Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Dems derail Brophy bill to protect homeowners

January 28, 2009

State Senator Greg Brophy has been stabbed in his own home, so to speak. Despite the logic, and indeed inalienable right to properly and effectively defend themselves Democrats stopped this needed legislation.

A Republican effort that would have reinforced Coloradans’ ability to defend their families against home intruders hit a dead end today in a Senate committee.

Assistant Senate GOP leader Greg Brophy, R-Wray, presented Senate Bill 74 before the Senate Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs, calling it a matter of “statewide concern.”

SB 74 would prohibit local governments from passing any law or regulation that requires a person to store their lawfully-owned firearms in a way that renders them inoperable. The Democrat-controlled committee voted to postpone the bill indefinitely, effectively killing it.

Brophy said the bill addresses and recognizes the landmark United States Supreme Court decision made last summer in the District of Columbia v. Heller case.  The Heller decision held that gun ownership is an individual right and that any government in the U.S. cannot put individuals in the position where they would be inadequately prepared to defend themselves against home invasion.

“We need to pass the ban on safe-storage laws in Colorado,” Brophy said in the committee. “I think the Heller case raised this issue to the national spotlight and brought it forward so that everybody is aware of it.”

Research Director of the Independence Institute Dave Kopel, left, tesifies in favor of Sen. Greg Brophy’s Senate Bill 74.

“This would save the citizens of Colorado the trouble of being forced to go the courts and have the courts say, ‘yes indeed the Supreme Court has already ruled on this,'” Brophy said.

Currently, the cities of Denver and Boulder have so-called “safe-storage” laws that require guns be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock while stored in private homes.

In his testimony in favor of the bill, renowned Second Amendment expert and constitutional lawyer Dave Kopel, who is research director at the Golden-based think tank the Independence Institute, offered evidence showing that cities with safe-storage laws actually have higher rates of home intrusion and violence because criminals are all too aware that homeowners are unable to defend themselves.

“Law-abiding gunowners in Denver and the public in general continue to be in danger due to unreasonable laws that prevent families from teaching gun safety in their own homes and make it way too difficult for crime victims in Denver to be able to protect themselves,” Kopel said after the bill was killed.

While ruling Democrats offered few insights to their opposition to the bill, Fort Collins Democrat Bob Bacon rasied concerns about second-guessing local-government policies on the issue of gun ownership.

Brophy countered that such concerns reflect misplaced priorities.

“They’re giving City Hall the right to preempt your own right to defend yourself and your family,” Brophy said. “And I think that’s just wrong.”

Assistant Senate Republican Leader Greg Brophy, of Wray, sits in disappointment after his bill, which would have given homeowners more power to defend themselves, was killed in a Democrat-controlled committee.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Dems derail Brophy bill to protect homeowners

Has free-market capitalism died?

January 27, 2009

Always, and in  all ways  freedom and individual liberty will forever be the favorite whipping boy of those with a socialist bent. Populist’s, such as the new President are in bed with socialist on a number of issues that are directly related. Be that Gun Control, or taxation. However, the economy is currently at the forefront. Below, is an excellent expose of this better than thou attitude by those that are of the collectivist mind set.

Has free-market capitalism died?

Michael Miller

Who would have imagined 20 years ago — when the Berlin Wall fell and we celebrated the death of socialism — that capitalism would be under heavy fire? The cardinal of Westminster, Cormack Murphy O’Connor, reportedly said 2008 was the year when “capitalism died.”

What are we to make of capitalism in light of all the crises, fraud and government intervention, when even some traditional supporters of markets are supporting bailouts?

Before answering this question, it is important to note that “capitalism” is a Marxist term. It gives the impression that the market is a nebulous force. This impersonal understanding can lead us to blame markets when things go wrong instead of exploring reasons that are harder to diagnose.

Pope John Paul II rejected the term, preferring “market economy,” “business economy” or “free economy.” He did so to illustrate that markets are networks of human relationships. This sheds light on the underlying moral nature of markets.

Markets are the combined activities of millions of individuals. They are not composed merely of some guys on Wall Street; they are made up by us. Like anything else run by humans, markets can fail. If we become overly speculative and convinced that prices can go nowhere but up — as happened in the Tulip Bubble in 1637, the dot.com bubble in 2000 and the recent housing bubble — sooner or later reality will set in.

