatius Piazza – in Gun World
- Ignatius Piazza – in Playboy
- Ignatius Piazza – in San Francisco Chronicle
- Front Sight – in Los Angeles Times
- Front Sight – in Cybercast News Service
- Front Sight – in Gun Web
- Ignatius Piazza – in Las Vegas Sun
- Ignatius Piazza – in Small Arms Review
- Front Sight – in Financial Times
- Front Sight – in Sierra Times
- Ignatius Piazza – on World Net Daily
- Ignatius Piazza – in El Mercurio
- Front Sight – on CNN
- Front Sight – in Guns & Ammo
- Front Sight – in New York Times
- Ignatius Piazza – in Times Democrat
- Front Sight – in London Times
- Ignatius Piazza – in Fort Worth Star Telegram
- Ignatius Piazza – in Chicago Tribune
- Front Sight – in Santa Cruz Sentinel
- Ignatius Piazza – in Las Vegas Life
- Ignatius Piazza – in Las Vegas Mercury
- Ignatius Piazza – in Handvapen Guiden
- Ignatius Piazza – in National Enquirer
- Ignatius Piazza – in Las Vegas Review
- Ignatius Piazza – in Washington Post
- Front Sight – in El Pais Seminal
- Ignatius Piazza – on Reform America
- Front Sight – on BBC News
- Front Sight – in US News & World Report
- Front Sight – in Pajaronian Register
Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category
Front Sight Advanced Training, fourth try!
July 24, 2007Front Sight Advanced Training, third try!
July 24, 2007<ul style=”list-style-type: none;”>
<li>Front Sight <a href=”http://www.frontsight.com” title=”firearms training”>Firearms Training</a> Institute</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatiuspiazza.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – founder of Front Sight</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatiuspiazzafrontsight.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza blog”>Ignatius Piazza</a> Blog </li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-forbes-magazine.com/” title=”Ignatius Piazza in Forbes”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Forbes Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-black-belt-magazine.com/” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Black Belt Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-icon-magazine.com” title=”Front sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Icon Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-the-mail-on-sunday-review.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in The Mail on Sunday Review</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-usa-today.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on USA Today</li>
<li>My Experience at <a href=”http://www.nevadacarry.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=42″ title=”Front Sight “>Front Sight </a></li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-gun-world.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Gun World</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-playboy.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Playboy</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-san-francisco-chronicle.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in San Francisco Chronicle</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-los-angeles-times.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Los Angeles Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-cybercast-news-service.com” title=”front sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Cybercast News Service</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-gunweb.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Gun Web</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-las-vegas-sun.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Sun</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-small-arms-review.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Small Arms Review</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-financial-times.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Financial Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-sierra-times.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Sierra Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-world-net-daily.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – on World Net Daily</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-el-mercurio.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in El Mercurio</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-cnn.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on CNN</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-guns-and-ammo.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Guns & Ammo</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-new-york-times.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in New York Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-times-democrat.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Times Democrat</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-london-times.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in London Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-fort-worth-star-telegram.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Fort Worth Star Telegram</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-chicago-tribune.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Chicago Tribune</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-santa-cruz-sentinel.com/” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Santa Cruz Sentinel</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-las-vegas-life.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Life</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-las-vegas-mercury.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Mercury</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-handvapen-guiden.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Handvapen Guiden</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-national-enquirer.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in National Enquirer</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-las-vegas-review-journal.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Review </li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-washington-post.com” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Washington Post</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-el-pais-semanal.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in El Pais Seminal </li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-reform-america.com/” title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – on Reform America</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-bbc-news.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on BBC News</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-us-news-and-world-report.com” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in US News & World Report</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-pajaronian.com/” title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Pajaronian Register</li>
</ul>
Responsive Government
July 24, 2007Colorado’s Governor, Bill Ritter, ran on a platform of responsive government, among other things. Just what does that mean though? I emailed him about something that is very important to myself and others. Here, is the response;
Your message
To: Governor Ritter
Subject: SB 34
Sent: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:44:24 -0600
was deleted without being read on Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:04:36 -0600
Why am I thinking that I would have received a response if I would have emailed him about some leftest agenda item?
_popupControl();
Assault on Second Amendment
July 23, 2007Assault on Second Amendment
Terence P. Jeffrey
July 20, 2007
A useful illustration of how American freedom could fade away can be seen in a contrast between the city government of Newton, Mass., in 1775, and the city government of Washington, D.C., in 2007.
