Archive for the ‘anti-gun asshattery’ Category

Legislation Proposes $60 Million for Anti-Gun Research

Posted: June 7, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , ,
2

Via NRA-ILA

On Monday, NRA F-rated Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to authorize the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to give $60 million of the taxpayers’ money to anti-gun activists over the next six years, to conduct “research” promoting gun control. The two longtime anti-gun legislators say that their bill is necessary for two reasons, both of which are hokum:

First, they say, Congress in 1996 “almost halted entirely” all funding of gun control research, the operative word being “almost.” In 1996, Congress did stop the CDC from funneling millions of the taxpayers’ dollars to anti-gunners to conduct “research”–pitiful by academic standards–designed from the get-go to promote a political agenda against a constitutionally-protected right.

However, it didn’t shut off the spigot through which millions of dollars flow to the same anti-gunners from leftwing philanthropic foundations. For example, the Joyce Foundation alone has given several million dollars to a variety of anti-gun groups and individuals every year since 1996.

Second, Markey and Maloney say, anti-gun research is necessary to stop the “gun violence . . . epidemic,” which Maloney implies is increasing. Words have meaning, however. An epidemic is a sudden and severe outbreak of an infectious disease throughout a community, and “gun violence” isn’t a disease, it’s not widespread, it doesn’t affect all segments of the population equally, and it’s been decreasing, not increasing.

Only three-one-thousandths of one percent of the U.S. population are the victims of firearm-related murders annually. Victimization rates vary widely according to a person’s sex, age, race, economic status, area of residence, and criminal record. And, over the last 20 years–coinciding with a huge increase in the numbers of Right-to-Carry states, gun owners and guns owned–the firearm murder rate has been cut in half, even though virtually none of the gun control restrictions advocated by anti-gun researchers has been implemented.

Stop Obama’s Planned Gag Order on Firearm-Related Speech

Posted: June 7, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

Via NRA-ILA

It’s happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration’s “Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

To understand the proposal and why it’s so serious, some background information is necessary.

For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called “defense articles” and “defense services” in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part “U.S. Munitions List,” which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.

Also regulated under ITAR are so-called “technical data” about defense articles. These include, among other things, “detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information” about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the “public domain.” Essentially, this means data “which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public” through a variety of specified means. These include “at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.” Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been “exported,” as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized “export,” including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?

Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.”

The schizophrenia of Moms Demand and LEOs: Open carry in Texas and New Hampshire

Posted: May 31, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0
Kimberly Morin
Manchester Political Buzz Examiner

Yesterday the Texas Legislature passed a bill that would allow open carry. Current law in Texas only allows concealed carry if a person has a pistol license. The new bill, which Governor Abbott already said he will sign into law will allow those with pistol licenses to openly carry firearms whereas before it only allowed them to carry concealed.

In New Hampshire, the legislature passed a bill that would allow Granite Staters who are legally able to purchase and possess firearms to have the option of a pistol license or simply carry concealed without one (also know as Constitutional Carry). Current law in New Hampshire allows open carry without a pistol license.

Two states – two different but similar issues at hand. Moms Demand of Texas is pushing to stop open carry while Moms Demand of New Hampshire wants everyone to open carry rather than carry concealed. Law enforcement officials (LEOs) of both states also seem to be schizophrenic on carrying because in Texas LEOs claim open carry is dangerous but in New Hampshire they claim concealed carry is dangerous and would prefer all Granite Staters open carry.

You can’t have it both ways. There are no two ways about the 2nd Amendment or the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is nothing more than the politics of gun control in both states. It proves they aren’t using logic for their arguments but simply fighting against the rights of Americans. It proves that the anti-2nd Amendment crowd in either state will fight against the will of the majority of citizens to continue with gun control measures.

One big difference between the states – the governors. Greg Abbott tweeted minutes after the final vote in the senate:

Open Carry just passed in both the Texas House & Senate. Next destination: My Pen.

Whereas Governor Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire sided with the out-of-state paid hacktivists of billionaire gun control extremist Michael Bloomberg and stated she will veto the bill that is overwhelmingly supported by the majority of her constituents. From her statement:

By passing Senate Bill 116, the legislature would be taking a step away from our tradition of common-sense gun laws, and I intend to veto this measure if it passes.

Hassan is aligning with Bloomberg rather than the people who actually live in her state. This is ironic since a recent poll showed that almost 90% of New Hampshire voters oppose organizations like Moms Demand spending money to change gun laws. That same poll shows that 71% of Granite Staters do not like the current pistol license law due the state-sanctioned discrimination it allows.

While each bill is different for each state, each bill had the same opponents – Moms Demand and LEOs. Each bill had the same proponents – residents of the state. Texas wants to change open carry laws while New Hampshire wants to change concealed carry laws. In either case, the schizophrenia of gun control extremists shined through. They each gave the same argument on opposite ends of spectrum.