Despite their failures, however, free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and helped create prosperity and peace better than any system.

In these days of financial turmoil, we often hear critics speaking about deregulation or “unbridled capitalism.” But try to think of one country where there are no regulations. For free markets to succeed, they require a framework built on rule of law, contracts and secure property rights.

The real question is what kind of regulation and what level of intervention we should choose.

Many contributing causes of this crisis were an overly invasive government. Federal regulators required banks to provide mortgages to customers who could not pay back the loans; the Federal Reserve manipulated the money supply, exacerbating the housing boom; and politicians promised bailouts that created incentives for irresponsible behavior.

How many of us, out of greed, gluttony or pride, used credit cards to buy things we did not need or could not afford? What about Wall Street bankers who took imprudent risks with clients’ money? Markets cannot succeed without a strong moral fabric among the citizenry.

Yet we again hear calls for increased regulation and government involvement.

If we regulate too much, we concentrate the power of markets in fewer and fewer hands. This has led to all sorts of evil and corruption. Socialist economies, cartels, oligarchies and union-controlled industries produce stagnation and create incentives for corruption. It is a false hope to believe regulation will make everything right.

It is likewise delusional to believe markets alone are enough. Our Founders taught us that without virtue political liberty could not long be sustained. The same holds true for economic liberty. And yet without economic liberty there can be no political liberty. Like liberty, the market must be moral, or it cannot exist.

Michael Miller is director of programs at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids. E-mail letters to letters@detnews.com.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Montana leads the way!

January 22, 2009

Hat tip to The Liberty Sphere!

The federal government has for years had the idea that it is in fact omniscient. Built in safeguards from the Bill of Rights are largely ignored and from were I sit things do not appear to be changing at all. However, Montana is taking the bull by the horns and challenging the Federal choke hold that the states have been enduring for more years than I care to remember.

2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.”

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1.  Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.

NEW SECTION. Section 2.  Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3.  Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:

(1) “Borders of Montana” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. Section 4.  Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

NEW SECTION. Section 5.  Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6.  Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words “Made in Montana” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7.  Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

NEW SECTION. Section 8.  Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].

NEW SECTION. Section 9.  Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

– END –

source

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…

January 20, 2009

As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…
There is some good news for gun owners

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

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

“I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear….”

As our new President takes his oath of office today, the war against
our rights is soon to begin. In fact, it has already begun, as Obama’s
choice for Attorney General (Eric Holder) is one of the most anti-gun
picks that he could have made.

As we mentioned in last week’s alert, Holder supported policies —
during his tenure in the Clinton administration — that were aimed at
driving the nation’s gun dealers and manufacturers out of business. As
part of an Obama administration, he will have even more power to
continue his war against gun owners.

At lot has happened since you received our alert last week. GOA was
asked by the Judiciary Committee to testify at the Senate hearings on
Eric Holder, as we were the ONLY national gun group that has told
Senators we will rate their vote on confirming Holder.

We also “hammered” one of the Republican members of the
Judiciary Committee — Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah — in his home state
after he announced his support of the Holder nomination.

Last week, GOA issued a stinging alert and mobilized its members in the
state of Utah after The Hill reported on January 12 that Hatch
“will support Eric Holder’s nomination for attorney general,
giving him a major boost toward confirmation.”

GOA is never timid about putting the heat on faltering legislators, no
matter what their party affiliation. Strangely, GOA was disinvited
from appearing before the Judiciary Committee, and not allowed to
present testimony.

Well, the Committee might try to squelch our voice, but they cannot
squelch yours. Your Senators have to answer to you — and they need to
hear that an Attorney General who just argued (in the DC v. Heller
case) that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms does NOT
deserve to be confirmed.

Please take the recommended action suggested below, even if you have
already contacted your Senators. This is just too important.

And now for some good news… Bush commutes the sentences of Ramos and
Compean!

You might remember that, last month, GOA and its members issued a
strong plea to President Bush, urging him to pardon Ignacio Ramos and
Jose Antonio Compean — two Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to
ten years in prison in 2007 for shooting a smuggler. Their conviction
was fraudulent, as there is no such crime as “using a gun in a
federal crime.”