On Jan. 2, 1775, as historian David Hackett Fischer recounts in “Paul Revere’s Ride,” the good people of Newton held a town meeting. The issues they discussed were similar in a certain sort of way to the issues that might be discussed today by the D.C. Council. They included a proposed gun law and entitlement program.
In Newton, the gun law and entitlement program were one and the same. The Newtonians thought it so important for every man in town to own a gun that they were ready to give him one if he could not afford it. “Voted,” say the town records, “that the Selectmen use their best discretion in providing firearms for the poor of the town who are unable to provide for themselves.”
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty does not see guns the way our Founders did. In his view, they are not tools for defending individual liberty, they are instruments of criminality.
This week, Mr. Fenty announced the District would appeal to the Supreme Court a March U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision that ruled a District gun law unconstitutional. The law flatly bans possession of a handgun — even in one’s own home — unless the gun was registered before 1976. “Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, ‘Mayor Fenty, you’ve got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court,”‘ said Mr. Fenty.
In fact, however, the D.C. handgun suit pits individual law-abiding D.C. residents against a Constitution-flouting D.C. government. These individuals claim the local government is violating their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.” The appeals court agreed.
The District argues there is no such thing as an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the Framers did not intend to protect one. Pointing to the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment (“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”), it argued in court that the substantive clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”) was not really intended to protect a “right of the people,” but a right of state governments to maintain militias.
“The District claims that the Second Amendment ‘protects private possession of weapons only in connection with performance of civic duties as part of a well-regulated citizens militia organized for the security of a free state,” Judge Laurence Silberman reported in his opinion for the appeals court. Because the District implicitly argued that Founding-era-type militias no longer exist, Judge Silberman said, the unavoidable conclusion, if the District’s argument is accepted, is that the Second Amendment is meaningless.
“[I]n fact, at oral argument, appellees’ counsel asserted that it would be constitutional for the District to ban all firearms outright,” said Judge Silberman. “In short, we take the District’s position to be that the Second Amendment is a dead letter.”
The generation of Americans who ratified the Second Amendment would see such an outcome as a prelude to the extermination of all the other rights of the “people” recognized in the Constitution.
Gun ownership, in their view, was not merely an individual but a natural right. If individuals had a God-given right to life, liberty and property, it obviously followed they also had a right to individually possess the means to protect their life, liberty and property. That meant guns.
The 1689 Bill of Rights enacted by England’s parliament reflected this view, as did William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” one of the most popular books in Colonial America. Even Founding era editorial writers understood gun ownership was a natural individual right.
A 2004 opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council explaining why the Second Amendment protects an individual right cited an April 13, 1769, editorial from the New York Journal Supplement. “It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense,” said the editorial, “and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”
Three months after the people of Newton resolved to provide firearms for the poor, English regulars marched on nearby Concord with the aim of disarming the American people.
Hopefully, a majority of the Supreme Court will stand as firmly today in defense of the right to keep and bear arms as Americans once did at Concord Bridge.
Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.
The latest on Second Amendment rights
July 23, 2007On 12 July, the House Appropriations Committee successfully blocked gun-control advocates from gaining access to gun-purchasing data restricted by the Tiahrt amendment. The 2004 amendment, which Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) had sought to unravel, protects the privacy of law-abiding gun owners by restricting disclosure of federal records of gun purchases to third parties.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court may hear an appeal by the city government of Washington, DC, in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment—specifically, whether it protects one’s right to have guns in the home. The city will be defending what they deem to be the “constitutionality” of their local gun-control law, the strictest in the nation. After all, it worked so well when it was in effect.
Also, the Labor Department published a notice in the 17 July Federal Register announcing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “proposes to revise the explosives and blasting-agents standard.” Their absurd recent proposal sought to classify ammunition and various reloading supplies indiscriminately as explosives, which would have dried up ammo sales. After the massive response from gun owners, it’s no wonder that OSHA is putting the safety back on a bad idea.
SOURCE; PATRIOT POST
The UnFairness Doctrine
July 23, 2007Not content with wrecking your rights at every turn, now they are intent on destroying their opposition.
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, July 20, 2007
Even while we are busy defending our Second Amendment rights against
efforts to enhance the Brady Law, there is a movement afoot to
restrict our First Amendment rights as well… a movement that can
make the defense of our liberties that much harder.
You may have heard of this effort as the “Hush Rush” bill or, just
simply, as the Fairness Doctrine. No matter how you look at it,
however, there is nothing fair about it.