Clearly these people can’t have the same argument under different circumstances. Moms Demand and LEOs for gun control are nothing more than schizophrenic political hacks that seek to push more hoplophobic laws and restrict freedoms of law-abiding Americans. That any governor of any state would listen to these people over her own constituency is egregious and inexcusable. Governors are supposed to represent their constituency, not out-of-state billionaires who may donate money to future campaigns.

Representatives in each state voted to pass legislation that was backed by the majority of their constituents. Score one for Texans for having a governor who understands the concept of representing the will of the people.

The Fourth Amendment and open carry of guns (where such open carry is legal)

Posted: May 16, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , ,
0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/the-fourth-amendment-and-open-carry-of-guns-where-such-open-carry-is-legal/

More…

APPEALS COURT RULING

Detention of person carrying gun illegal

Toledo man can sue city police

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2015/05/14/Detention-of-person-carrying-gun-illegal.html#TbwOZvYB5h78EzLs.99

Gun Bans No Longer Enough; Now They Want to Ban Gun Information

Posted: May 15, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

In a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation a week ago, the group is challenging the State Department’s claimed power to ban the dissemination of data that the regime finds dangerous. This stems from the State Department’s insistence that in releasing the CAD (Computer Aided Design) files for using 3-D printers to make operable firearms from plastic, the innovators and liberty advocates of Defense Distributed violated the International Traffic in Arms law.

That would seem something of a stretch. ITAR was intended to outlaw trafficking in sophisticated weapons–not single-shot, low-powered, inaccurate, and fragile pistols–and even that is more than Defense Distributed “trafficked,” which was, after all, merely the ones and zeros of digital data that tell the printer what to do. In other words, the lawsuit argues, this is a First Amendment issue, because the government is attempting to criminalize Defense Distributed’s (and founder Cody Wilson’s) expression of thoughts–information that alarms the government.

Read the rest @ http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/gun-bans-not-enough.htm

Bloomberg apparatchik’s dark past provides clues to anti-gun present

Posted: May 14, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Via David Codrea

“Tommy Gnosis is someone named Jennifer Mascia,” Herschel Smith at The Captain’s Journal posted in March. He was describing someone who, under cover of anonymity, “visits web sites — particularly gun rights web sites — and spreads discontent and dejection.”

That’s consistent with the “elaborate subterfuge” technique for “infiltrating and disrupting alternative media online” used by those with an agenda. Per Canadian research, such “Internet trolls aren’t just mean — they’re sadists and psychopaths.”

That would also seem consistent with the control-all megalomaniac who hired her, in a company-he-keeps kind of way. Mascia is one of two paid flacks “attached prominently to the Everytown news project,” an experiment in virtual Astroturf that billionaire Michael Bloomberg will be rolling out this summer.

The guy wants to control everything else, so why not the narrative?

What drives Mascia is anybody’s guess, but chances are her father having been an underworld killer with multiple hits under his belt had an influence. That probably comes as a surprise to many gun rights advocates, unaware that Al Jazeera told its readers “America’s best hope for tracking gun deaths is a mob enforcer’s daughter,” and Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action gushed on social media that her story was “Amazing.”

That Mascia’s primary female role model — a moral weakling of a mother who knew about, but nonetheless supported and covered up for the monster she was married to and did nothing to stop him — no doubt also had an influence. It also may explain an affinity for foolish and contemptible lackeys that provide cover for those who would take all choices away.

At this point, though, good people would still feel a degree of sympathy. After all, Mascia had no control over who her parents were or what they did. Their defects and failings were not her fault.

The problem is, she’s chosen to become part of an effort to make the rest of us defenseless against sociopath predators like her father, and enablers who help them kill, like her mother. She knows full well no “law” proposed by her billionaire patron would have any effect on stopping diseased animals like John Mascia from working his sick will on more victims.

The creepiest thing is the way Mascia rationalizes the homicidal punk using “shades of gray,” allowing her to view him as two unrelated personalities, “my dad and … this separate John,” and to write a book as “my way of honoring my parents [and] still loving them.”

There is no gray in the premeditated taking of human life for gain, nor any claim to honor. It is blackest evil. It must be stopped, and anyone interfering with your ability to do that is an ally of that evil. Grieving families of victims the Mascia thug murdered could have loved their fathers, sons or brothers as well.

So while empathy for a daughter dealing with traumatic stress is understandable, when coping defects are taken out on the rest of us, we’re under no obligation to tolerate resulting toxic and irrational damage. In the case of Meadow Soprano here, her “work” for Bloomberg would best be met with an invitation to take her damn Daddy Issues out on something else, and leave our rights alone.

