Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

Get the evil bastards!

August 31, 2009

Get general Motors for supplying the vehicles that are used by drunk drivers to kill and maim all across the land! While you are at it, get Ford Motor Company as well!

Alright, I twisted a few things. So be it. Beat me with a wet noodle so I can sue a pasta manufacturer into oblivion… When I first read about this I was reminded of a televised debate between Ari Armstrong and the hopeless hopolophobe and criminal Tom Mauser on PBS one evening. The essence is about being able to put the blame on one party, due to the sole actions of another person. I find that immoral to the extreme…

Tracking new cases: Suing gun makers

Sunday, August 30th, 2009 7:39 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post
Email thisShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInDigg This!

NOTE: From time to time, the blog will examine significant new cases as they are filed at the Supreme Court.  This post is one in that series.  Some of these cases very likely will appear later in the blog’s Petitions to Watch feature when the Court is ready to consider them.

———————————–

Seeking to revive a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer over a teenager’s accidental but fatal shooting of a friend, lawyers for the Illinois parents of the dead boy have asked the Supreme Court to strike down a four-year-old federal law that shields the industry from many — but not all — lawsuits.  The petition in Adames, et al. v. Beretta USA Corp., filed last Monday and docketed as 09-253, can be downloaded here.  That file includes the appendix.  For a link only to the Illinois Supreme Court decison rejecting the constitutional challenge, click here.

The 2005 law – titled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — was controversial when passed, and has been attacked repeatedly since then in court.  The challengers have argued variously that Congress either had no power to wipe out already-filed lawsuits against gun makers, or that it went too far in doing so. So far, the Supreme Court has not been willing to get into the controversy, and the first issue facing the new lawsuit is whether it is sufficiently different that it can not only draw the Justices’ interest, but also overcome likely resistance from the federal government.

Last March 19, the Court denied review in two cases challenging the Act — New York City, et al. v. Beretta (08-530) and Lawson, et al. v. Beretta (08-545).  The federal government joined in both of those cases to defend the law, and successfully urged the Court not to hear either one, arguing that neither one raised clearly the issues it sought to put forward.  In the new case, the Justice Department was not involved as it went through Illinois courts, but because a federal law could be at stake, it could do so in the Court.

The narrower issue in the Illinois case is whether the specific lawsuit by the dead boy’s parents fits within an exception in the 2005 law that permits some cases to go ahead.  The broader issue is whether Congress has intruded too deeply into the way states craft their own laws, barring those that test issues arising under state common law, allowing at least some that test a state statute.  The petition quotes at length from congressional floor debates, with lawmakers blasting juries and judges for fashioning “novel” ways to attack the gun industry while showing respect for laws that emerge from state legislatures.

The tragedy that led to the Adames lawsuit in Illinois occurred eight years ago, when 13-year-old Billy Swan aimed and fired a Beretta pistol at a friend who had come over to play, Joshua Adames, who also was 13. The gun belonged to Billy’s dad, a Cook County sheriff’s deputy. Billy had taken out the gun’s clip before aiming it, believing that would make it harmless. A bullet that had remained in the gun’s chamber killed Joshua.

Billy’s parents sued Beretta, among others, contending that the gun manufacturer failed to warn users of this kind of pistol that removal of the magazine did not make it safe.  Without a cheap device to prevent just such accidents, and without a specific warning about the hazard, the pistol was too dangerous, the lawsuit contended. (There were other claims, but that one is the center of the case now.)

While a lower state court allowed that claim to proceed, the Illinois Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit altogether.  It ruled that, because Billy had intentionally aimed the gun and pulled the trigger, the incident did not come within the exception Congress had made to the lawsuit ban.  But it also went further, and found that the law did not run afoul of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, and its protection of state laws, because it did not “commandeer” state officials or processes to carry out some federal order or duty.

Taken to the Supreme Court by some of the same lawyers who pursued one of the earlier challenges, the Adames petition puts its primary stress on the Tenth Amendment issue. That Amendment, leaving states free to create their own laws when the powers have not been assigned to Congress, bars Congress from dictating to states “which branch of state government may authorize  liability against a particular industry so long as the federal enactment does not ‘commandeer’ state officials,” the petition argues.

The Illinois court, like the Second Circuit Court (in one of last Term’s cases), deferred to Congress “when it determined which branch of state government it would recognize as the authoritative expositor of state law, as well as limiting the scope of the Tenth Amendment to its anti-commandeering principle,” the filing contends.  That “cannot be reconciled with our system of federalism,” it says.