Better termed the UnFairness Doctrine, it would radically limit the
type of information you hear in the media and would greatly restrict
access by Gun Owners of America to the airwaves.
Access to talk radio has been crucial for GOA. If we had to depend
on network news alone, one would think that crime is out of control.
Talk radio has given Second Amendment supporters the opportunity to
present the data that more guns in the hands of the public has
actually lowered crime.
On June 28, the House of Representatives voted 309 to 115 for an
amendment — offered by pro-gun Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) — to defund
enforcement of the unFairness Doctrine. This was a great victory.
But even though the amendment — which was added to a Federal
Communication Commission appropriation (HR 2829) — was a victory for
supporters of the First Amendment, it does not give lasting comfort
to supporters of free speech.
The vote on the appropriations amendment applies only to FCC actions
in 2008. Since no one thinks that the Commission would move to
reimpose the UnFairness Doctrine until after 2008, what is needed is
enactment of S. 1748, the Broadcaster Freedom Act which was
introduced by Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN).
The so-called Fairness Doctrine is openly touted as a way to squelch
conservative’s market-driven dominance of talk radio. For example,
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma reports overhearing a conversation
between Senators Hilary Clinton (NY) and Barbara Boxer (CA). The two
Senators were complaining about conservatives’ success in the free
market of ideas on radio and said “We’ve got to have a balance.
There’s got to be a legislative fix for this.”
The UnFairness Doctrine is on its face an attack on free speech.
Were folks like Senators Clinton and Boxer truly interested in
balance, they would want to extend their UnFairness Doctrine to the
Public Broadcasting System and the network news programs, almost all
of which tilt to the left.
The anti-free speech forces in Congress may want to gag talk radio
because Air America has staggered into bankruptcy. Air America,
which was the left’s failed attempt to compete with conservative talk
radio, has almost no audience. It got its clock cleaned and has only
itself to blame. It should not be allowed to hide behind a phony
“Fairness Doctrine.”
Remember, the First Amendment protects free speech, not fairness.
Free speech is a constitutional doctrine; using the power of
government to mandate political “fairness” is a socialist doctrine.
ACTION: Please help keep our First Amendment freedoms intact. You
can use the letter below to help direct your comments to your two
U.S. Senators. Please visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center
at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send the letter as a
pre-written e-mail message to your Senators.
—– Pre-written letter —–
Dear Senator:
I hope you will strenuously OPPOSE any effort to reimpose the
misnamed “Fairness Doctrine,” which was soundly rejected by the
courts in the late 1980s.
On June 28, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted for an
amendment to defund enforcement of the UnFairness Doctrine. But
though this was a great victory for supporters of the First
Amendment, it does not give lasting comfort to supporters of free
speech.
The vote on the Pence amendment (to HR 2829) applies only to FCC
actions in 2008. Since no one thinks that the Commission would move
to reimpose the UnFairness Doctrine until after 2008, what is needed
is enactment of S. 1748, the Broadcaster Freedom Act which was
introduced by Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN).
The misnamed Fairness Doctrine is on its face an attack on free
speech. Were the supporters of this “UnFairness” truly
interested in
balance, they would want to extend this doctrine to the Public
Broadcasting System and the network news programs, almost all of
which tilt to the left.
The First Amendment protects free speech, not fairness. Free speech
is a constitutional doctrine; using the power of government to
mandate political “fairness” is a socialist doctrine.
Thus, I hope you will work to retain the Pence amendment in HR 2829
AND will cosponsor the Coleman bill (S. 1748).
Sincerely,
****************************
Stop Supporting The Big Anti-gun Internet Service Providers!
The parent companies of AOL / Time Warner / Sprint / Mindspring /
Earthlink, and Southwestern Bell — just to name a few — have all
given money in the past to Sarah Brady. But, there is an ISP
dedicated to freedom, gun rights, and the outdoor lifestyle. For
several years, Outdoors Unlimited has dutifully donated a portion of
their ISP fees to Gun Owners of America when customers choose GOA as
their designated organization at sign-up. Please consider stopping by
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net and switching to a pro-gun ISP
today.
Front Sight Advanced Training
July 19, 2007<a href=”http://www.frontsight.com/challenge.asp?BannerID=2″ title=”firearms training”>
<img src=”http://www.frontsight.com/Images/Banners/fs_challenge_160.jpg”
alt=”Front Sight Challenge – Front Sight’s New Reality Show”
width=”160″ height=”119″ border=”0″ title=”Front Sight”></a>
Well folks, I can’t seem to get the widgits to work. So I decided to just post one HTML link in hopes that the word will get out.