Bloomberg Checks Off Another State-Oregon bill passes expanding background checks for gun sales

Posted: May 6, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , ,
0

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon bill expanding background checks to encompass nearly all gun sales in the state made it through the Legislature on Monday, overcoming obstacles that stymied two previous attempts to pass similar laws.

The measure now heads to Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, who has indicated support. Her signature would make Oregon the eighth state to require screening before firearms could be transferred between private, unrelated owners. No other states have passed such legislation this year, advocates said.

Oregon’s effort is the latest after the long-running debate over gun rights intensified following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Last year, Washington state passed a ballot initiative requiring background checks on all gun sales and transfers, and Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the group has the signatures for a similar ballot initiative in Nevada.

Supporters have tried twice before to expand background checks in Oregon, saying it closes a loophole that allows people to purchase firearms online without a review. Neither attempt made it past a Senate vote, but Democrats managed to increase their majorities in both chambers after last year’s election, partially because key candidates in the Senate were backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety.

The bill that passed the state House on a 32-28 vote Monday requires background checks on most private sales and transfers, except those between close family members such as spouses or siblings. There are some exceptions, such as sharing a gun while hunting or handing over a firearm for use at a shooting range. Three Democrats joined all 25 Republicans in opposition.

Once the measure takes effect, private sales would need to happen in front of a licensed gun dealer who would run the check through Oregon State Police.

There is an exception for gun sellers and buyers who live more than 40 miles from each other. In that case, the seller could send the firearm to a dealer near the buyer, who would then run the check and hand over the gun to the buyer if they’re cleared.

The bill has borne intense opposition from gun rights supporters, and every legislative Republican has voted against it. Many cited law enforcement officials in their districts who said they wouldn’t enforce the law or that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

Senate Bill 941, worse than doing nothing, gives false hope, because it represents to people that felons are not going to get guns. And colleagues, I think we all know that’s not true. They are going to get them one way or another,” House Republican Leader Mike McLane said.

Others argued the bill would trample Second Amendment rights or would make criminals of gun owners who choose not to get a background check every time they hand over a gun to a friend or neighbor.

The seller of a gun would face a misdemeanor for a first offense, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,250 fine. A second offense would be a felony, with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Under current law, anyone purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer has to pass a background check to ensure the buyer isn’t prohibited from owning a gun because of convictions for felonies or violent behavior. Oregon goes further than federal law by also requiring background checks at gun shows under an initiative voters approved in 2000.

“This bill is not about stopping all gun violence in Oregon, and it’s not about taking guns of the hands of law-abiding citizens,” said Rep. Jennifer Williamson, a Portland Democrat. “It’s about keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, those suffering from mental health crises, and convicted felons.”

Bloomberg and his minions just keep checking off states on their list one by one-Nevada’s next.

I’ve posted many times about this-as have a lot of others,apparently no one’s listening,because every state on Bloomberg’s list is going down one after the other-and he’s going to keep checking off states on his list because no one’s paying attention.

Maybe when he buys enough votes in Nevada-people will wake up.

Baltimore riots highlight ‘progressive’ paradox on guns and police

Posted: April 28, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Via David Codrea…

Far from protecting lives and property, "progressive" Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake interferes with the ability of people to protect their own while simultaneously guaranteeing the safety of violent looters, vandals, arsonists and rioters.
Far from protecting lives and property, “progressive” Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake interferes with the ability of people to protect their own while simultaneously guaranteeing the safety of violent looters, vandals, arsonists and rioters.
Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images

As Baltimore erupts in violence, and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake promises a safe haven for destroyers (thwarted only by the occasional armed citizen protecting life and property where the police fear to tread), an inescapable observation strikes. High-profile shootings of black males continue to occur in cities where “progressive” Democrats run things. Yet in spite of that, they embrace “gun control,” that is, a system where police are the “only ones” trusted to keep and bear arms.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake has been a big supporter of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. She’s also a proponent of imposing citizen disarmament edicts not just in Baltimore, but in urging Congress to make his Demanding Moms agenda the law of the land.

That being the case, it’s fair to question how such representatives continue to be elected. These are supposed to be the places where politicians who purport to care deeply about minorities and social justice call the shots and implement programs to alleviate the inequities. Of course, we saw the last such gun-grabbing Baltimore Mayor, Sheila Dixon, resign in disgrace after being convicted of helping herself to gift cards intended for the downtrodden. Hey, an anti-gun kleptocrat can’t get by on fur coats and “lavish trips” from favored developers alone.

The bottom line: Local governments over much of urban America are indistinguishable from corrupt Third World regimes. The hate runs highest in these bastions of “tolerance” with their monopolies of violence. And those in charge seemingly get there not so much by merit or success at leading people in the dream of freedom and meritorious prosperity, but for a much more shameful reason, as indicated by a makeshift plywood sign on a looted store.