Because this precedent could greatly impact all gun owners, GOA got
involved in this case and submitted amicus briefs in the courts. If
the feds can prosecute its own agents on trumped up charges for
“using” a gun in a crime, then why not also a mom or dad who
is driving their kids through a gun free school zone while armed?

Well, good news arrived yesterday when President Bush — as one of his
last acts in office — listened to GOA members and commuted the two
agents’ sentences! We wish a full pardon had been granted, erasing
their felony conviction, but at least they will be home soon with their
families.

ACTION: Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote AGAINST Eric Holder for U.S. Attorney General.

Holder has been a long-time gun control activist. Most recently, he
joined 12 other former Justice Department officials in SUPPORTING the
DC gun ban and arguing the Second Amendment does NOT protect an
individual right.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled against Holder in the DC v. Heller
case. But this is a man who will try any means to enforce gun control.

Remember his attempts — as an official in the Clinton Administration
— to make an end-run around Congress and use the courts (through
litigation) to impose gun control? He strongly approved of the HUD
lawsuits against the gun industry, where through a system of extortion,
HUD only promised to drop the lawsuits if gun makers would impose
certain gun restrictions.

Eric Holder is tremendously out of step with the American people. In
February, 2008, a USA Today/Gallup poll reported that 73% of all
Americans support the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Eric
Holder is in the extreme minority. Please don’t vote to put him into a
position where he will be able to use the force of government to
discourage gun ownership in America.

Please vote NO on Eric Holder for Attorney General.

Sincerely,

****************************

What’s Your Current GOA Status?

Obviously, we now face years of invigorated attacks on our gun rights.
Shutting down gun shows, prohibitions on specific calibers, another
semi-auto ban, and the anti-gun extremists’ Holy Grail of mandatory
federal licensing and registration of all gun owners — these are just
some of the horrors that we already know we’ll have to defeat head-on.

It can’t be done without every single voice being counted. That’s why
we are asking you to consider making the commitment of becoming a Gun
Owners of America Life Member. By doing so, you put the politicians on
notice that neither you nor GOA is going away — that no matter who’s
in the White House, there is always going to be a solid wall of
resistance.

Now is a perfect time to come a Life Member. In addition to providing
GOA an infusion of much-needed funds, you can take advantage of a free
firearms inventory software promotion.

And if you aren’t a GOA member at all, isn’t it time you became one? Or
maybe you are a current member and can’t commit to Life at this time,
but could spare another small additional donation. In those instances,
the free software also applies… because GOA is doing all it can at
this time to line up the troops for the battles that surely must be
fought.

Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/ordercs.htm to upgrade your
participation in GOA.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…

Obama re-treads Clinton choices for Administration

January 18, 2009

As the inauguration of Barack Obama approaches, the men and women he has nominated are starting to face questions in their Senate confirmation hearings. In a number of cases, this includes some high-profile appointees who will have a significant impact on the Obama administration’s policies on firearms rights.

Chief among these is Attorney General designate Eric Holder, who has a long history of opposition to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. There are already significant concerns about Holder’s nomination. “I have many serious questions about Mr. Holder’s nomination,” said Senator David Vitter (R-La.). “At the top of the list are his anti-Second Amendment right positions. He’s clearly advocated near universal licensing and registration, and he joined and filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court case arguing that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. That’s deeply disturbing.”

NRA has also opposed Holder’s confirmation, and strongly believes he will actively work to restrict gun owners’ rights. (See the letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox here.)

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

The Brady Bunch has a wish list… Again

January 18, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.

If for no other reason, Obama might want to tell Brady “no,” because if he were to do their bidding, they would be sure to demand that he do even more. That’s demonstrated by Brady’s statement that their current request “is not intended to present an exhaustive list . . . but does provide a starting point.” It includes:

A California-style “assault weapons” ban. For several years, Brady has referred to California’s ban–which is far more restrictive than the federal ban of 1994-2004–as the “model” for the rest of the nation. Brady doesn’t say so, but it clearly supports–as does the Violence Policy Center–the California–like ban that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has proposed in Congress since before the 1994 semi-automatic firearm ban expired. Among its differences from the 1994 ban, the McCarthy bill would ban rifles like the AR-15, even if they do not have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, or adjustable-position stock. It would ban the M1, the M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 series, the SKS, and many other semi-automatic rifles not previously labeled as “assault weapons.” And it would ban every semi-automatic shotgun, by banning its receiver. Brady wants .50 caliber rifles banned as well.