Front Sight is simply the best that is available.
Regulatory Commissars
July 15, 2007The latest rounds fired in the Left’s assault on our Second Amendment rights include a back-door ploy by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to dry up ammo sales, and another newspaper’s decision to publish non-public records of concealed-carry permit holders.
A recently proposed rule from OSHA seeks to have ammunition, primers or black and smokeless powder indiscriminately treated as “explosives.” The regulations would prohibit firearms in commercial “facilities containing explosives” (gun stores, for example), require that all such facilities be evacuated in the event of an electrical storm (even Wal-Mart) and prohibit smoking within 50 feet of the facilities. This issue has gun-rights advocates up in arms, decrying the incredible absurdity of the proposed regulations. The NRA says, “[I]t’s important to remember this is only a proposed rule right now, so there’s still time for concerned citizens to speak out.”
Meanwhile, in Ohio, The Sandusky Register published the names, ages and home counties of 2,700 concealed carry permit holders in its circulation area as a “public service to readers” according to the newspaper’s Managing Editor, Matt Westerhold. A number of its readers, understandably, were incensed. In well-deserved retaliation, the Buckeye Firearms Association published Westerhold’s publicly available personal information, including phone numbers, automobile records, traffic-ticket records and the address and mortgage information about a home he owns.
The incident echoes a March episode in which The Roanoke (Virginia) Times published the names and addresses of 135,000 Virginians with concealed-carry permits.
SOURCE: The Patriot Post
HR 2640 is Janet Reno’s dream
July 10, 2007Pennsylvania Case Reveals How McCarthy Bill Could Threaten All Gun
Owners
— Troubling questions in HR 2640 still go unanswered
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, July 10, 2007
“For the first time [in history, HR 2640], if enacted, would
statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans.” —
Military Order of the Purple Heart, June 18, 2007
ACTION:
1. Even if you have already sent an e-mail to your Senators on the
McCarthy bill, please send another such as the one at the end of this
alert. Yes, you might have already taken action on HR 2640. But if
you (and many other gun owners like yourself) haven’t taken any
action recently, then NO ONE is taking action. After all, the NRA is
supporting this bill, so they’re not rustlin’ up the troops in
opposition to this massive gun control bill. Remember the
immigration fight — it took weeks of continued activism to kill that
bill. This fight may very well be the same.
2. Please try to get as many of your friends as you can to join with
you in this effort to kill the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Now that
Senators are returning from their July 4th holiday, we need to get as
many gun owners as possible to remind them that HR 2640 is
unacceptable!
McCARTHY BILL COULD COME UP AT ANY TIME IN THE U.S. SENATE
Now that Congress returns to work this week, your liberties are in
jeopardy once again!
You will remember that before the Independence Day break, the House
of Representatives passed a McCarthy gun control bill (HR 2640)
without any hearings, without any committee action… they put it on
the Suspension Calendar and simply got a non-recorded voice vote.
An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a bill
in committee, to get both public and private observers to ask
questions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.
But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The bill
was rammed through the legislature with very few Representatives
present on the House floor… there was no recorded vote at all!
So it’s not surprising that, having skipped much of the legislative
process, there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding HR
2640. In fact, these questions have only been magnified after an
offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark made at the Harrisburg Community
College in Pennsylvania cost a man his gun rights for life in that
state.
Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly said
that it could be “worse than Virginia Tech” if someone broke
into his
car, because there were guns there. It is not clear whether he was
making a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or if
he was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damage
because of the guns he would find there. Nevertheless, Miller was
arrested, but not charged with anything.
The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say.
But realize, we don’t incarcerate people for making stupid statements
in this country — at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carry
permit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checks
into his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.
Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he had
said, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, “I
contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked.
And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental
health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to
possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily.”
Get that?
Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy’s bill (HR
2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I’ve never
had a mental illness… I’m not a military veteran… I’ve never been
on Ritalin… hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthy
bill. Right?
Well, think again.
DO YOUR VIEWS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKE YOU A POTENTIAL DANGER?
The Pennsylvania case shows how all gun owners could be threatened by
HR 2640. After all, did you ever tell anyone that the Second
Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the Founders
(such as James Madison) wanted the people to be able to overturn a
tyrannical American government?
Or, while you were watching the nightly news — and getting a
detailed account of all the crime in your area — did you ever make a
statement such as, “If someone were to break through my door, I’d
blow him away!”