“this is a black own store,” a person self-identified only as “Mike” wrote. “you shouldn’t have touch.”

Why should who owns a store make a difference? It wasn’t merchants of any color who killed anyone.

The fruits of “progressivism” are becoming increasingly more apparent and less deniable for all to see, including the way it has most betrayed those relying on its exploitive promises. But don’t expect that to be widely recognized by the people most affected.

None of us can foresee the future and predictions are always dicey things to make, but if I had to venture one, I’d say U.S. cities are in for an interesting summer. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be surprised to see members of the productive sector, who in turn will soon come to understand the “authorities” are useless at providing protection, reapplying old lessons learned from when Korean merchants refused to stand by while their livelihoods went up in flames

Cleveland council president claims new gun control law was never about violence, but “values”

Posted: April 28, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Via

by Chad D. Baus
7:00am Thursday, April 23, 2015

On Monday, April 20, and after nine months of debate that included receiving testimony from Buckeye Firearms Association’s Ken Hanson, the Cleveland City Council passed a watered-down version of gun control legislation that had been proposed by Mayor Frank Jackson in 2014.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, after passing the law, Council President Kevin Kelley stated that “the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence. Rather, it is a reflection of council’s values and is good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”

That is an interesting admission on a number of levels.

First, many are making note of the fact that Kelley is admitting that it is the City of Cleveland’s policy to pass gun control laws whether they are expected to work or not, and this is indeed a rare moment of honesty by a gun control proponent. “The legislation was not designed to stop gun violence. Rather, it is a reflection of council’s values …”  That is gun control in a nutshell.

But that isn’t all. Kelley’s admission is also notable because it flies in the face of a statement he made last year, when the proposals were first introduced. In a press release issued by the mayor’s office last year, Kelley said “gun violence has taken far too many lives in our community. The City of Cleveland must act aggressively to address this issue.”

So when the proposal was first made public Kelley said it was intended to be an aggressive act to address gun violence, but when it was passed he says it was never intended to stop gun violence. Got that?

According to the Plain Dealer, Councilman Zack Reed drove home the point that the bill won’t do what its supporters once claimed it was intended to do. Again, from the article:

Read the rest @ http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/cleveland-council-president-claims-new-gun-control-law-was-never-about-violence-values

Defense of slavery decisions points to ultimate need for armed citizenry

Posted: April 27, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Via David Codrea

Anti-gun Oregon Democrat State Senator Chuck Riley says the Supreme Court was “right for the time” for upholding the enslavement of blacks as Constitutional. His comments came after questioning by gun rights advocates who were attempting to understand his rational for supporting citizen disarmament edicts, and was recorded by videographer “LaughingAtLiberals.”

Historically, the courts have demonstrated a tolerance for tyranny and a deference to those who would enslave. That's why there were "laws" to ensure that slaves were not armed.

The Library of Congress

“But that wasn’t the end of it,” blogger Gateway Pundit noted. He embedded a second video, where Sen. Riley and his staffers were unable to explain how the “universal background check” edict would work at stopping violent criminals, or do anything besides provide a registration list of gun owners.

As for Riley’s slavery concession, we’ve seen such precedent-driven disconnects with freedom before, even with checks and balances in place. Without them, things get even worse. An activist court empowered to make up law on its own has the potential to impose enslavement via a complicit executive branch. A tyranny-minded legislature can write edicts that do the same, providing they can get them enforced without judicial restraint. An unchecked executive can use all sorts of justifications to impose despotism. And all three branches working in concert have pretty much brought us to the point where “shall not be infringed” has been rendered meaningless beyond what those in power will politically tolerate — for now.

That’s why the growing new paradigm represented by the “I will not comply” movement represents such a threat to those who would rule. Because ultimately, when the system results in tyranny, an armed people retain the power to nullify bad enforcement just as informed jurors have the power to nullify bad edicts. Of course the outcome of that is not assured (what is?), but to those who have made the choice between defiance and surrender, it beats the alternative.

That leads to some fair questions for the individual leaders of self-designated “gun rights groups” that call for enforcement of existing Intolerable Acts (gun laws), and who actually have publicly joined with anti-gunners in disparaging civil disobedience activists as “extremists”: If, years from now, with a shifted Supreme Court majority enabled by an unchallengeable electorate (something foreseen by another Oregon Democrat), a new ruling reverses Heller and says it’s Constitutional for the government to start rounding up registered guns and jailing anyone who has not obeyed, will you urge defiance and resistance, or will you ask your members to plead with their oppressors (and send a donation)? If the former, why wait until things become so desperate? And if the latter, why shouldn’t we know now if you ever envision a line in the sand?

Older Entries
Newer Entries