Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

Bill of Rights; The Second Amendment and more

December 5, 2011

It is seldom that I actually endorse products or services. That said there is a new book being offered by The Second Amendment Foundation that deals primarily with the Second Amendment but really exposes the methodology used by big government authoritarians and other assorted hate America First types.

Called Shooting Blanks, it is a must read for anyone that rejects the politically correct game that is being force fed to us all on a regular basis. Libertarians, Conservatives and any others that are concerned with Freedom, Liberty, the Constitution and Bill of Rights can find a wealth of information and ammunition to use when confronting those that would destroy America, our deepest values, and beliefs.

U.N. abuse of U.S. may have a price; It’s about time!

December 2, 2011

Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) has drafted a bill that would block U.S. funding to the United Nations if it seeks to implement gun control measures affecting U.S. citizens.

 

Despite victories by gun owners in elections and legislative battles throughout the country in recent years, on the international front gun control is moving quickly.

 

Most significantly, in 2012 the UN plans to release a final draft of the Arms Trade Treaty—a treaty that will have severe consequences for American gun owners.

 

Meetings are held behind close doors, but from information gathered by GOA we believe that the ATT will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition.

 

The ATT will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds an accessory such as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license.

 

It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (like the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.

 

President Obama, not surprisingly, welcomes the treaty. He knows that he is unlikely to get such radical proposals through the Congress, so the UN provides him a backdoor way to enact gun control.

 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also on board and began pushing for the treaty as soon as she was confirmed in her position. “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area,” she said.

 

Since treaties must be ratified by the Senate, GOA is working continually to buck up weak-kneed Senators who might be pressured to ratify the treaty.

 

But the House, which controls the nations’ purse strings, can also play a role in killing the ATT (or any other anti-gun treaty, for that matter).

 

Rep. Joe Walsh’s legislation will cut U.S. funding to the UN if the international body imposes any restrictions on Americans’ gun rights.

 

This is a huge deal, because without the contributions of the United States, the UN would be crippled financially. According to government reports, U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget and 27 percent of its “peacekeeping” budget.

 

American gun owners, in other words, are funding the organization that wants to do away with the Second Amendment!

 

Rep. Walsh is putting the UN on notice: back off our gun rights.

 

Entitled the “The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2011,” Rep. Walsh is now seeking original cosponsors to join him in the House. He plans to introduce the bill within the next week.

 

Rep. Walsh highlights for his House colleagues the necessity of his proposal, noting that:

 

It is the constitutional power of Congress to determine United States foreign policy through the ratification of international treaties;

U.S. Presidents, by signing on to treaties, have opened the door for international organizations to unilaterally regulate the lives of citizens of the United States;

 

International and transnational organizations force their rules on people of the United States through conventions, multilateral agreements, and nonratified treaties, such as agreements that affect the private ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens; and

 

United States sovereignty is risked by domestic legal applicability of international treaties and executive agreements that have not been voted on and congressionally adopted through formal processes.

 

Let’s help Rep. Joe Walsh get as many cosponsors as possible. In the process, we’ll find out how many Representatives are willing to stand up to the behemoth United Nations in defense of the Second Amendment.

 

Click here to send your Representative a prewritten message.

 

 

 

 

Anti-gun Republicans Raising Funds in NYC

December 2, 2011

Birds of a feather sure do flock together.

 

So it’s no surprise that the country’s most anti-gun Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, invited the U.S. Senate’s most anti-gun Republican member up to his New York City residence for cocktails and a fund raiser next Monday.

 

Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana never met a gun control bill he didn’t like, and his F-rating from GOA is well-deserved.

 

Bloomberg, of course, founded the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Bloomberg, conveniently, thinks virtually all guns should be illegal. So MAIG is simply yet another gun prohibition organization.

 

While Bloomberg and Lugar may get along fine, his Republican primary opponent, Richard Moudock, is reaching out to gun owners throughout the state.