A ban on standard magazines designed for self-defense. Brady calls them “high-capacity,” but magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are designed for self-defense, as demonstrated by the fact that most guns that use standard defensive magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds) are handguns designed for self-defense, and used for that purpose by private citizens, law enforcement officers, and military personnel alike.

Now’s as good a time as any to dispel one blatant lie that Brady includes with its wish list. Brady says, “Beginning with the Brady Law in 1993, the assault weapon ban in 1994, and other Clinton Administration policies, our nation experienced an historic decline in gun crime and violence,” adding, “during the Bush years, gun crime increased as the Administration and Congress . . . allowed the assault weapons ban to expire [and] gave the gun industry special legal protection.”

The truth is, violent crime began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act and the semi-automatic firearm ban, and more than a year before Bill Clinton took office. And, the nation’s violent crime rate has declined another eight percent since President Bush took office.

Moreover, in 1998, the Brady Act’s waiting period on gun sales ceased, because it was replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which the Brady Campaign has always opposed (though they try to take credit for it today, inappropriately referring to NICS checks as “Brady checks.”) And, contrary to Brady’s prediction that crime rates would soar if the semi-automatic firearm ban expired, the ban expired in 2004, and since then violent crime rates have been lower than anytime in the last 31 years.

Repeal the recent Department of the Interior rule allowing state law to determine how firearms may be carried in National Parks and wildlife refuges. Brady offers no evidence to support its hunch that allowing permit-holders to carry concealed firearms “would increase the risk of gun crime, injury and death in the parks and wildlife refuges.” But as for Brady’s hunches, for the last 20 years it has predicted that allowing people to carry guns for protection will cause murder rates to soar, but people now carry guns for protection in 40 states and since 1999, murder rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s.

Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Brady complains that the Tiahrt Amendment “restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement,” and prevents the BATFE from disclosing firearm-tracing data to the public. The first claim is a lie. The amendment allows BATFE to provide the data to any law enforcement agency involved in a bona fide investigation related to a traced firearm.

Tracing data is not released to the public so that, among other reasons, criminals won’t know that the police are investigating them. Brady should just tell the truth, for once: even though the BATFE and Congressional Research Service repeatedly state that tracing data are not reliable enough to draw conclusions about the criminal use of guns generally, Brady wants the data so it can concoct bogus claims to use in lawsuits against firearm manufacturers who comply with every applicable firearm law. These lawsuits are currently prohibited by the PLCAA, which Brady hopes to overturn.

Require all firearm sales to go through NICS (advocated by Mr. Obama’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder), and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers. It used to be that Brady claimed that the only private transfers that it wanted run through NICS were those taking place at gun shows. Now, it’s all private transfers, including gifts between family members and sales or trades between friends. And, it wants the FBI to record all transfers. Translation: Gun and gun owner registration, no two ways about it.

Allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list. This is yet another idea recommended by prospective Attorney General Holder and Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel. The obvious problem with it is that you can get on one of these lists by having the same name as a suspected criminal or terrorist, and if you are on a list, you may not be able to determine which one you are on, much less get yourself removed. Sen. Ted Kennedy even ended up on a “no fly” list, for reasons that have not been made public.

Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period, in order to thwart “large-volume” illegal gun traffickers. Federal law already requires a dealer to report to law enforcement authorities whenever a person buys more than one handgun in a five-day period. This proposal amounts to the rationing of a constitutional right with no crime-reduction benefit.

Require all new guns to micro-stamp ammunition with serial numbers linking the owner in a federal gun-owner registration database. Most crimes are solved by other means, not by ammunition markings, and criminals could easily deface the firearm parts that would bear the serial numbers. Brady’s agenda isn’t about solving crimes; for them micro-stamping is another way of achieving gun and gun owner registration.