Well, those kinds of statements will certainly make anti-gun nuts
think you’re a potential danger to yourself or others. So if you
make the local district attorney or police officer nervous, how
difficult would it be for him to get a psychiatrist (most of whom are
very left-wing) to say that you are a danger to yourself and to
others?
Or, would the district attorney even need to get a psychiatrist? One
of the outrageous aspects of the McCarthy bill is that Section 3(2)
codifies existing federal regulations. And existing federal code
says it only takes a “lawful authority” to
“adjudicate” someone as a
mental defective.(1) And another section of the bill makes it clear
this “adjudication” does not need to be made by a formal court, but
can simply be a “determination” — such as a medical diagnosis.(2)
Consider how significant this is. The BATFE has been quietly
attempting to amend the federal code by regulatory fiat for years,
but they’ve been somewhat restrained in their ability to interpret
these regulations because they are, after all, regulations (and not
statutory law).
But with HR 2640, much of the pablum that BATFE bureaucrats have
quietly added to the code over the years will now become the LAW OF
THE LAND — even though those regs were never submitted to a
legislative committee or scrutinized in legislative hearings or
debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.
When one looks at the federal regs cited above, there are a lot of
questions that still remain unanswered. What kinds of people can
fall into this category of “other lawful authority” that can deem
someone to be a mental defective? Certainly, it would seem to apply
to Veterans Administration shrinks. After all, the federal
government already added more than 80,000 veterans with Post
Traumatic Stress into the NICS system in 2000.
But who else could be classified as a “lawful authority”? A school
counselor? A district attorney? What about a legislator, a city
councilman or a cop? They are certainly “authorities” in their own
right. Could the words “lawful authority” also apply to them?
Do we really want to risk the Second Amendment on the question of
what the words “lawful authority” in 27 CFR 478.11 mean —
once they
have been “statutized” by HR 2640 and BATF is no longer under ANY
constraint and can read it as broadly as they want?
If the “lawful authority” thinks you pose a danger to yourself or
others (or can’t manage your own affairs) then your gun rights could
be gone.
In its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this
“danger” doesn’t have to be “imminent” or
“substantial,” but can
include “any danger” at all. How many shrinks — using the
Pennsylvania standard — are going to say that a pro-gun American
like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense
against tyranny, DOESN’T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of
hurting someone else?
As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.
HR 2640 is Janet Reno’s dream. Does somebody make a politician
nervous? Get a prescription pad, get your friendly left-wing
psychiatrist to make the “dangerous” diagnosis, and it’s all over.
Expungement will be virtually impossible. Just turn in your guns.
FOOTNOTES:
(1) See 27 CFR 478.11.
(2) See Section 101(c)(1)(C).
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Supporters of the McCarthy bill are hanging
their hat on language which purports to help disqualified people to
get their rights restored. So GOA has built a special section on its
website that gets to the truth on this issue and informs gun owners
of the dangers in HR 2640. Please go to
http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm to learn what the specifics of the
bill are, who its main supporters are, answers to claims made by
proponents of the bill, who faces the greatest risk of being
disqualified for buying a gun, and more.
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can use the pre-written letter below to
help direct your comments to your two U.S. Senators. Please visit
the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.
—– Pre-written letter —–
Dear Senator:
The Military Order of the Purple Heart got it right when it stated
that for the first time in history, HR 2640 “would statutorily impose
a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans.”
The Military Order of the Purple Heart, which is chartered by
Congress, is urging the DEFEAT of HR 2640, the Brady-expansion
legislation introduced by anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.
Despite what you may have heard elsewhere, this bill THREATENS gun
owners’ rights and represents one of the biggest gun bans in history.
A recent case in Pennsylvania shows how easily a gun owner can be
slapped with a LIFETIME gun ban, without any due process, based
solely on a mere accusation by a shrink or other “lawful
authority.”
For more information on this — and for a point-by-point analysis of
HR 2640 — please go to http://www.gunowners.org on the website of
Gun Owners of America.
All the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from
getting firearms. Severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England,
Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from
using guns to commit murder.
Again, I hope you will OPPOSE the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Safety, or back door Gun Control?
July 7, 2007The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed new rules that would have a dramatic effect on the storage and transportation of ammunition and handloading components. The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as “explosives.”
The public comment period ends July 12. To file your own comment, or to learn more about the OSHA proposal, click here or go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and search for Docket Number OSHA-2007-0032″; you can read OSHA’s proposal and learn how to submit comments electronically, or by fax or mail.