 

The Indiana Republican primary for senate is one of the most important races in the country for gun owners, and we don’t have to wait around for November to hand the anti-gunners a massive defeat.

 

The May 8th primary features two candidates who are diametrically opposed on the Second Amendment:

 

Dick Lugar does not agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

 

Richard Mourdock believes the message of the Second Amendment is clear: “shall not be infringed” is a restriction on federal power to regulate gun ownership.

 

Dick Lugar doesn’t trust the people with firearms, so he supports banning semi-automatic rifles that he erroneously calls “assault weapons.”

 

Richard Mourdock understands that gun bans don’t stop criminals, but only hamper the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

 

Dick Lugar believes you should submit to a waiting period before you purchase a handgun, hence “enjoying” a little time to “cool off.”

 

Richard Mourdock believes that it’s the Congress that should “cool off” and stop passing bill after bill that ignores the Constitution.

 

Perhaps worst of all, Dick Luger supports UN efforts to pass the small arms treaty, a treaty that could impact every gun owner in America. Dick Lugar was the ONLY Republican Senator NOT to come out in opposition to the treaty.

 

Richard Mourdock will never vote to hand over any authority to the UN.

 

 

This Senate election is particularly important in the event that Barack Obama manages to win another term. If Obama is reelected, Dick Lugar means one more vote for anti-gun Supreme Court justices, the small arms treaty and other anti-gun legislation.

 

The choice for Senator could not be more clear.

 

Make no mistake, however, Dick Lugar will be hard to beat. He’ll have almost unlimited money pouring in from the party establishment in Washington, and he’ll be calling in favors everywhere.

 

But Lugar can be defeated with the help of tens of thousands of gun owners and sportsmen from across the country.

 

Richard Mourdock, currently the State Treasurer of Indiana, is virtually tied with Lugar in the polls. This is our chance to defeat a politician who has been a thorn in the side of gun owners for more than three decades.

 

So please visit Richard Mourdock on the web at http://www.richardmourdock.com and chip in a few bucks to help his campaign. Lugar is spending millions of dollars, so please do all you can to help the Mourdock campaign go toe-to-toe with Lugar.

 

We don’t have to wait until next November to start beating the anti-gunners. Please help to get things rolling in Indiana today!

 

Sincerely,

 

Tim Macy

Vice Chairman

 

P.S. Dick Lugar has been voting against gun rights for more than 30 years. His opponent, Richard Mourdock earned the support of GOA-PVF for his strong stance for your gun rights. Please visit Richard online today to make a financial contribution.

 

 

Newtered; And the race tightens…

November 23, 2011

Newt Gingrich blew a hole completely through his foot. Again. Look candidates, illegal immigration is a major issue. Newt seems to think that pandering to a political correctness model that includes way too many people is an acceptable thing to do. I said it earlier this year that compromise with your fundamental values is not acceptable. This, combined with his half baked ideas about gun control, have made him an easy “NO” vote.

What will it take for these so-called “leaders” to figure out that we the people simply do not want a load of lawbreakers or their progeny here? Don’t we have enough home grown criminals?

What will it take for this same group of elites to figure out that we don’t want them messing with our fundamental and inalienable rights?

That is even when they, in their majesty, deem it to be for our very own good! We reserve certain things, such as the right to fail, unto our selves. Keep government out of our lives to the greatest extent possible while maintaining order and social discipline. Is that too much to ask..? It worked fairly well for most of our history.

Newts, political witchery and such…

November 22, 2011

From an email I received, and it is on target, no adjustments needed!

I know I don’t have to tell you, but politicians often say one thing but do the complete opposite — especially if they think no one is looking.

Newt Gingrich is the poster child for these sort of “flexible” principles.

I’ve been around the block a few times (I’m about to start my 20th year as a gun rights lobbyist) and dealt with literally thousands of candidates and politicians, but no Republican politician has managed to support and vote for anti-gun legislation and still proclaim that he is “pro-gun” more effectively than Newt Gingrich.

