Archive for the ‘anti-gun asshattery’ Category

Fairfax, Va. – The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday regarding President Barack Obama’s Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.  Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts.  The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe.  But the fact is that President Obama’s proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned.  The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of

seriousness.

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment.  The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.

Gun control legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there is potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” he said. “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.”

Rodger, 22, killed six people and injured 14 others before taking his own life during a wave of attacks across Isla Vista near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, that he carried out with two knives and three handguns that he legally purchased.

The rampage was prefaced by a video uploaded to YouTube of Rodger discussing his plans, as well as a 107,000-word manifesto, both of which were circulated minutes before he began killing.

“This is almost the kind of event that’s impossible to prevent and almost impossible to predict,” Janet Napolitano, the university’s president and a former homeland security secretary, said in the aftermath of Rodger’s ambush.

Twenty months later, implementation of the bill is expected to give family members a mechanism for having loved ones briefly lose access to their own, legally acquired weapons in hopes of stopping similar rampages.

“It’s the family members, it’s the people closest to the perpetrator, who are in the best position to notice red flags,” Wendy Patrick, a San Diego State University professor and lawyer, told San Diego’s CBS affiliate this week.

Second Amendment advocates have cried foul, however, and insist that legislation is not the answer in a state already ripe with gun rules that are more restrictive than most anywhere else in America.

“We don’t need another law to solve this problem,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told The Associated Press. “We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”

source

Andrew Branca, the author of the “Law of Self Defense,” recently reviewed a study on racial bias and Florida’s Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws published in the Elsevier Social Science & Medicine. The study, “Race, law, and health: Examination of ‘Stand Your Ground’ (SYG) and defendant convictions in Florida” (Social Science & Medicine, Volume 142, October 2015, pages 194-201; pay-walled) makes troubling claims about racial bias and convictions.

The study’s authors conclude that a defendant was two times more likely to be convicted in a case that involved a white victim than a non-white victim; that the race of the victim was “a predictor of conviction of the defendant,” and that Florida’s SYG legislation “has a quantifiable racial bias.” The study’s abstract exhorts other states with SYG laws “to carry out similar analyses to see if their manifestations are the same as those in Florida, and all should remediate any injustices found.”

Are these “manifestations” of racial bias a matter of settled science? Does this study really provide evidence of unequal treatment under the law? Pulling back the curtain, Mr. Branca examined the underlying data used – a listing of cases compiled by the Tampa Bay Times, a Florida newspaper, “supplemented with available online court documents and/or news reports.” The study itself was based on a subset of 204 cases out of the newspaper’s entire dataset of 237. After a close analysis of every one of the 237 cases, Mr. Branca found that 181 (over 76 percent) did not qualify as SYG cases at all, based on the legal definition of the term. It follows that even if all of the 56 remaining cases were included in the study’s subset of 204, the vast majority of the subset (148 cases, over 70 percent) were not actually SYG cases. Accordingly, research conclusions drawn from the 204 cases as if they were all SYG cases arguably lack factual integrity and scientific reliability.

In response to these observations, the authors advised that they opted to use a definition of SYG – a legal concept – “as it has been used in the media around highly publicized cases (e.g., Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman) and not the legal definition” provided by Mr. Branca. Instead of evaluating SYG cases using the relevant definition applied by the Florida courts in determining guilt and convictions, the study employed a “definition” of cases “related to SYG” because, presumably, that’s how the newspaper staff decided to structure the original dataset. It’s helpful at this point to include a quote from Mr. Branca:

Surely it must be self-evident that whatever the impact of SYG on conviction rates, it can only be the “legal definition” as actually applied by the criminal justice system that could possibly have an effect, and that the “media definition” that is not applied by the criminal justice system (because it is not law) cannot have had any effect on conviction rates.

(His full response is expected to be published as a dissenting commentary regarding the study in a future issue of the Social Science & Medicine publication.)

Alleging a racial bias in the administration of justice is a grave charge and deserves a thoughtful, scrupulous and responsible analysis – particularly if the results are being used to justify efforts to “remediate any injustices” found to exist. We can hope for more objective analysis in the future.

© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

One of the douchnozzles who support this attack on our right to keep and bear arms is-

Congressman John Yarmuth (KY-3)

 

Said douchenozzles farcebook page is found here

The douchenozzle who sponsored the bill-

Rep. Cicilline, David N. [D-RI-1]

farcebook page is found here

Please leave ’em a comment pointing out what douchenozzles they are,and informing them that no,we will not comply.

zoomie-resist

Bloomberg sponsored anti-gun bullshit to air 5 times during NBA  Christmas day games…

 

Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a firearm. This narrative was developed by the National Rifle Association in the late 1970s, out of fear that further gun control laws would eliminate private ownership of firearms altogether.

For 200 years following the ratification of the Second Amendment, federal judges understood that the Second Amendment safeguarded the right to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. This view was widely held until the 1980s when pro-gun organizations began claiming that federal regulation of the individual use of firearms violated Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Initially, the National Rifle Association dealt more with sport than politics. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns,” said Former NRA President Karl Frederick in 1934. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

In response to increasing crime, a 1968 federal law prohibited interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. The NRA became scared that more restrictions would ultimately result in government seizure of all personal guns. That’s when, in 1977, the group reorganized to launch an aggressive anti-gun control movement based on a fabricated understanding of the Second Amendment. Those who invoke the Second Amendment as an absolute reason why the United States can’t act like Great Britain, Australia, Japan and other countries to reduce staggering gun violence don’t understand the amendment at all.

When the thirteen colonies broke away from tyrannical Great Britain to form the United States of America, the concern that this new government would become corrupt was very real. The ultimate check on a tyrannical government, the Framers of the Constitution believed, was an armed population.

The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Since militias are made up of citizens bearing arms, gun proponents argue that the right to keep and bear arms naturally extends to each citizen, who may use a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

For the first time in history, this perspective was supported in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. A civilian, the Court ruled, has a constitutional right to keep a handgun in his or her home for purposes of self-defense.

Nowhere in the text, however, is it stated that an individual right to keep and bear arms is preserved. More overtly, the text refers to the collection of people who would make up a militia if the federal government were to abuse its power.

More collectivist nonsense @ Huff Po here

In his speech Sunday after last week’s gun massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., President Obama demanded that Congress “make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?”

On the surface, the issue does seem like a no-brainer. Delve deeper than the sound bites, however, and it’s a lot more complicated.

Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, should know that. Of course allowing a terrorist to buy a gun is crazy. The real question, though, is whether the no-fly list is the right tool. Until the federal government cleans up the list and the process, the answer is no.

The list was an understandable way to try to prevent more terrorists from getting on planes after 9/11, but the way it worked should have made Americans deeply uneasy. The list presumes you’re guilty until proven innocent, which gets one of the nation’s most important constitutional guarantees exactly backwards.

Last year, a federal judge found government management of the list unconstitutional, ruling that the way people get put on the list with no notice, and no meaningful way to get off if they’re on by mistake, violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process. That forced the administration to begin changing things.

As far as is known, the process remains imprecise. People whose names are the same as someone on the list have been subject to extra checking at airports — as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., learned repeatedly at airports because there was someone on the list named “T. Kennedy.” Journalists, entertainers, U.S. military veterans and others have been wrongly put on the list, or confused for people on it. The ACLU represented 13 people who claimed they should never have been on the list, and the government had to admit that at least seven of them should be taken off, and promise to change the process for challenging inclusion.

As if all this weren’t enough, it’s not even clear what list supporters are talking about. The government has several. Obama mentioned the no-fly list, but a House bill doesn’t mention a list at all. Backers say they expect the attorney general to rely on the FBI’s terrorist watch list, which includes more than 800,000 people, though about 95% are foreign nationals and can’t buy guns anyway.

As with just about everything else involving guns, the watch-list fight is dividing along party lines. Last week, the Senate’s Republican majority rejected legislation to bar gun sales to people on the list. On Thursday, however, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, announced that his state would put the ban in place by executive order, a move likely to face legal challenges.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have a Second Amendment right to buy and own guns, subject to reasonable regulation. Such regulation should include universal background checks and bans on sales of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. But denying a constitutional right for certain citizens, based on  a secret government list, just doesn’t meet the test of American values.

AR Militia

By David Codrea

“Progressive” immigrant and academic Amitai Etzioni, who apparently thinks Americans will surrender to his demands and allow themselves to be disarmed, has actually done us a favor by leaving no doubt that he and his kind want it all.  USA –  -(Ammoland.com)-  “No one wants to take your guns” has been a common and longstanding talking point employed by the gun-grabbers to mask their true goals of total citizen disarmament through gun confiscation.
That’s usually followed by ridiculing those suggesting that’s the case with accusations of being “paranoids.” A Huffington Post article, posted on Pearl Harbor Day of all days, takes the mask off and reveals the end game, and why not one inch can be ceded to the totalitarian lobby under the deception of “compromise.”

Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’,” reads the headline by Amitai Etzioni, Professor of International Studies at George Mason University. That appointment represents typical Opposite Day “progressivism,” considering the sentiments of the man the university is named after regarding an armed citizenry capable of defeating hostile military forces, not to mention the unequivocal convictions of Mason’s contemporaries. Etzioni’s tenure there is indicative of how corruption in high places, such as academia, the media, religious institutions and government, has perverted the vision of the Founders to supplant freedom with tyranny.
‘[T]o disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” Mason observed (3 Elliot, Debates at 380). Etzioni is demanding that result. And he evidently believes it will happen without a fight.

All the “incremental” measures to get to the end game may be useful, but they just don’t go far enough, Etzioni maintains, citing just about every “gun control” measure employed and/or proposed to date, including universal background and mental health checks, magazine limits, terror watch lists, manufacturer and dealer lawsuit protections, computerized registration and the like. Those just won’t do the trick, he complains.
Perhaps now might be a good time to let Gomer get a word in. And Oliver.
“[P]rogressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament,” Etzioni demands. “[W]e may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.”
How does he intend to do that?

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written. Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

And how does he intend to enforce disarmament when some of not only defy such affronts to freedom, but actively resist it?

Read the whole thing here

 

Call/e-mail/write your senators today,tomorrow,next week,and the week after-never let up-keep contacting your senators and congresscritters.

 

A group of anti-gun U.S. Senators are scheming to bring several gun control measures to the Senate floor TODAY, including the Manchin-Toomey “universal” background check bill that was defeated in 2013.  Debate could also include an amendment to expand the prohibited person list for anyone who is on the terrorist watch list, even if by error and without due process.  Other amendments are possible, so your action is critically needed to defeat these anti-gun measures.

All NRA members need to call their Senators NOW at 202-224-3121 and urge them to vote NO on any and all gun control proposals up for debate in today’s session, including the Manchin-Toomey bill or the expansion of the prohibited persons list. You can write your U.S. Senators here:  http://act.nraila.org/qEpea5K

Today the Cato Institute published my monograph “The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control.” The policy analysis examines several gun control proposals which have been promoted by the Obama administration and the gun control lobby: bans on so-called assault weapons; bans on standard magazines; confiscation; and the prohibition of all private sales, loans and returns, except when processed by a gun store. After explaining why each of these proposals is likely to do little good and much harm, the paper discusses realistic alternatives which really can save lives. The most important of these is providing a much broader safety net for people seeking help for severe mental illness. In addition, respecting the right to bear arms has been demonstrated to be successful in thwarting would-be mass murderers.

Prohibiting certain guns or magazines will be futile without confiscation of such arms currently owned by citizens; so said a 2013 memo by Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice (the research arm of the Justice Department). Likewise, the NIJ memo explained that “universal” background checks are useless without comprehensive registration of all guns and all gun owners. Yet Americans have historically resisted gun registration, precisely because of concerns about confiscation. These concerns are not unfounded; registration lists have been used to enforce confiscation in New York City, in Australia and in Great Britain. In Australia, the confiscation was euphemistically called a “buy back,” although it was in fact involuntary confiscation, with only partial compensation paid for the confiscated items.

Read more @ The Volokh Conspiracy here