On what kinds of lawsuits are affected by the 2005 law, the petition argues that the reach of that law “is an issue of pressing national importance that courts nationwide are continually struggling with and which requires this Court’s definitive construction.”

The Beretta company’s response to the appeal is now due by Sept. 28, unless the time to file is extended.

SOURCE

Violence Policy Center: We told you this was coming

August 29, 2009

I’ve warned here and at other blogs that Gun Control would again become framed as a health issue. Well, it is beginning to appear that I have as much “swami” in me as TexasFred does!

Second Amendment: Beware Permit Holders

Concealed handgun permit holders are the target of a recent report issued by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun advocacy organization that says, “Gun violence is more than a crime issue; it is a broad-based public health crisis of which crime is merely the most recognized aspect.” The report, entitled “Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders,” is quite possibly the shoddiest piece of investigative research available — an obvious effort to manipulate a particular set of circumstances to support the Center’s efforts to undermine Second Amendment rights. The report relies on news stories rather than hard data to support its claims that between May 2007 and April 2009, permit holders were responsible for the deaths of 51 people.

As Bob Owens of Pajamas Media notes in his analysis, “Of the 31 incidents cited by the Violence Policy Center in its report, eight did not involve the use of concealed weapons. One used no weapon at all, four used rifles, one was a negligent discharge, and three were incidents of domestic violence where non-concealed handguns were used.” Owens concludes, “All told, 30 of the 57 people that the Violence Policy Center suggested were killed as a result of concealed carry should not have been included in any study citing concealed carry of handguns as a significant contributing factor.”

The VPC is funded to the tune of $700,000 per year by The Joyce Foundation, where Barack Obama served as director from 1994-2002. In 1999, Joyce began a significant attack on 2nd Amendment rights, a move that ultimately had bearing in the Heller Supreme Court appeal. While Obama maintains that he supports individual Second Amendment rights, the actions of the Joyce Foundation that he directed, and the latest attempt by the VPC to tag concealed carry permit holders as the villains, should serve as a reminder that the Left will never stop trying to subvert our fundamental constitutional rights.

SOURCE

NRA/ILA: The Bloomberg follies continue!

August 29, 2009

I’m a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, and while I do support what follows in the you tube presentation? I’ll take this a bit farther. Call your mayor, and ask why they support ex post facto law. Call your N.R.A. delegate, and ask them why they support ex post facto law. Ask all of them why they support the taking of unalienable rights for life for less than felonious acts, or sever mental disability. If they are not pounding the ears of Senators and Congress-persons about this issue then they are supporting it in a de facto manner.

Ask those same people why American citizens have to pay a tax in order to possess or purchase effective weaponry when dealing with gangs and other assorted types of bad people. Slingshots are a poor choice when facing full auto weapons.

Join, and support Gun Owners of America. They don’t trade away your rights for political expediency!

SB-2009 hoax still out there…

August 27, 2009

“SB-2099” a hoax
IRS 1040 does not require you to list guns

Daily, we’ve being deluged by well-meaning gun owners who are scared that a bill called “SB-2099” has passed Congress secretly, and that you must now list your firearms on your IRS 1040 forms.  If you fell prey to this e-mail hoax, you need to join a real gun rights group you trust.There are a great number of indicators in this e-mail that prove the sender is not to be trusted.

“This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law.” Baloney. I don’t trust the scumbuckets in Washington, D.C. either.

But a bill can’t become law without “public knowledge” or without a vote. If this were possible, is there any doubt the liberals would use it to immediately enact their gun control fantasies? The only thing stopping them is…well, frankly, you.

Another thing that tells you this isn’t accurate is that the US Senate doesn’t list them as “SB 2099” or “SB-2099”. It would be “S. 2099”.

The third glaring indication that it isn’t real is that when you do a search of “S. 2099” or even “2099” from the US Senate website, it returns nothing.

I’m a former US Senate employee (Sen. Bill Armstrong’s staff), and still have a lot of contacts on the Hill. So I’ve got a good handle on federal legislation — we track federal legislation here:

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/billwatch.shtmlThe one thing they did get right is that 2099 was, at one time, a bill in the U.S. Senate… in 2000. And yes, it was a gun control disaster.

It didn’t get anywhere, but 9 years later it’s not still alive.

However, this illustrates why we exist: There’s a lot of misinformation out there — especially on the internet — and gun owners need someone they trust take the time to decipher it. They want to know what’s happening without being scammed, so they become members of groups they trust.

If you are sent this e-mail, forward our above reply, with a note from you to the sender and all the recipients:

“I asked a gun lobbyist I trust about the legislation you referenced, “SB-2099”. And, as you can see from this 15-year veteran of the wars to save our freedoms, the referenced legislation isn’t as advertised.

There are plenty of real threats to our right to keep and bear arms.

Let’s put our energy into fighting them, not ghosts.

That’s why I’m a member of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners: I trust them to know what’s happening and alert me when my help is needed.

If you live in Colorado, you need to be a member. There is no other group in Colorado who truly defends our rights without compromise.

Click here to join RMGO

Click here if you’d like to receive more information in the mail
http://www.rmgo.org/mailinglist.php

Click here to read more about RMGO
http://www.rmgo.org/about.shtml

This is getting old to say the least. I am beginning to believe that these email hoax’s are the work of anti freedom and liberty types in an attempt to keep people riled up…

Stopping Urban violence Chicago style

August 27, 2009

Chicago has latched onto the method of choice for controlling urban violence. It’s just so simple that it cannot be ignored in fact! How can we all learn this simple lesson? With the stroke of a pen you can get rid of all the violence that plagues America. Who would have thought it would be so simple? Let’s all just follow the Chicago example, and all of our cities across the nation will be just like Chicago!

Shootings rampant despite gun ban
Proponents, critics argue over effectiveness of weapons ban

By TIM TALIAFERRO
Medill News Service

You cannot legally buy a handgun in Chicago, yet the city is the nation’s most murderous city.

You can own one, but only if you’ve owned it since before 1982, and it’s registered every year with the Chicago Police Department. Gun-control advocates and gun-rights advocates don’t – or can’t – agree on how a city with a handgun ban can lead the nation in murders. To proponents of owning guns, it means the ban doesn’t work.

“Laws are only for law-abiding citizens anyway,” said John Riggio, owner of Chuck’s Gun Shop and Pistol Range in Riverdale. “Criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law.”

But to proponents of regulating guns, it means the ban isn’t big enough.

“Gun control opponents like to look at Chicago and say, ‘They have a handgun ban and look at all their murders,’ but I think, frankly, that’s ignorant,” said Thomas Mennard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “They’re not taking into account that you can get handguns just outside of Chicago.”

Indiana Avenue cuts straight south from the Calumet Water Reclamation Plant into Riverdale, past a row of boarded-up and abandoned buildings. At 143rd Street, on the right, sits Chuck’s Gun Shop, one of the closest places to legally buy a handgun outside Chicago’s city limits.

A trip to Chuck’s on a recent weekday morning saw nearly 30 patrons walking through the door in the span of an hour. They were there for guns. Trade-in, apply for, shop or rent – it’s all available at Chuck’s. In 2006 Chuck’s won the Dealer Recruiter of the Year Award from the National Rifle Association for getting the most patrons to join the association.

Employees wear handguns in hip holsters, and before they’ll let customers see or touch anything, they ask to see their Firearm Owner’s Identification card. According to Illinois law, anyone who owns or wants to own a firearm must apply for a “gun card,” as the FOID is commonly known. Once approved, there’s a 72-hour waiting period from the time you buy a handgun to the time you can pick it up.

You can buy as many guns as you want at once, but at Chuck’s you can only take possession of one every 31 days – a Riverdale law. Most of the customers are blue collar, Riggio said, and most of his business is in handgun sales. But he doubts there is any relationship between guns and gun violence.

“I would think there’s no relationship at all,” Riggio said. “Ever seen a gun shoot by itself? I haven’t.”

Riggio declined to provide shop sales figures and demurred when asked whether the Chicago handgun ban has any effect on his business.

“I don’t know if it has an effect one way or another,” Riggio said. “I just follow the law.”

Chicago passed its handgun ban on April 9, 1982. In the wake of a 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, its legality is being challenged. After the Supreme Court decided that a federal district could not prohibit handguns, the NRA and the Illinois State Rifle Association challenged the Chicago ban. A circuit court judge dismissed the suit but it is currently on appeal before the 7th Circuit.

Jennifer Hoyle, director of public affairs for the city’s law department, stressed that until the courts say otherwise, the city’s handgun ban will remain in effect.

“There have been no changes and it is still being enforced,” she said.

Currently, several hand-gun bills are under consideration in the state legislature. One, for instance, mandates background checks in private gun sales, which currently don’t require them. Another prohibits sales of multiple handguns to one person within a 30-day period. A third bans assault weapons altogether.

The Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which lists gun violence as one of its six priority issues, chooses not to take sides in the debate over gun control.

“What we are in favor of,” spokesman Charlie Boesel said, “is a reduction in gun violence.”

The foundation offers grant money to groups looking to study the problem or with ideas on how to address it.

“We are very concerned about gun violence in Chicago,” Nina Vinik, the Joyce Foundation gun violence senior program officer, said. “We’re based here so it’s a hometown issue for us.”

Analyzing the gun issue

According to a study released in the spring by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and funded by the Joyce Foundation, gun violence costs Chicago taxpayers $2.5 billion a year, the equivalent of $2,500 per household. That’s aside from the emotional costs that victims and their families must bear.

The study also found that, too often, programs addressing gun violence lack the kind measured analysis needed by policymakers and expected by the medical community.

“One of the frustrating things is that the criminal justice system has for many, many years been trying programs to address gun violence, but when you go ask them what works and for whom, there’s very little data,” said Harold Pollack, co-director of the Crime Lab and a public health researcher who worked on the study.

There’s no shortage of people working on the problem, and the Crime Lab offers anyone with an idea the chance to get it rigorously tested. Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor at Saint Sabina’s Catholic Church in Chicago’s Auburn Gresham neighborhood, organizes gun drives and runs the Do You Care? intervention program to teach young people ways to resolve conflicts nonviolently.

He sees the problem as largely a cultural one.

“Kids are armed with guns because it has become part of the wardrobe in America,” Pfleger said. “I’ve never been at a high school in the last year and asked if they needed to get a gun, [or] whether they knew where to get one and not had at least 75 percent of the student body raise their hand.”

Pfleger maintained that the challenge is to create an atmosphere in cities that doesn’t tolerate gun shootings.

“You shoot one of our children, we’re going to put a bounty on your head,” he said.

Law enforcement has its own ways of approaching gun violence. Last weekend, the city hosted its annual summer gun turn-in program. Former Chicago police officer and Cook County state’s attorney John Armellino also suggested that crime is linked with financial destitution.

“Crime is really a function of economics. It is a function of poverty,” he said. “Turf wars are fights over money. Whoever’s got the more lucrative corner to sell drugs is going to protect it.”

The majority of guns used in crimes in Chicago come from Illinois, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Both the mayor’s office of criminal justice and the Chicago Police Department mentioned community policing as among the most important methods of combating gun violence. Sgt. John Delgado, a team leader of the Chicago Police Department’s Community Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), agreed.

“In my experience, the most organized communities have the best ability to change things,” he said. “My job is to make criminals uncomfortable. If the neighborhood is well-lit and clean, and if people look out for each other and take pride in their property, the likelihood of criminals getting a foothold is greatly diminished.

But, Delgado warned: “If the neighborhood doesn’t care, nothing’s going to change.”

SOURCE

note: yes, the lead in was sarcasm.

Incorporation: Beast or Blessing?

August 25, 2009

Incorporation used in this context will apply to legal terminology.

First, I suppose that I will need to go pee in the various swelled headed Lawyers morning bowl of oatmeal. I believe that you simply do not have to be a Lawyer in order to understand the difference between what is right and wrong. Moral, or immoral. Lawyers write really neat briefs and such. However, as I pointed out to a Jury once. They are disconnected all to often with reality.

Now, on to the point that I intend to make. The Supreme Court, and in all the downstream Courts there is a hierarchy. The Supreme Court of the United States is above, or has authority over the Courts of Appeals, which have authority over United State District Courts, which can over rule State Courts, and so on down the line. My terminology may be a bit off here, but, after all I’m not in the business of Law. I am a retired Paramedic, and the son of a dead Marine. So, if any corrections are needed as to the chain of command I will accept them.

The point here is that within the legal community there are big dogs, and then there are bigger dogs, and so on. I was taught that Law operates in the same manner. As in, there is the highest Law in the land the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. All this is pretty logical so far. There is indeed a clear cut chain of command. Not to tough for a kid that attended High Schools in Southern California to understand. Or anywhere else as far as that goes.

However, it seems that some people just can’t figure out that simple principle. Those people are called Lawyers, or at least that is how it appears. No, not all Lawyers. Some actually can think like normal people do. Others though, simply can’t understand normal thinking as an old Scot saying goes…

So now, as a result of illogical and quite possibly immoral action we the American people are about to be Lorded over yet again by a bunch of blithering nincompoops that probably should be tarred and feathered! Oh, I forgot, that they had that made “illegal” so that they can’t be held accountable…

Read on folks, and warm up some tar as you send you children off to the barn for Great grandma’s old feather bed.

A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that’s a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms” restricts only the federal government — the current state of affairs — or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.

A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.

Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as “incorporation.” If the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.

The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County’s fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but “a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”

The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.

A few other items:

California Update: I wrote an article three months ago about a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation saying routine denials of concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Oral arguments on a preliminary motion in that case are scheduled for the same day — September 24 — at 2 p.m. in Sacramento.

In a brief filed on Monday, Sacramento (one of the counties sued) says it wants more time to question the gun owners who filed the case to verify that they’re in a position to sue. “Defendants seek to depose the individual plaintiffs on these issues to determine the basis of their alleged ‘undisputed facts,’ what process each plaintiff has engaged in to the end of obtaining a carry concealed permit in Sacramento County,” it says.

Some Guns Are More Equal Than Others: Nobody has been hurt by the protesters who have legally carried guns to events where the president has been speaking, and I know of no evidence that they were even close enough to see the man.

Nevertheless, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s non-voting Democratic rep in the U.S. House of Representatives, wants mandatory “gun-free zones around the president, his cabinet and other top federal officials,” according to a report by the local Fox affiliate. Similarly, the Brady Campaign told CBS News that guns have no place at such an event.

It’s Official: Congratulations to the Calguns Foundation for being awarded non-profit status by the IRS. Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, told me on Monday evening that the group is now officially a 501(c)(3) non-profit; previously, the non-profit status had been pending.

Montana Update: You may remember that a Montana state law seeks to challenge the federal government on the manufacture and sale of guns made entirely within the state. It takes effect on October 1. As soon that happens, according to Montana Shooting Sports Association president Gary Marbut, gun-rights types will have a lawsuit ready to file to prevent federal prosecution of local would-be gunsmiths.

“We have some strong arguments to make, including some that have never been argued before about the (U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment, as far as I know,” Marbut told me on Monday.

Paging The Ninth Circuit: I just noticed yet another case in which a judge has declined to extend the Second Amendment to state or local laws. The case is called Slough v. Telb and arose out of a gun seizure in Ohio.

U.S. District Judge David Katz ruled on August 14: “The United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states by incorporation into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts in other circuits have held that Second Amendment rights are not enforceable against the states under (civil rights laws). As the weight of authority holds that the individual right to bear arms may not be enforceable against the states, the constitutional right to do so is anything but clearly established.”


Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Erin Go Bragh? Probably not…

August 25, 2009

Ireland Forever, or Erin Go Bragh in the bastardized version. My people first came to America more than two centuries ago. As indentured servants of Anglo masters, and a later wave that sought escape from the British tyranny, and overt starvation if the legends are true. My people were, as a Sioux friend calls us, the first wave of “Boat People.” Nevertheless, they were fiercely loyal to the new homeland. Despite overt prejudice based upon racism and religious intolerance they always called themselves Americans.

Hyphens were not allowed at all. While at the same time never forgetting their heritage. Be that from pride, or as a tool so that what they had gone through in the past never be forgotten by the generations to come. Seems that the good folks still inhabiting the emerald isle learned nothing from all the trials and tribulations though. At least they are following in lock step with the failed British social experiment that destroys the Rights of Englishmen everywhere it has been tried. Indeed, as Americans acknowledge, our very Constitution is based in large part upon the Magna Carta. The foundation of modern liberty.

Now, at a time when all of Europe is under assault by terrorist’s in the guise of Islam Ireland’s government seeks the  death and destruction of it’s very people via a weapon control scheme. The same old tired arguments of tyrants are being used as cover for this act against their own blood.

Perhaps the Irish Republican Army was right in fighting the powers that be. No, I do not condone their socialist agenda, or methodology. But the underlying ideology of Irish liberty and freedom, is difficult to ignore.

Read about this pathway to Irish servitude HERE.

And here it comes…

August 24, 2009

There are many ways to undermine Liberty. Make gun control into a “health” issue is one. More on that at a later date… Then, as if that isn’t outrageous enough. The anti liberty and freedom crowd are making traditional human things into First Amendment arguments. That’s right, hunting and fishing are on the table for the Black Crow Cowards. As a First Amendment issue no less...

Full Story

What next? Will WordPress become a Tenth Amendment issue because some bloggers here post things that some people take offense too?

He Had a Gun and Nothing Happened

August 22, 2009

He Had a Gun and Nothing Happened

by Larry Pratt
From New Hampshire to Arizona, Americans openly carrying firearms have been seen outside Presidential appearances. The most remarkable thing about this is that some find this behavior to be remarkable.

American citizens are the sovereigns in our system of government. Indeed, We the People created the government which, at least in theory, only does what we tell it to do in the Constitution. Sovereigns are expected to be armed.

The Second Amendment was added to our Constitution to insure that the individual right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. Infringement would impair the proper functioning of the militia, which had been America’s homeland security system all through colonial times and well into our republican era.

The armed attendees made it clear that they were exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Zero tolerance of firearms has become so extreme that even a picture of a gun can get a student kicked out of school. The presence of armed citizens helps correct the notion that guns are inherently dangerous.

Americans are increasingly deciding to go about openly carrying firearms even when they might legally carry concealed. Some would like to say that this constitutes disturbing the peace. It is a strange view that accepts as normal a police officer openly carrying a firearm, but finds it alarming when a sovereign citizen – the cop’s boss – does the same.

In addition to the educational value of going about openly armed, the presence of such citizens has another positive impact. Real homeland security is being maintained. The Secret Service is tasked with protecting the President and other select individuals – and nobody else.

For those who object to openly armed citizens being present near presidential events, do they have any concern for the well being of those who do not benefit from Secret Service protection?

A few years ago, I was at a conference where the governor of the state of Arizona was to speak. Shortly before the appointed time a member of the governor’s security detail came into the room from a service entrance, looked around the audience, which included at least a dozen people openly carrying sidearms, ducked out of sight and returned with the governor.

The governor’s security was aware of the armed attendees, and was also aware that the guns were holstered and obviously under control. They evidently thought that was proper gun control.

There are those who don’t like Americans owning guns at all, let alone carrying them about. They can be counted on to run about squawking like Chicken Little that the sky is falling – a calamity brought about by the presence of an armed citizen in public. We are warned that: “Somebody might grab the gun and do something bad! The armed citizen will intimidate others! Tempers will flare and blood will run in the streets!”

These are the same alarms that are sounded when any measure designed to facilitate citizens keeping and bearing arms is advanced. And the alarms are always false. One would think that consistently being wrong would be embarrassing, but one would be wrong about those who assume that common citizens are untrustworthy and dangerous.

A tip of the hat to those who have stirred the debate. And, our thanks to them for exercising proper gun control and reminding us of how homeland security should be conducted.

Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America.

http://www.gunowners.org

Mexico, obama’s new residence for excuses

August 22, 2009

Last Sunday, the Mexican government fired 1,100 customs officials in a move to wipe out rampant corruption in the agency charged with securing the transport of goods and people across the U.S.-Mexican border. Army troops temporarily took control of the ports of entry (POE’s) along the 2,000-mile border.

Using more than 36,00 Mexican Army troops, President Felipe Calderon continues his war on the barbaric drug cartels that control and ravage much of Mexico. Last year, 5,600 people died at the hands of the cartels. The focus on the POE’s is not just the interdiction of human and drug smuggling but also of the flow of firearms into Mexico where they are tightly controlled. Calderon has complained frequently that guns from the United States provide the cartels with most of their firepower, though we have noted the dubious nature of this claim on more than one occasion.

During his visit to Mexico last week, Barack Obama praised Calderon’s efforts, but the Apologizer in Chief also readily blamed his own country for the violence. He pledged to dry up the flow of weapons into Mexico as well as to cut American demand for drugs. His strategy to stop the movement of guns includes reinstating (and, no doubt, enhancing) the 1994 ban on so-called “assault weapons” that expired in 2004. In addition, he promised an additional $1.6 billion for the Merida Initiative, a joint effort to fight against drug trafficking, money laundering and other crimes in Mexico and Central America.

But according to recent reports by the National Drug Intelligence Center, the Mexican cartels have been regulating “traffic” into and out of Mexico for some time, both at the POE’s and the virtually uncontrolled borderlands from San Ysidro, California to Brownsville, Texas. The problem always comes back to our wide-open border that four successive administrations have made little attempt to control. Calderon’s willingness to wage war on the cartels is truly admirable, but all things considered, it could end up as tilting at windmills.

SOURCE