Don’t be fooled by his rise in the polls; Newt Gingrich has a long history of supporting gun control …

… and he has blatantly refused to return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

With more than three decades as a public figure, Newt is the quintessential political chameleon, shifting his views to reflect whatever is popular with the Washington, D.C. chattering class.

Make no mistake, while Newt may talk a solid conservative game, his record is that of a typical Inside-the-Beltway politician who will cut ANY compromise or make ANY deal with anyone for his own political or personal gain.

While Newt used the institutional gun lobby as a mouthpiece to convince millions of gun owners nationwide that “as long as he is Speaker, no gun-control legislation is going to move in committee or on the House floor,” he was working behind the scenes to pass gun control.

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders –- in some cases for actions as minor as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.(1)

Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.(2)

The Lautenberg Gun Ban is one of the Congressional Republicans’ worst betrayals of gun owners, and those complicit in its passage deserve nothing but contempt from gun owners.

This gun control measure ranks right up there with the Brady Registration Act as the most aggressive gun control in America, denying hundreds of thousands of would-be gun owners the right to self defense.

Gingrich also stood shoulder to shoulder with Nancy Pelosi to pass the “Criminal Safezones Act” which prevents armed citizens from defending themselves in certain arbitrary locations. You and I both know that Criminal Safezones don’t protect law-abiding citizens, but actually protect the criminals who ignore them.(3)

As you can see, Newt Gingrich is no friend of gun owners, or small government conservatives. He simply can’t be trusted, and his record reflects his contempt not only for the truth, but his own integrity and the integrity of the very people he’s asking to vote for him to be the most powerful man in the modern world.

This is the same man who railed against the Obama bailouts of Fannie and Freddie Mac while receiving more than $1.5 million from Fannie Mae as a “consultant”(4) while his firm also raised $37 million to pass healthcare insurance mandates.(5)

 

He’s also the same man who sat next to Nancy Pelosi and insisted global warming was a man-made problem in need of a government-mandated solution. Now that he’s running for the Republican nomination, he doesn’t believe in global warming and calls the TV ad he did with Pelosi “inexplicable.” Please click here to watch the video.(6)

I’m concerned, though, that Newt’s snake-oil act is catching on.

It’s time for gun owners and liberty-minded, small government activists to hold Newt’s feet to the fire.

That’s why I need you to call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control, and make a dramatic turnaround statement of support to repeal the gun controls he’s supported.

Tell his campaign that you expect Newt to not only apologize for his past support of anti-gun measures but also to reveal where he stands on international gun grabs like the UN “Small Arms Treaty” and domestic anti-gun schemes like the banning of .50 caliber rifles.

Demand he quit stonewalling gun owners and return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once. You and I both know that election season, when they’re begging for the votes of gun owners, is one of the best times to lobby candidates and politicians.

With Republican presidential primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina mere weeks away, it’s vital that gun owners know where the Republican candidates for President stand on important Second Amendment issues.

Newt’s record is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. With a horrible voting record on Second Amendment issues, gun owners just don’t know which side Newt’s on.

Please call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control.

For Freedom,

 

signature

Dudley Brown

Executive Director

 

P.S. Newt Gingrich’s anti-gun record is too important — and dangerous — to ignore. That’s why I felt compelled to inform you.

His support for numerous gun controls is in direct contradiction to his current campaign statements.

Call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control.

The National Association for Gun Rights is working day and night to keep gun owners like you up-to-date on the presidential candidates’ records — please consider contributing to the effort by chipping in $15 or $20.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml

Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml

http://www.freep.com/article/20111117/NEWS07/111170448/Newt-Gingrich-paid-least-1-5-million-consulting-Freddie-Mac-official-says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_print.html

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights’ mailing address is P.O 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is http://www.NationalGunRights.org/

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

NAGR

Double Edged Swords and unintended things …

November 18, 2011

Seems that the Concealed Carry reciprocity Bil HR 822 passed by a wide margin. Looks good on the face of things. At least if you support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, I submit that this is merely a pig that has been dressed up and had a liberal amount of lipstick applied. It’s still nothing but a pig…

Why so? Because it assumes that the federal Government can assign a right that is preexisting, an inalienable right. Just because Illinois and D.C. are stuck on stupid does not in any way mean that others must follow their lead toward totalitarianism. It would have been much better if the House would have passed a law that said that no State, City, etc. shall deny any right that is defined as inalienable, including the Second Amendment right to be capable of properly and effectively defend oneself, neighbors, State, and Nation. In passing this law, they justify wrongdoing by a government authority, as it were. That said, here is Gun Owners of America’s take on things.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Passes House

Newt Gingrich on Guns: A Mixed Record

November 10, 2011

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped like a lead sinker to a “D.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.1

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.2 Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”3 He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.4

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.5 (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”6

 

 


[1] Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

[2] See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

[5] H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

[6] S. 735, April 18, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

SOURCE

Will we be left with yet again holding our noses as we cast our votes..? Herman Cain‘s 999 plan will in fact raise taxes on virtually all Americans. That’s a really big no no for me. Romney is yet another RINO that would make the epic failure obama a shoe in if he were to run with Romney as his V. P. pick. Cain is also a suspect when it comes to being a closet gun grabber. Rick Perry has no real plan to deal with the invasion across our southern border, a deal breaker for me. Bachman needs to grow up politically. Ron Paul… is Ron Paul, what else can I say? Too be blunt, I have no use for Santorum, or any of the others, and in fact believe that they would be dangerous if placed into high office.

Still, I have to be considered a charter member of ABO, the anyone but obama group. Beyond that, the epic failure just might get reelected. To that end it is of utmost importance that we Conservatives and Libertarians see to it that both the Senate and House are solidly out of the hands of the Communist/Democrat/Progressive’s that are hell bent on destroying these United States. Election 2012 will, I believe, mark a turning point in American politics for years to come. Gary Nolan, a founder of the Libertarian Party, marked this election that way years ago while speaking at the Colorado convention. Something to do with election / political cycles.

Granted, no candidate is ever “perfect.” But compromising is simply not on the table when your core values are on the line. I say that along the lines of Barry Goldwater and it is a very good policy to follow. That takes a sort of moral courage that is, in reality, possessed by few people…

 

Gads…

October 18, 2011

This only cost the people of America and Mexico how many lives..?

Note: The amendment’s sponsor, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the vote “just the first step towards ensuring that such a foolish operation can never be repeated by our own law enforcement.”

Senate Votes to End ‘Fast and Furious‘ Gun Program

By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-bc-us–senate-fastandfurious,0,1479153.story

The Senate voted Tuesday to effectively block the Justice Department from undertaking gun-smuggling probes like the flawed “Operation Fast and Furious” aimed at breaking up networks running guns to Mexican drug cartels but that lost track of hundreds of the weapons, some of which were used to commit crimes in Mexico and the United States.

The 99-0 vote would block the government from transferring guns to drug cartels unless federal agents “continuously monitor or control” the weapons. The amendment’s sponsor, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the vote “just the first step towards ensuring that such a foolish operation can never be repeated by our own law enforcement.”

The Justice Department has already stopped the program.

The vote came as the Senate debated a $128 billion spending measure that would fund Justice Department operations and those of several other Cabinet agencies for the 2012 budget year already under way.

Operation Fast and Furious was a gun-smuggling investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives aimed at tracking small-time illicit gun buyers up the chain to major traffickers in an effort to take down arms networks. In the process, ATF agents lost track of many of the weapons.

Fast and Furious came to light after two assault rifles purchased by a now-indicted small-time buyer under scrutiny in the operation turned up at a shootout in Arizona where Customs and Border Protection agent Brian Terry was killed.

The operation has caused something of a firestorm in Washington and is the focus of an investigation by House Republicans, who have questioned whether Attorney General Eric Holder has been candid about all he knows about the botched operation.

Holder already has called a halt to the practice of allowing guns to “walk” in an effort to track them to arms traffickers, saying in a recent letter to lawmakers that “those tactics should never again be adopted in any investigation.”

The operation was designed to respond to criticism that the agency had focused on small-time gun arrests while major traffickers had eluded prosecution.

As recently as 11 months ago, the Justice Department’s inspector general criticized ATF for focusing “largely on inspections of gun dealers and investigations of straw purchasers, rather than on higher-level traffickers, smugglers and the ultimate recipients of the trafficked guns.”

The IG said some ATF managers discourage agents from conducting complex conspiracy investigations that target high-level traffickers.

SOURCE

This is far from over folks. Necks need to be stretched over this fiasco. Talk about political correctness on steroids..?

Rep. Rehberg’s Legislation Protects Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights

October 17, 2011

The House this week adopted legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of veterans.

Sponsored by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), the legislation requires that before a veteran can lose his or her gun rights, they must receive due process in a court of law.  Rehberg offered the measure as an amendment to H.R. 2349, which passed the House on a voice vote.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) told GOA he plans to introduce a Senate version of the bill right away.  GOA is working to get as many cosponsors to this legislation as possible.  In the last Congress, Sen. Burr’s bill passed out of committee only to be derailed by Harry Reid and anti-gun Senate Democrats.

Veterans Disarmament Act

It might seem like a no-brainer.  In America, no one—be they in the military or a civilian—should be stripped of their constitutional liberties without having their day in court, right?  But it can happen, and it does happen.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can deem a veteran as a “mental defective” for the sole reason of having a third party appointed over their financial affairs.  Veterans with mental health issues such as temporary memory loss or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) commonly turn over control of their finances to a spouse or family member.

Because persons found to be “mental defectives” are prohibited from owning firearms, the names of these veterans are turned over to the FBI’s NICS system.

No crime needs to have been committed.  No finding that the person is even remotely dangerous.  No trial by a jury of one’s peers.  A veteran can be stripped of his or her gun rights simply by the capricious action of government bureaucrats.

Ok, some may protest, but this must happen rarely.  It must be an aberration, a mistake.  Wrong.

Since 1999, over 150,000 honorably discharged veterans have lost their gun rights in precisely this manner. And though it’s theoretically possible to get off the list, that rarely—if ever—happens.

Gun owners who are not veterans can also be affected by the current law because the definition of “mental defective” used by the VA applies to anyone.  It affects veterams particularly hard because of the ease of information sharing between one federal agency (VA) and another (FBI).

But under ObamaCare, medical records for all Americans will be made increasingly available to Washington bureaucrats.  What safeguards are in place to ensure that those records will not likewise be abused?  None.

That’s why it is vitally important that all gun owners contact their two Senators and insist that they support Sen. Burr’s Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act.

This bill ensures that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights without a finding in a court of law that the person is a danger to self or others.

This would mean no more “psychiatric gun bans” for vets, and it will serve notice to the federal government that the same thing will not be allowed to happen to the rest of the population.

GOA is working to get as many cosponsors as possible.  Due process under the law is something even anti-gunners should support (they won’t, of course), and we are pushing to get a veto-proof majority behind this legislation.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators and urge them to cosponsor the Second Amendment Veterans Protection Act.

Click Here to Send Your Senators a prewritten email message

SOURCE

Violence Policy Center’s “research?” Stuck on Stupid!

October 14, 2011

Violence Policy Center Continues to Misfire on Concealed Carry Holders

This year, Wisconsin became the 49th state to recognize the right of its citizens to carry firearms.1  Now, only one state remains in the Dark Ages — that being the state of Illinois.

But as can be imagined, the anti-gun media is predicting that letting citizens carry firearms will result in carnage in the streets, shootouts in bars, and angry parents settling scores on the ball field with their firearms.

And to supposedly prove their point, they cite a bogus report of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), entitled “Concealed Carry Killers.”  The faux report says that “since May 2007 at least 300 people — including 11 law enforcement officers — have been killed by private citizens legally allowed to carry handguns in killings not ruled self-defense ….”2

An article at PajamasMedia.com has done a good analysis of the VPC “report,” showing that the anti-gun group:

  • Double counts victims to inflate their statistics;
  • Counts people who are still alive today, as though they had been murdered by concealed carry permit holders;
  • Includes deaths that were caused by rifles, beatings or strangulation — in other words, tabulating deaths that were clearly NOT caused by concealed handguns; and
  • In some cases, even counts “murderers” who were later cleared in court as having acted in self-defense.3

According to the Pajamas Media analysis, less than half of the deaths which were attributed to concealed carry holders by the VPC were actually “committed by a permit holder drawing and firing his or her concealed weapon.”4

Less than half?

Yes, less than half of the killings were actually committed by a handgun that was in the possession of a concealed carry permit holder.  That was the analysis as of December 21, 2009.  Sadly, VPC’s reporting has not gotten any better in the following two years.

VPC still embellishing its figures to demonize gun owners

With the Wisconsin law set to go into effect on November 1, 2011, VPC is excoriating the Badger State for ignoring the “bloody record of police deaths, mass shootings, and attempted political assassination” which have supposedly been perpetrated by concealed carry holders.

There are some in the media who are peddling this hype and using VPC’s bogus statistics to scare the public.5  But what goes unnoticed by a gullible media is that VPC is still inflating the number of “concealed killers,” even while they ignore the fact that the average citizen — yes, even the average cop — is much more likely to commit a crime with a gun than is a gun owner with a concealed carry permit.  (More on this below.)

As for inflating the statistics, the VPC:

  • Counts non-permit holders who, in some cases, were even prohibited by law from carrying a firearm;
  • Uses non gun deaths to inflate “concealed carry” killings; and
  • Adds accidental killings to its totals — even including a case where an errant shot was fired at a robber.

Okay, let’s take these up one-by-one.

Non-permit holders prohibited by law from carrying a firearm.  Over the past couple of years, the VPC has counted several non-permit holders in their “concealed carry killers” tally.  But a notable case that is still currently on their website is Jared Loughner, who shot Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords — injuring her and killing six people.

The VPC claims that because of Arizona’s new law which allows law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns without a permit, “Loughner was able to legally carry his pistol to the Giffords event in his assassination attempt.”

But what VPC misses is that this right applies ONLY to law-abiding citizens.  Arizona law clearly states that,

A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:  (1) Carrying a deadly weapon … concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation in the furtherance of a serious offense … [or] (8) Using or possessing a deadly weapon during the commission of any felony offense.”6 (Emphasis Added.)

Thus, Arizona’s law specifically PROHIBITS and DISALLOWS the concealed carry of a handgun with the intent to commit a crime!  Jared Loughner was most certainly NOT able to legally carry his pistol to commit the crimes he perpetrated in January, 2011, as the VPC claims.

But this sloppy “scholarship” (if you can call it that) is just the tip of the iceberg.  Take this next category.

Non gun deaths used to inflate “concealed carry” killings.  VPC has the audacity to inflate its statistics by using murders that were not committed by handguns — and, in some cases, were not even committed by any type of firearm at all.

A classic case is that of Tony Villegas, a Florida man who strangled a woman in her own garage. Did you get that?  She was strangled by Villegas’ hands (presumably) and not his gun.

Commenting on this twisted logic by the VPC, Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman asks, “How can strangulation be blamed on a concealed weapon permit?  If a fisherman kills someone, do we ban fishing rods?”7

Using non gun deaths is not the only way that VPC inflates its statistics.  Consider how the organization slips non permit holders into its “concealed carry killers” totals.

Accidental killings — by non-permit holders.  Accidental shootings have been the long-time shibboleth of anti-gun legislators and media.  They like to demonize all gun owners because of the tragic accidents that occur with firearms.

But if we’re going to follow VPC’s logic, then we should also ban those items which accidentally kill far more people than guns do — things like cars, doctors, trans fats (which lead to heart disease), etc.  It’s strange that the anti-gunners never seem to much care about these other deadly killers, or about the fact that food and water kill more children than guns do.8

Nevertheless, anti-gunners focus on the gun — and the gun only.  To wit, VPC on several occasions lists examples where children have accidentally fired a gun, killing themselves or others.  While these cases are very tragic, one has to ask:  Why are these unintentional shootings being added to the list of “concealed carry killers”?

Well, the answer is probably obvious.  The VPC is desperately trying to inflate its statistics.  And that is why they have included examples where children grabbed a parent’s gun and unintentionally inflicted harm.

Again, these cases are very tragic, but let’s be clear.  One can peruse the newspapers and find examples where the children of POLICE OFFICERS have experienced the same type of tragedy.  So, to follow VPC’s logic, should police officers be disarmed?

Accidental killings — including errant shots fired at criminals.  Now, as mentioned above, some of the accidental killings listed in the VPC report don’t even directly involve the concealed carry holder.  But setting that aside, VPC includes the case of Edward Bell, who accidentally shot an innocent bystander while he was being robbed.

Mr. Bell is a 65-year old man who lives in a very dangerous area of Detroit.  He was working in his yard one day when a gunman held him up and stole his Chevrolet Suburban sport utility vehicle.9

Bell’s mistake, while understandable, is that he fired at the crook after he drove off.  It has long been established in the Common Law that self-defense ends when the attack is over.  While that’s the law, it’s understandable that Mr. Bell — with his adrenaline pumping and being upset that his vehicle was just stolen at gunpoint — wanted to get it back.  Bell fired at the thief, and one of the bullets entered a home and killed Geraldine Jackson, who was cooking dinner at the time.

Certainly, this does not excuse Mr. Bell’s miscalculation.10  But for VPC to include this story as evidence that concealed carry holders are perpetrating crimes is simply disingenuous.  And it ignores the fact that this same problem happens with police officers, as well.

Just last month, police injured two innocent bystanders in San Francisco by firing at a suspect who was running away from them.11  Of course, this sounds similar to Mr. Bell’s case.  Which makes one wonder:  had the bystanders in the Bay area died, would the VPC have included these two police shootings in their “concealed carry killers” totals?

Permit holders more law-abiding than average population — even more so than cops!

The VPC wants to focus on the few bad apples in the concealed carry community and suggest that citizens can’t be trusted to carry firearms.  But using their own logic, they should be arguing for cop disarmament, because they break the law far more often.

As compared to concealed carry permit holders, the average American is almost 8 times more likely to be convicted of crimes and over 40 times more likely to be convicted of burglary — and police officers are almost 800 times more likely to violate the law.12

There are an estimated six million citizens who possess a concealed carry permit.13  The number of legal concealed carriers is probably higher, considering the growing number of states that recognize the right of their citizens to carry without a permit.

Press reports indicate that concealed carry is at an ALL TIME HIGH, even while crime rates have been dropping in the U.S. over the past few years.  Yet, we’ve been hearing the Chicken Little cries of doom and gloom as far back as the mid-1980s, when Florida kicked off the modern concealed carry movement with the enactment of its “shall issue” law.

Prior to its passage in 1987, there was a vigorous debate in the Florida legislature.  Opponents of the law claimed that a carry law would turn the Sunshine State into the “Gunshine State.”  It was a cute jingle, but their dire predictions never materialized.  Murder rates started dropping immediately after the passage of the law, prompting one of the chief opponents, Rep. Ron Silver, to admit that he had been wrong about concealed carry.

Such was the case in Texas, as well.  One of the chief opponents in the Lone Star State was Senior Cpl. Glenn White, who is president of the Dallas Police Association.  White lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because he thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict.

Senior Cpl. White admits, though, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen.  No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”

It takes guts to look at the evidence and admit you were mistaken.  Kudos to Rep. Silver and Senior Cpl. White for being “man enough” to admit they were wrong.

Who knows, maybe the VPC will own up and admit they were also wrong about all the fear and paranoia they’ve peddled in their faux report.  But then again, don’t hold your breath.

 


1 – While there are 49 states which allow for concealed carry in some shape or form, there are various levels of restrictions in those states.  Wisconsin’s carry law goes into effect on November 1.  At that point, 40 states will have relatively liberal policies regarding concealed carry.  Most of them are known as “shall issue” states, where the officials must issue permits to those who apply — as long as the law does not disqualify the applicants from possessing firearms in some way.  Of these states, four (Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and 98% of Montana) also provide an option for citizens to peacefully carry their firearms without getting a permit or permission from the government.  This is similar to the law in Vermont, which does not require or issue permits at all.  Nine states are “may issue” states which means just that — officials “may” issue a permit to applicants (but they don’t have to do so) — even if the applicant is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.  Only Illinois completely bans concealed carry. 

2 – The “Concealed Carry Killers” report can be found at:  http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

4 – Ibid.

5 – Steven Elbow, “Open or concealed? Gun owners in Wisconsin will soon be able to choose mode of carry,” The Capital Times, June 22, 2011, at:  http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/blog/article_8729ec02-9c46-11e0-91ec-001cc4c002e0.html

6 – Arizona Statutes, Section 13-3102 at:  http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03102.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

7 – Steve Chapman, “False fears about concealed guns — Illinois should give licensed citizens the right to carry around weapons,” Chicago Tribune (March 31, 2011) at:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-31/news/ct-oped-0331-chapman-20110331_1_concealed-carry-permit-holders-brady-campaign

8 – See the Gun Owners of America Fact Sheet at:  http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

9 – At the moment the robbery was occurring, Mr. Bell had no way to know that the thief was actually using a fake gun.

10 – In July 2010, Mr. Bell received one year of probation for the events that occurred on May 12, 2010.  See “Edward Bell to get probation deal in shooting death of grandmother,” The Michigan Standard (July 9, 2010) at:  http://www.michiganstandard.com/edward-bell-to-get-probation-deal-in-shooting-death-of-grandmother

11 – “Two bystanders wounded in S.F. police shooting,” San Francisco Chronicle (Sept. 17, 2011) at:  http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2011/09/17/bystanders-wounded-sf-police-shooting

12 – Crime statistics related to concealed carry permit holders are difficult to come by, as every state does not publish detailed figures relating to their permit holders.  Some (like Texas) do provide these statistics.  Interestingly, a study of concealed carry in Texas over a four year period (2002-2005), found that non concealed carry permit holders are 7.89 times more likely to be convicted of crimes than permit holders — and 40.58 times as likely to be convicted of burglary.  [See Tables 1 and 3 in Howard Nemerov, “Concealed Handguns: Danger or Asset to Texas?” at http://www.prattontexas.com/documents/Texas%20CHL%20Study.pdf.%5D  Moreover, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4.72% of all officers (state and local) were found to have committed police abuse in 2002.  [Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force [in 2002]” (published 2006) at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf.%5D  Comparing the BJS figures to the Texas data — showing that just over six-thousandths of one percent (.0062%) of permit holders were convicted of crimes in 2002 — one can make some interesting correlations.  While somewhat different, it is interesting to note that police reviewing authorities found that officers had committed crimes at 761 times the rate that the Texas study found for convictions of concealed carry holders for the same criminal acts.  [Compare BJS, “Citizen Complaints” to Nemerov, “Concealed Handguns.”]

13 – Mike Stuckey, “Record numbers licensed to pack heat — Millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns,” MSNBC.com (June 24, 2010) at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat

14 – Clayton E. Cramer and David B. Kopel, “‘Shall Issue:’ The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws” (1994), p. 14.

15 – Scott Parks, “Charges Against Texans with Gun Permits Rise; Law’s supporters, foes disagree on figures’ meaning,” Dallas Morning News (December 23, 1997).

SOURCE