Require consumer safety standards for firearms. Even the vehemently anti-gun Violence Policy Center has said this would lead to standards too difficult for firearm manufacturers to achieve, thus ending firearm production.

We close with yet another Brady lie, “These proposals are clearly constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and they pose no threat to the interests of law-abiding gun owners.” Heller clearly said that laws cannot deprive people of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for defensive purposes. As for “the interests of gun owners,” we’ll follow the Supreme Court’s example, and let gun owners speak for themselves. The Court declared D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional because gun owners consider handguns to be the type of firearm best suited for self-defense.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Gun Salesman of the year!

January 17, 2009

Outdoor Wire Names Obama “Gun Salesman of the Year” By Jim Shepherd Jan 14, 2009 – 7:22:08 AM In recognition of the unprece­dented demand for firearms by nervous consumers, The Outdoor Wire has named President-elect Barack Obama its “Gun Salesman of the Year”. For me, it was a simple fact of recognizing that without President-elect Obama’s frightening consumers into action, the firearms industry might be suffering the same sort of business slumps that have befallen the automotive and housing industries. It’s credit where credit is due. Mr. Obama has consistently voted against individual rights to firearms, appointed a re-tread Clinton administration full of gun banners, and made it plain to anti-gun groups that despite what he might say to the contrary, he’s on their side That history, along with the unquestioned support of anti-gun organizations has spooked consumers into a buying frenzy for firearms that could be outlawed in another Assault Weapons Ban. Manufacturers are months behind on orders for semi-automatic pistols, AR-style rifles, and anything with so-called ‘high-capacity magazines, buyers we’ve surveyed across the country seem to have a single explanation for their rush to purchase firearms – Obama. The buying panic is not limited to people you might be described as aficionados or even ‘gun nuts’. Recently, I was in a gun store when a gentleman came and said he’d never wanted to own a gun before, but wanted to get one while he still could.” Since the November Presidential election, firearms sales have been at unprecedented levels. For December 2008 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) recorded a twenty-four percent increase in background checks for 2008 (1,523,426) over December 2007 (1,230,525). This follows a forty-two percent (42%) increase in November 2008, the highest number of NICS checks in the system’s history. Those FBI background checks are required under federal law for all individuals purchasing firearms from federally licensed firearms retailers. In other words, gun sales have never been better. Sales are so good that on Tuesday, January 6, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a notice to all federal firearms licensees that “an unprecedented increase in demand for ATF Form 4473 had run supplies low enough that dealers were temporarily given permission to photocopy the form until supplies caught up with demand. Completion of a form 4473 is required whenever a federal firearms licensee sells a fire­arm.

Stolen From

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Gun Salesman of the year!

What kinds of people are for gun control?

January 16, 2009

source

H/T to BobF

Rep Bobby Rush was the founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party. If his law were to pass, you know his constituents wouldn’t be following it.

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.

U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., is hoping to pass a firearm-licensing bill that will significantly rewrite gun-ownership laws in America.

Among the more controversial provisions of the bill are requirements that all handgun owners submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. Further, the bill would order the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer and owner’s address in America.

The bill claims its purpose is “to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and youth.”

Rush’s proposed bill, H.R. 45, is alternatively known as “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,” named after an Illinois teenager killed by a gunshot.

According the bill’s text, “On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.”

The bill then argues that interstate firearm trafficking and children dying from gun violence create legitimate cause for the federal government to monitor gun ownership and transfers in new ways.

If passed, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a “qualifying firearm” – defined as any handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that takes an ammunition clip – without a “Blair Holt” license.

To obtain a “Blair Holt” license, an application must be made that includes a photo, address, all previous aliases, thumb print, completion of a written firearm safety test, release of mental health records to the attorney general and a fee not to exceed $25.

Further, the bill makes it illegal to transfer ownership of a qualifying firearm to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector. Exceptions to this rule include transfer to family members by gift or bequest and loans, not to exceed 30 days, of a firearm for lawful purposes “between persons who are personally known to each other.”

The bill also requires qualifying firearm owners to report all transfers to the attorney general’s database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours or fail to report a change of address within 60 days.

