Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

Flying J truck stops had better NOT check their customers sleepers!

October 27, 2010

Pilot / Flying J Travel centers will be in for a shock if they find out just what is on their property. Company policies are in place to deny fundamental rights to their employees, but? Their customers are different…

NASHVILLE – Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Haslam‘s support for requiring businesses to allow their workers to store guns in vehicles parked on company property conflicts with the policy in place for the 20,000 employees at a chain of truck stops his family owns.

But his position is in sync with the approach followed by the city of Knoxville, where he is mayor.

Pilot spokeswoman Cynthia Moxley told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Knoxville-based Pilot Flying J prohibits workers from storing firearms in their vehicles at both its travel centers and corporate offices.

Haslam said after a speech in Nashville on Tuesday that he was unaware of the policy.

“The leadership of that company made a decision on that,” he said. “I never had a role in even talking to them about it. I didn’t even know what the rule was.”

Haslam was president of Pilot until he was elected Knoxville mayor in 2003. The company was founded by his father Jim Haslam and is now run by his brother Jimmy Haslam. The candidate maintains an unspecified stake in the company.

Efforts to repeal a state law that lets companies decide whether to forbid employees from keeping guns in their cars while they work has pitted advocates like the National Rifle Association and Tennessee Firearms Association against business interests like the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Memphis-based Fedex Corp., whose lobbyists in committee hearings have argued that the gun ban is a workplace safety issue.

Haslam caused some confusion on the campaign trail Monday when he first said it should be up to employers to decide about gun policies on their property, but later clarified that business owners’ rights shouldn’t extend to firearms stored in locked cars.

On Tuesday, Randy Kenner, spokesman for Haslam, deferred the question of whether city workers are allowed to bring guns to work and store them in their cars to the Public Building Authority, the landlord of the City County Building.

Dale Smith, CEO of PBA, said there is not a policy on the issue for the city and county garages, including the City County Building.

“There has never been a policy against having a gun in your vehicle,” Smith. “It would be unenforceable.”

That means employees can store guns in their vehicles, he said.

At the same time, “Even people with carry permits are not allowed to bring firearms in the buildings,” Smith said.

Haslam’s gun positions have come under closer scrutiny since he told the Tennessee Firearms Association last week he would sign into law efforts to end a requirement for people to obtain state-issued permits in order to carry handguns in public.

The Republican said his personal preference is to maintain the current requirements for the state’s approximate 300,000 permit holders, but that he would defer to the will of the Legislature on the matter.

Haslam, who does not own a gun, said he also supports a new state law allowing handgun carry permit holders to be armed in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. The measure has been the subject of two overrides of gubernatorial vetoes in the last two years.

Democrat Mike McWherter has seized on Haslam’s positions on guns, calling it “irresponsible” because it will encourage sympathetic lawmakers to pass a bill to do away with handgun carry permits. He also argues for restoring a ban on handguns at late-night bars.

McWherter said it is the policy at his Jackson beer distributorship to allow workers to keep guns in their cars on company premises, but he wants to leave it up to each business to decide for itself.

“Bill Haslam is for letting anyone bring a gun to work unless they work for his oil company, in which case they can’t,” McWherter spokesman Shelby White said in an e-mail message. “He’s all over the map on a fundamental public safety issue.”

SOURCE

Behind the Scenes, Obama Continues Pushing UN Gun Control Treaty

October 26, 2010

The never ending attack on the United States of America by the epic fail obama administration continues unabated. Read on…

Voters can stop this global tyranny by electing an Obama-proof Congress
Friday, October 22, 2010

 

In late September, several dozen UN representatives met at the University of Massachusetts in Boston to further discuss their plans for global gun control.

While our President may have a history of being absent for important events — missing over 300 votes while in the U.S. Senate, dissing important dignitaries who visit our country, etc. — he was sure to have his administration represented at this meeting.

The final report for the Boston Symposium on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is posted online and states that:

“In the end, we seek to achieve an ATT that will establish the highest possible common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons, in order to contribute effectively towards peace and stability. This Symposium has brought us one step closer to achieving that goal.”

So, they are one step closer to their goal.  What are there goals for our firearms?

Apart from using generic phrases like “highest possible common international standards” (aka, gun controls), the gun banners are very careful not to publicly post specific anti-gun proposals that would excite the American public against them.  But Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen, who have attended these UN meetings, spell out what the proposed ATT will really entail.

Writing together with another noted firearms author of the Independence Institute, Dave Kopel, they say that an Arms Trade Treaty would impose:

* Microstamping on firearms, thus increasing the cost of each gun by about $200;

* Registration of all firearms, which is often a prelude to gun confiscation;

* Restrictions on gun sales, especially private transfers (thus, no more gun shows as we know them);

* Embargoes on firearms and materials (such as nickel and tungsten) that would limit access to many of the firearms which are sold in this country.

I’ll never submit to any stinkin’ gun control laws!

You might think:  “I don’t care what the UN imposes on us, I will never comply with their gun controls.”

Oh really?  So, you’ll never buy a new gun from a gun dealer?  Because if you do — and that gun has been manufactured according to UN treaty standards — then the microstamping technology on that gun will cost you a couple hundred dollars extra.

Not only that, the signature impressions that the firing pin leaves on your spent cartridge cases will be registered with the government under your name.

No problem, you say, you’re not a criminal — so who cares if the signature from your firing pin is registered with the government.

Well, do you ever take your guns to a shooting range and leave your spent brass?  According to Kopel, criminals could easily implicate innocent gun owners by going to gun ranges, collecting the empty casings and dumping them at crime scenes.  Moreover, the common practice of selling or giving away once-fired brass could disappear overnight.

Do you still think that a UN treaty won’t affect you?  The “master minds” at the UN plan to register every firearms sale that passes through a gun dealer and to cut off (make illegal) any private sale that you might attempt as a means of circumventing their controls.

But we can beat this travesty by electing an Obama-proof Senate this November!

Even if the President signs the Arms Trade Treaty — and he most certainly will when it’s completed — we can strangle this hideous creature in its cradle if he can’t get two-thirds of all the Senators to support him.

Help GOA stop UN gun control

That’s why GOA is here, fighting to make sure he can’t impose a UN gun ban on every American citizen.

GOA has published its 2010 Voter Guide which is available at the GOA website.

And the GOA Political Victory Fund has helped pushed several pro-gun candidates over the hump in their primaries and into the lead for the general election.  You can go to the GOA-PVF site to get more details on these races.

Finally, you can help Gun Owners of America continue to spread the word about pro-gun candidates by clicking here and contributing to the organization that is on the front lines defending your gun rights without compromising one inch.

This is crunch time.  We are less than two weeks away from one of the most important elections in our lifetimes.

Thank you so much for your support!

SOURCE

GOA In The Trenches

October 26, 2010
— Highlighting Records of Pro-gun Congressmen

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

 

GOA representatives are traveling coast-to-coast to discuss the differences between candidates running for office.

GOA’s Political Victory Fund has already issued scores of alerts, endorsements and contributions in important elections that will take place next week.  You can go to www.goapvf.org to see the highlights of these races.

GOA representatives are appearing at press conferences or rallies in several states.  While the following are just the tip of the iceberg, they represent the type of work that GOA is doing:

*
Arizona, Dist. 1 — Paul Gosar (A rated) vs. Ann Kirkpatrick (C rated)

*
Colorado, Dist. 3 — Scott Tipton (A rated) vs. John Salazar (D rated)

* Florida, Dist. 2 — Steve Southerland (A- rated) vs. Allen Boyd (D rated)

*
Georgia, Dist. 2 — Mike Keown (A- rated) vs. Sanford Bishop (C- rated)

*
Michigan, Dist. 7 — Tim Walberg (A rated) vs. Mark Schauer (D rated)

* Minnesota, Dist. 8 — Chip Cravaack (A rated) vs. Jim Oberstar (D rated)

* Missouri, Dist. 4 — Vicky Hartzler (A rated) vs. Ike Skelton (C rated)

* New Mexico, Dist. 1 — Jon Barela (A rated) vs. Martin Heinrich (D rated)
New Mexico, Dist. 2 — Steve Pearce (A rated) vs. Harry Teague (C rated)
New Mexico, Dist. 3 — Tom Mullins (A rated) vs. Ben Ray Lujan (F rated)

*
Pennsylvania, Dist. 11 — Lou Barletta (A rated) vs. Paul Kanjorski (D rated)
Pennsylvania, Dist. 12 — Tim Burns (A rated) vs. Mark Critz (NR)

* Virginia, Dist. 9 — Morgan Griffith (A rated) vs. Rick Boucher (C rated)

*
Washington, Dist. 2 — John Koster (A rated) vs. Rick Larsen (F rated)

Many of the above races involve Blue Dog Democrats who are trying to portray themselves as solid defenders of the Second Amendment, but their current grades seem to reveal they are nothing more than Pelosi puppets.

You can go to this link to see a bigger list of Blue Dogs who have been working to prop up Pelosi.

The GOA representatives who will be traveling this week include Vice-Chairman Tim Macy, Executive Director Larry Pratt, Director of Federal Affairs John Velleco, and Director of Communications Erich Pratt.

SOURCE

New England Journal of Medicine: Stuck on stupid, again…

October 25, 2010
Medical journals are not always the objective, purely scientific publications we might think that they are. Their editors have increasingly strayed into politics at the expense of scientific accuracy. For example, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has over the last few months published a number of extremely biased and poorly done studies on gun control.

Read About It: The National Review
SOURCE

Big Green verses CNBC

October 25, 2010

This week, CNBC aired an hour-long attack on the Remington 700 rifle, rehashing decades-old allegations about the popular rifle’s trigger system.  (Interestingly, the network’s “10-month investigation” aired just a few months after a press release went out from a Kansas City law firm that has sued Remington in the past, seeking plaintiffs for new cases against the gun maker.)  While CNBC and plaintiffs’ lawyers claim the rifle will fire without the trigger being pulled, Remington says that neither the company nor the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses have ever been able to cause such a discharge in a properly maintained, unaltered rifle.

The program also repeated the gun ban lobby’s longstanding complaint that the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn’t have the power to order recalls of firearms and ammunition.  Congress’s wisdom in refusing to give CPSC that power was proven in the 1990s, when CPSC staff told the Clinton White House the agency “would love to get into the gun regulation business” and anti-gun Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) introduced legislation to remove the restriction.

The NRA is second to no one in supporting and promoting firearm safety, and NRA publications have regularly published announcements of voluntary recalls by gun and ammunition manufacturers.   Yet since long before “Dateline NBC” used rocket motors to blow up pickup trucks in staged collisions, gun owners have rightly been skeptical of the mainstream media’s ability to report fairly and accurately on firearms issues.  These attacks on Remington are far from over, and NRA members who want to hear the company’s side of the story can visit Remington’s new website on the issue at www.remington700.tv.

SOURCE

New York: Imitating California, as in going full blown stupid..?

October 18, 2010

 

Andrew Cuomo and the Gunmaker Litigation

Posted by Walter Olson

There are many reasons to be glum about the impending coronation of dynastic heir Andrew Cuomo, now leading in the New York governor’s race against a GOP opponent (Carl Paladino) who at first polled decently but has since stumbled. Some fret about the Democrat’s reputation for political hardball: former governor Eliot Spitzer (Eliot Spitzer!) last month called Cuomo the “dirtiest, nastiest political player out there,” which is like being called overdressed by Lady Gaga. Others find Cuomo too much of a camera-chaser as attorney general in Albany, and almost everyone is queasy over his role (as Clinton-era housing secretary) in encouraging risk-taking by federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leading by direct steps to today’s ongoing mortgage crisis. (For background, see Wayne Barrett’s famous 2008 Village Voice article.)

I have a different reason for cringing at the idea that voters would ever elevate Andrew Cuomo to higher office, and it’s also based on memories of his tenure as housing secretary. Not the Fannie-Freddie-subprime end of it, although I concede that in a strictly economic sense those were the most damaging things he did. No, what I find permanently hard to forgive is the way Cuomo threw himself into the role of chief national cheerleader for the municipal anti-gun litigation of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Because that litigation mostly fizzled out, it is now only half remembered and doesn’t much feature in Cuomo profiles. At the time, though, it was a close-fought battle and a big story. More than 30 cities and counties sued firearms makers, alleging that courts should hold them financially responsible for the costs of urban shootings. The cry was to make guns the “next tobacco,” following the successful litigation campaign against tobacco companies that extracted hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of state coffers (and private lawyers).

Of course there are enormous differences between the tobacco and gun businesses. One is that while major tobacco makers had billion-dollar revenue streams to share as part of a settlement, most gunmakers are smallish enterprises, often family-owned. And this in fact was a conscious element of the strategy for the lawyers who promoted the suits: because gunmakers were too thinly capitalized to withstand the costs of years of legal defense, it was thought they’d fold their hands and yield to “gun control through litigation” (explicitly couched as an end run against a then-Republican Congress resistant to gun control proposals). Smith and Wesson actually did yield to a settlement on this rationale, which soon collapsed following a public outcry from gun owners and others outraged by the use of extortive litigation to achieve gun control objectives. The gamble having failed, the suits eventually reached judges and were generally thrown out, but not before imposing huge and uncompensated costs on many small companies that had violated no laws. Some were bankrupted.

Mindful of traditional tenets of legal ethics that forbid lawyers from using the cost of legal process as a bludgeon, most backers of the suits prudently refrained from any hint that imposing unsustainable legal costs was part of the plan. One exception was Cuomo, who warned gunmakers that unless they cooperated, they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts.” And another was then-New-York-AG Spitzer, who reportedly warned an executive of holdout Glock: “If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door.”

I think Spitzer and Cuomo deserve each other, really. What I can’t figure out is why the good citizens of New York would want either of them.

SOURCE

Second Amendment Foundation Defends an American Veteran!

October 17, 2010

Alright… I like the Second Amendment Foundation, what they do, and why they do what they do. What makes me sick though is the never ending begging for bucks that they engage in. Want to donate? Fine, I’ll plug in a link at the end.

Now, the meat of this is a theme often addressed here. That being life time bans of inalienable rights for less than felonious deeds. Indeed, since the treasonous and un-Constitutional Lautenberg Abomination that made ex post fact law the national norm? Things have only become worse, due to hot button political correctness. The Second Amendment Foundation is taking this head on. Playing follow the leader is not always a bad thing, as Gun Owners of America have been on top of this from day one. While the NRA, sat back, and collected dues…

SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over
Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial

Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

MILITARY VETERAN ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE DENIED RIGHT TO OWN A GUN

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their “territory,” according to the complaint.

FBI THREATENS TO CONFISCATE SCHRADER’S FIREARMS

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

FELONS GIVEN MORE RIGHTS THAN HONORABLE SERVICEMAN

“Schrader’s dilemma,” explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.

“No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way,” he added. “Mr. Schrader’s case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust government bureaucrats to enforce gun laws.”

Now, more than ever, we need your commitment to fight the war against unlawful gun enforcement. The lawyer’s bills are mounting. Fighting for freedom is not inexpensive. Help us raise the amount we need to stop the anti-gunners dead in their tracks.

Support from patriots like you will help us make sure what happened to Jefferson Wayne Schrader doesn’t happen to you.

YOU CANT PUT A PRICE ON THE VALUE OF YOUR LIFE

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Here is the obligatory link

Why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

October 12, 2010

Why The Gun In Civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat — it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

SOURCE

NRA Endorsements: Single issue organization fallacy

October 12, 2010

The National Rifle Association recently released it’s political endorsements for the upcoming elections. There is an excellent discussion about this HERE. Be sure to read through the comments as they are a bot more than enlightening. I had planned on an in depth posting on the subject, however Dave Kopel really beat me to it! 🙂

Now, speaking as a Life Member I have one thing to say about the NRA being a “single issue” organization. BOVINE FECES Mister Cox and Mister LaPierre. I seem to remember something about “It’s not about hunting ducks.” Yet, the NRA has an entire division devoted to hunting. Let’s not forget about the various marksmanship  and safety programs that are offered. Single issue? Hardly! Stop the hypocrisy, please!

Then we have the NRA rolling over time and time again; The NRA supported ex post facto law. The NRA has supported so-called “reasonable” restrictions on your Second Amendment rights on so many occasions that I won’t bother with citation.

Now, I happen to like many of the programs noted above, and believe that they are quite valuable resources. Just stop playing the game that, for all appearances, looks to simply be more pandering to high dollar donors. While at the same time going into damage control mode when the membership decides to take you to the wood shed over yet another action that is so clearly against their (the membership’s) wishes. And or dealing in appeasement politics.

Who will truly protect your rights on a national level? Gun Owners of America does. As does the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Association for Gun Rights. There are also regional and state organizations that refuse to kow tow to along the lines of the NRA. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and Wyoming Gun Owners come to mind, and there are others out there that I am not familiar with.

Sure, vote freedom first! Just make sure that is actually what you are doing, and support those organizations that truly defend your rights!

Blue Dogs, or Pelosi Lap Dogs?

October 7, 2010

Deceptive Blue Dogs Prop up Pelosi
Over fifty Democrats in Congress—so-called Blue Dogs—claim to be pro-gun, but can any member who votes to retain Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House really be considered a defender of the Second Amendment?

Most of the Blue Dog members voted with Pelosi as she crammed the anti-gun ObamaCare bill down the throats of the American people. Most voted against protecting gun rights in national parks. And, not surprisingly given their anti-gun voting records, they stood with Pelosi to silence groups like GOA by supporting the so-called DISCLOSE Act.

So, are they Blue Dogs, or Pelosi Lap Dogs? Read more HERE.

SOURCE

Now, contrast what is revealed in the linked story with this from the National Rifle Association;

So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority. The endorsements aren’t the result of a sudden love for a party with which the NRA is often at odds. Rather, the powerful group adheres to what it calls “an incumbent friendly” policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod.

Read About It: The Washington Post