And if a minor obtains a weapon and injures someone with it, the owner of the gun – if deemed to have failed to meet certain safety requirements – faces a multiple-year jail sentence.

H.R. 45 is a resurfacing of 2007’s H.R. 2666, which contained much of the same language and was co-sponsored by 15 other representatives and Barack Obama’s current chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. H.R. 2666 was assigned to the House Judiciary committee, where no action was taken.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86039

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

Boy Scouts win against anti freedom bigots

January 12, 2009

This was a long and bitter fight, and the morons almost won it.

COLORADO: Elbert County Stands-Up for Boy Scouts of America Shooting Center! On Tuesday, January 6 the Elbert County Board of Commissioners voted 3-0 to finally grant the Boy Scouts of America their Special Use Permit.  This permit will now allow them to relocate the shooting range located at Peaceful Valley Scout Ranch, preserving the continuing education of the safe use of rifles, shotguns, handguns, and muzzleloaders.  The Boy Scouts had applied for a Special Use Permit from Elbert County to relocate the shooting range facility, “The Travis Facility,” further into the interior of Peaceful Valley Scout Ranch.  After having conducted extensive and costly testing to ensure that the new site followed all noise, lead, and environmental laws, the new site was chosen to accommodate the few anti-gun neighbors who had filed complaints.  Due to these few anti-gun property owners who live near Peaceful Valley, the County had unfairly delayed approving the Boy Scouts permit request.  This delay had been putting the 2009 shooting programs at risk of being canceled.  Most importantly, without the Travis Facility, the Boy Scout community would have lost an essential firearms safety-training venue and put an end to one of the nations most highly recognized firearms education programs.  Thank you to all who attended the meeting and voiced their support for the Boy Scouts of America who have, and will attend this valuable and important facility.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Boy Scouts win against anti freedom bigots

Gun Control, the Democrats are out for revenge

January 10, 2009

Ever since the election I have been commenting about how the politics of revenge will become the law of the land. My RSS feed has been going nuts about new taxes, new confiscation, and assorted other schemes that the gun control crowd are coming up with in order to deny you of your Constitutional rights with regard to being able to properly, and effectively defend your self, family, friends, and country.

What follows is among the best that I have come across.


Alan Korwin

Gun law update: Brady Gun-Ban Strategy Outlined

2009-01-08 at 2:39 pm · Filed under Vox Populi

(Prior report with Brady gun-ban lists: http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm)

The powerful gun-ban lobby has developed its own language to color and disguise its true agenda — the disarming of law-abiding Americans in every way possible, and the end of effective self defense.

Their latest set of plans — used as a fund raiser (outlined below) — is filled with nice sounding terms that put a deceptive spin on their goals. Respect for the Bill of Rights is nowhere to be found, only clever end runs and literal destruction of rights Americans have always had.

Starkly missing from these plans is any direct attack on criminals — the whole game plan is aimed at firearms the public holds. It is a product of abject gun fear — hoplophobia — that afflicts the people behind the plan. They deny they’re hoplophobic, but just look at their plans, directed solely at restricting and eliminating guns — instead of the crime caused by criminals they nominally complain about. I noticed that all mentions of accident prevention, a former holy grail for the group, are gone.

The hypocrisy is unequivocal and self evident. Sarah claims, “We need to get these ‘killing machines’ off our streets.” Well, go ahead. Any person, on any street, operating any “killing machine” belongs in prison immediately under existing law, right? Everyone, even the Bradys, know this. It doesn’t matter if your gun is black, or too short, or holds the right amount of ammo.

The problem isn’t the “machines,” it’s the lack of law enforcement — in the bad parts of town and among the gangs where most of the problems occur (see maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm). They will not admit this, and they do not address this.

Instead, they act out on their phobia and attack you and me. The real problem of crime and violence is just an excuse for them to work on disarming people who didn’t do anything.

The Federal Bureaucracy of Investigation, along with the Bureaucracy of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives are in complete sympathy with the plan. The Brady plan will get them more staff, more office space, more of our money and more power, the acknowledged holy grail of bureaucrats.

Politically Corrected Glossary — of Bradyspeak

(See the entire glossary: http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)

Full article here

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »