Posts Tagged ‘firearms.gun laws’

New Mexico: Anti-Gun House Bill 44 to Receive Public Hearing on Saturday, February 7

Posted: February 5, 2015 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

On Saturday at 2:00 p.m., in Room 307 of the State Capitol, the House Regulatory & Public Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on NRA-opposed House Bill 44, sponsored by anti-gun state Representative Miguel Garcia (D-ABQ).  HB 44 criminalizes non-dealer firearm transfers at gun shows, which would lead to the end of these events as we know them.  Misguided gun control advocates will be in Santa Fe to support this deeply flawed measure, so please attend this hearing to show your opposition.

HB 44 is just the first step toward criminalizing ALL private transfers of firearms; in fact, the first version of this bill from the 2013 session did just that.  No background check legislation will ever be “universal” since criminals simply ignore the law.

Why You Should Oppose HB 44

It’s an ineffective crime control proposal.  In April of 2013, PoliceOne conducted a national survey of 15,000 active and retired law enforcement officers of all ranks and department sizes on the topics of gun & crime control.  Nearly 80 percent said that a prohibition on private non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would not reduce violent crime.

Current laws are not being enforced.  According to a 2012 report to the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn’t clear a background check.  Only 44 of those cases – or just .06 percent – were prosecuted.  A 2013 study by Syracuse University showed that gun prosecutions had hit a decade low, down 40 percent from 2004.  Existing laws are not even being enforced and proponents are calling for expanding background checks to cover private firearms transactions.

Gun shows aren’t a source of crime guns.  A U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of committing their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends and family.”  This includes theft of firearms, black market purchases of stolen firearms and straw purchases.  Only 1.7 percent obtained a firearm at a gun show.

It may lead to gun registration. Most importantly, because a January 2013 internal U.S. Department of Justice memorandum summarizing so-called “gun violence” prevention strategies stated that the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on “requiring gun registration.”  Even though HB 44 currently contains prohibitions on the development of a state or local registry of gun buyers, supporters of the bill are likely to eventually claim the need to repeal these important protections in order to enforce its provisions.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150204/new-mexico-anti-gun-house-bill-44-to-receive-public-hearing-on-saturday-february-7

Here We Go-“Gun Violence Is A Public Health Issue” Being Used For Anti-Gun Legislation

Posted: February 3, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

State lawmakers from Kansas and Missouri announced a bistate, bipartisan effort Friday to reduce gun violence.

Kansas Rep. Barbara Bollier joined Missouri Rep. Stacey Newman to pitch bills, recently introduced in Topeka and Jefferson City, that would establish firearms restrictions for people with domestic violence or stalking restraining orders or convictions.

“The public gets it completely,” said Bollier, a Republican from Mission Hills. A former practicing physician, Bollier described gun violence as “a public health issue.”

Newman, a Democrat from Richmond Heights in St. Louis County, said her bill includes language that would allow law enforcement and family members to restrict those considered “in crisis” from gun possession. That measure, she said, is similar to California legislation signed into law soon after the shootings near the University of California-Santa Barbara campus last year.

Rep. Joe Don McGaugh, a Carrollton Republican, described the bill as “patently unconstitutional” because it has too few protections for gun owners before a court strips them of their Second Amendment rights.

“Everyone wants to keep firearms out of the hands of someone who is not competent to own them,” McGaugh said. “But I think what we should concentrate on is the individual and not the gun. Missouri law already allows those who are threats to be committed for mental health issues.”

Rep. Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville Republican, said the bill is unlikely to get a hearing. He said that because the bill allows “any person” to file a petition for a gun violence restraining order, it could be used to harass law-abiding gun owners.

The representatives were joined by a small crowd that included representatives from the Hope House and Rose Brooks domestic violence shelters, the League of Women Voters, Grandmothers Against Gun Violence, the Kansas City Health Commission and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Sound familiar? Dr. Vivek Murthy,our recently appointed surgeon general claims that gun violence is a “public health issue that must be addressed-as Dr. Murthy is an anti-gun zealot,and has zero real world medical experience-other than med school and his residency,during which he was under supervision by experienced Dr’s.

Murthy’s real-world experience consists of forming the group Dr’s for Obama,which then morphed into Dr’s for America,and writing an endless stream of anti-gun nonsense in the form of letters to Obama,congress and letters to the editor in many U.S. newspapers.

Murthy claimed he would not use his position as surgeon general to advocate for gun control.

He’s not-he’s getting others to do it for him,with the help of the usual suspects from the land of rainbows and unicorns-starting with the Brady campaign.

I smell Bloomberg’s $$$ in this horsepucky.

The anti-gun zealots are doing exactly what hizzoner claimed his millions would do,helped along by his front groups of like minded boot-licking sycophants.

Gun owners better start paying attention to this nonsense-as Bloomberg and his fellow wealthy anti-gun zealots are pushing this bullshit in every state that they think they might have a chance of getting it on the ballot,and then signed into law by fellow anti-gun zealots and imposed on gun owners second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Bloomberg’s bootlicker stated the following…

“The public gets it completely,” said Bollier, a Republican from Mission Hills. A former practicing physician, Bollier described gun violence as “a public health issue.”

Murthy+Bloomberg+ existing anti-gun groups/orgs = I-594 like “gun control” measures being enacted in multiple states.

The NRA,GOA,NAGR,et-al allowed I-594 to be passed by voters by using lies,half-truths and obfuscation-and having said nonsense spewing forth from the tee-vee all across Washington state.

Voters who know nothing about firearms or gun laws do not understand that “gun control” laws only affect gun owners who follow the law in the first place-no additional “gun control” law will prevent “gun violence” because those intent on committing “gun violence” will do so no matter how strict the gun laws are.

Mexico,along with most of Central America have very strict “gun control” laws in place-yet these countries have the highest rates of “gun violence” on the planet.

It’s up to gun owners to call,write,e-mail,fax and to gather signatures of registered voters so that petitions can be delivered to Bloomberg’s bootlicking minions in the statehouses.

Pay attention,and work to stop this horsepucky-or we will all see nonsense like Washington state,Mass,Colorado,Conneticut,Commiefornia and NY state enacted in our own states.

Get motivated,get organized,protest,do whatever it takes-but do not allow this kind of bullshit to become law-in any more states.

The anti-gun zealots will never,ever stop-unless they attain their goal of a ban on all civilian ownership of firearms.

Second Circuit To Hear Oral Arguments On Gun Lawsuit

Posted: December 11, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , ,
0

CCDL Rally

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in the case of Shew vs. Malloy, a legal challenge to the key provisions of Connecticut’s post-Newtown gun control legislation.
After Legislative Defeat, Gun Owners Aim For Election Successes
JENNY WILSON, jenwilson@courant.com

The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of state gun owners, firearms dealers, and gun rights groups, seeks to overturn the assault weapons ban and the 10-round ammunition magazine limit that were enacted in 2013 as part of the legislature’s response to the December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first-graders and six educators using a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and high capacity ammunition magazines, both of which are illegal under the new law.

The law, which was described at the time of passage as the “toughest in the nation,” was upheld in federal court in Connecticut last January. U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in the decision that “while the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.”

The plaintiffs immediately appealed the decision. They argue in their complaint that the law is unconstitutionally vague, discriminatory, and infringes upon Second Amendment rights.

Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are commonly used in both shooting sports and self-defense, and thus subject to Second Amendment protection, the plaintiffs argue.

In a brief filed with the appeals court, the state countered that the law only bans “a small subset of firearms and large-capacity magazines that … are disproportionately selected by criminals for use in gun crime.”

The law’s broadened definition of an assault weapon and new limit on magazine size, the state argues, is related to “an important governmental interest in ending gun violence and death.”

The state argued that the law “leaves more than one thousand alternative firearms and magazines for law-abiding citizens to acquire and possess for self-defense.” Weapons like the AR-15, they argued, “have no utility for legitimate self-defense and are not actually used for such purposes in practice.”

The plaintiffs argue that the law is discriminatory because off-duty police and military personnel are exempt from the assault weapons ban and high-capacity ammunition magazine limit.

The definition of an assault weapon under the act is so vague that it leaves gun owners “without knowledge of what is prohibited,” plaintiffs argue.

Also on Tuesday, the Second Circuit will hear oral arguments in a separate challenge to the sweeping gun control package passed in New York in response to the Newtown massacre.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-gun-lawsuit-advance-20141208-story.html

Gun rights, even in New Jersey

Posted: December 2, 2014 by gamegetterII in gun rights
Tags: , ,
1

I blogged in April about In the Matter of the Application by Michael McGovern, which offers some interesting (though non-precedential) views on New Jersey gun law. As I noted then, New Jersey requires a license to buy a handgun, and allows sheriffs to deny such licenses if the person was not of “good character and good repute in the community” or “where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare.” There is, however, an appellate review process.

Michael McGovern was denied a license, for several reasons. First, the Jersey City Police Department requires applicants to fill out extra forms, beyond those required by state law; McGovern refused to fill them out, arguing that state law didn’t authorize them.

Second, the trial court reviewing the department’s denial took the view that such uncooperativeness showed a lack of “good repute within the community.”

Third, the police department discovered that McGovern had a few arrests in Florida 10 years earlier, for petty theft, resisting arrest, and failures to appear in court or pay a fine for possession of an alcoholic beverage while under 21; it did not find any conviction record, but demanded that McGovern give further details on the incidents, and provide court records from the Florida courts. “There are no final dispositions listed for these offenses. You will have to get certified dispositions from the Courts involved as to the outcome of these charges. This department also has a concern over your actions during the incidents.” McGovern refused to provide these items.

Fourth, the government argued that McGovern acted wrongly by “surreptitiously record[ing] a conversation” with the police detective who was dealing with the case (though the trial court did not expressly rely on this justification).

The appellate court ruled in McGovern’s favor, for reasons I’ll mention shortly. But for now, I wanted to blog this photograph, which Mr. McGovern was kind enough to send me:

“I’m off to the range to break in my HK45c,” writes Mr. McGovern, and asks me to thank his appellate counsel Louis Nappen of The Nappen Law Firm, as well as Louie (Luigi) DeCecco of Louie G’s Outdoors.

In any event, here’s what the Appellate Division held back in April, and what led to the final success in November:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/gun-rights-even-in-new-jersey/

Ill-conceived Washington State Background Check Initiative Already Causing Absurd Outcomes

Posted: November 22, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Barely two weeks after Washington State voters approved Initiative 594 — a measure the NRA warned was “deeply flawed” — our predicted consequences are beginning to emerge.

Under I-594’s restrictive language, a person simply handing his or her firearm to another is presumptively required to broker this “transfer” through a gun dealer.  This also necessitates the accompanying background check, fee, paperwork, taxes and, in the case of a handgun, state registration.

Proponents of the initiative had assured voters that fears of this overreach were exaggerated.  Prior to the vote on I-594, Geoff Potter, spokesman for 1-594 proponents Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, said I-594 “simply applies the current system of background checks to all sales.”

As recounted in a Washington State news report, however, the Lynden Pioneer Museum has opted to pull eleven loaned WWII rifles currently on display and return these firearms to their collector owners before the “transfer” requirement in I-594 takes effect next month.  The reason?  The law contains no exemptions for firearms loaned for museum displays, or loaned for similar educational or cultural institution study or uses.  Once the law takes effect, the firearms could not be returned to their owners without the mandatory background checks and all the logistics and expenses that entails.

The museum director in Washington came to this decision reluctantly but unavoidably.  “I read through the law about 10 different times looking for a loophole,” he said.  He found none.  Unfortunately, there is no guidance at the state level because Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has reportedly not formed an opinion about I-594, and no authoritative interpretation of the initiative is available to the public, apart from the text of I-594 itself.  In the meantime, the museum’s attorney has stated he would welcome assurances from the state that it would not enforce the law to the detriment of the museum or the owners of the firearms on display.  To date, however, no such assurances have been forthcoming.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/11/ill-conceived-washington-state-background-check-initiative-already-causing-absurd-outcomes.aspx

Does Florida outlaw a militia becoming ‘well-regulated’?

Posted: November 21, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery, anti-gun idiocy
Tags: , , , ,
0

Earlier this month, an accused white supremacist in Florida named Marcus Faella was sentenced for two counts of the “crime” of “paramilitary training.” The sentence he must serve is six months in prison–vastly less than the 30 years he might have received. From WFTV 9:

The man found guilty of leading a white supremacist group in Osceola County has been sentenced to six months in jail.

Marcus Faella could have faced up to 30 years in prison after being found guilty on two counts of paramilitary training, but he instead got only a few months.

The “white supremacist” accusation, if true (and there appears to be some question about that, according to witnesses called by the defense) paints Faella as an unsavory, and indeed reprehensible, individual. But it does not–cannot, in a free society–make him a criminal. As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea notes in his online journal War on Guns:

As for the guy being a racist, if he hurt anybody, prosecute him. If he didn’t, life is full of distasteful people. Tolerance doesn’t mean approval, as much as some insist otherwise.

But rather than Faella’s specific case, let’s look at the Florida law he was convicted of violating (one count of “paramilitary training by teaching,” and one count of “paramilitary training by participation”). Couldn’t, after all, any kind of training intended to make a militia more effective (or “better-regulated”) be considered “paramilitary training”? Well, the law is a bit more specific than that:

(3)(a) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to unlawfully employ the same for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Well, OK, then–the training is only illegal if intended to prepare people to engage in civil disorder. Who could object to that?

Well, anyone who thinks to ask who gets to define what constitutes “civil disorder,” and determine the intentions of the teachers and participants in the training. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, after all, designates as “insurrectionists” anyone who dares utter that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the people’s means of resisting a tyrannical government. That list includes even mild-mannered gun rights advocates.

The Brady Campaign expressed outraged indignation when National Public Radio profiled the Southeast Michigan Militia as a benign organization that prepares to help maintain civil order, rather than reinforce the anti-gun groups’ preferred narrative of militias as terrorist groups.

And the Florida “justice” system is definitely on board with a wide open interpretation of what constitutes paramilitary training intended to foment “civil disorder.” According to another WFTV 9 article about the Faella case, a conviction for the “crime” of “paramilitary training” does not even require the prosecution to prove any specific plans on the part of the accused:

http://www.examiner.com/article/does-florida-outlaw-a-militia-becoming-well-regulated

‘There is no Second Amendment right to own guns,’ says N.M. man

Posted: November 17, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery, anti-gun idiocy
Tags: , , ,
0
A New Mexico Op-Ed says citizens do not have a right to own guns under the Second Amendment.
A New Mexico Op-Ed says citizens do not have a right to own guns under the Second Amendment.
Dave Workman

Anyone who honestly believes that the battle over firearms rights is finished could consider an Op-Ed in the Saturday edition of the Santa Fe New Mexican on-line to be the proverbial splash of cold water, as author Hank Bahnsen insisted that “There is no Second Amendment right to own guns. So intended the founders!”

Bahnsen’s 481-word essay elicited only three reader comments yesterday, but more importantly, illustrated the continued divide between firearms owners and gun prohibitionists. No amount of Supreme Court language in the Heller and McDonald rulings will change things, apparently. While Bahnsen is entitled to his opinion, it is likely to rub a lot of his fellow citizens the wrong way.

It may explain why one California sheriff seemed compelled the other day to explain in a website post that his agency will apparently need to be dragged kicking and screaming, as the Calguns Foundation put it, into compliance with the recent Peruta decision. Calguns quote from that decision, noting, “[T]he Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home,” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) at 1172 (emphasis in original), because “carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms” (Id at 1175).”

But Sheriff Stanley Sniff’s public information officer reminded readers that, “Residents are reminded that California CCW issuance is discretionary by the police chief or sheriff, and is based upon both reason of (1) self-defense or self-protection, AND (2) good moral character.” (Emphasis in the original document.)

Question: Who defines “good moral character?” Where in the job description of a county sheriff can that authority be found?

If there is “no Second Amendment right to own guns” and only people of “good moral character” can be allowed to carry firearms with government permission in California, what does that say about where the country is, and where it may be headed? Perhaps one answer could be found over the weekend in a two-part treatise by John Richardson at “No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money.”

Richardson first examined the passage of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure, in Washington earlier this month. In the second installment, he made some predictions about where similar efforts, apparently to be supported by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown For Gun Safety lobbying organization, might pop up next.

One reason Richardson identified some states as ripe for the kind of gun control in I-594 is explained thusly: “The next factor that I thought would have an impact was the proportion of the state’s residents that were actually born there. I call this the ‘Californication’ factor. In other words, people move from California to other states such as Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and bring their California attitudes with them. We see a similar pattern in the East as in-migrants from states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have altered the politics of states like Florida and Maine.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/there-is-no-second-amendment-right-to-own-guns-says-n-m-man

Bloomberg ‘background check’ expansion to Nevada part of warned-against plan

Posted: November 14, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , ,
0

Nevadans for Background Checks submitted a ballot measure petition with over 246,000 signatures as the next step emulating a successful effort in Washington State, Dave Workman noted Thursday, citing a KTNV News report. That move, Workman recalled, had been predictable, along with expected efforts in other states.

The Nevada effort was warned against in this column last August, in its revelation that, far from being a group springing up from the grassroots, Nevadans for Background Checks is a front group backed by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization. The corporation name was reserved with the Nevada Secretary of State by the same New York law firm that represented Everytown’s trademark registration. The Political Action Committee was headed by the Everytown treasurer, who also directed the I-594 Action Fund in Washington State.

That was all part of a well-planned and funded effort to expand “action group” efforts to the states reported in this column, initially in July of 2013, and warned of again in December of last year because no one else seemed to be noticing. It’s hard to organize against developing threats if the existence of where they are and how they’re structured is unknown.

Significantly, the KTNV “legitimate news media / real reporter” story mentioned none of this. I guess letting Nevadans know outside special interests are trying to buy an election isn’t newsworthy and/or doesn’t help advance the agenda.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bloomberg-background-check-expansion-to-nevada-part-of-warned-against-plan?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Bloomberg funded morons trying to duplicate I 594’s passage in Washington with similar horsepucky in Nevada

Posted: November 13, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery, anti-gun idiocy
Tags: , , , ,
0

“Nevadans for Background Checks collected about 250,000 signatures, according to Kayla Keller, a spokeswoman for the group. It currently takes 101,667 signatures from registered Nevada voters to qualify an initiative for the ballot”

We all know the following is bullshit-numbers produced by wording questions so those who take the poll provide a predetermined answer.

As usual-the anti-gun zealots pushing this garbage are using lies,half-truths, and obfuscation.

There is no way in hell that even 50% of the people of Nevada support this crap-no gun owner I know would support giving the government even more control over our right to keep and bear arms. Lies,false and misleading question on polls-and likely on the ballot initiative-are how these leftist tools produce their false numbers of supporters-wonder how many dead voters signed their petition?

“On the gun issue, polls show that more than eight out of 10 Nevadans support expanding gun background checks to private sales, including over the Internet and at gun shows, advocates say. Now, such checks are required only by licensed gun dealers to prevent felons, the court adjudicated mentally ill and domestic abusers from legally buying guns.”

“The gun background check initiative is supported by the Everytown For Gun Safety Action Fund, a group launched by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is spending tens of millions of dollars on efforts to influence elections and ballot measures in states. He spent some $40 million in the recent election, according to Politico.

If enough signatures are found to be legitimate, the initiatives would first go to the Legislature, which has 40 days to act on such measures. If lawmakers pass it and the governor signs it, the measure becomes law. If the Legislature does nothing or if the governor doesn’t sign it, an initiative goes on the ballot.

If lawmakers amend the measure, both the original version and the amended measure would go on the ballot. If both pass with more than 50 percent of the vote, the one with the larger number of “yes” votes becomes law.”

http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/elections/pot-gun-control-measures-could-be-headed-nevada-ballot

Bloomberg Moms’ political spots relied on deceptive voter manipulation

Posted: November 13, 2014 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery, anti-gun idiocy
Tags: , , ,
0
Bellicose Demanding Moms have proven as easy to dupe and exploit -- by pushing emotional buttons and letting their ignorance do the rest -- as Obamacare supporters.
Bellicose Demanding Moms have proven as easy to dupe and exploit — by pushing emotional buttons and letting their ignorance do the rest — as Obamacare supporters.
Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

Employing the same cynical political strategy and contemptuous duping of “stupid” voters as Obamacare promoters, Michael Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action relied on deception to exploit ignorance, prejudices and fears in the midterm elections, a Gun Rights Examiner analysis of social media messages on TPM Livewire demonstrates. The professionally-produced “Explain Your A” campaign featured in the story targeted three Republican candidates who had received high marks from the National Rifle Association: Carl Domino of Florida, Paul Chabot of California, and Larry Kaifesh of Illinois.

“Does your A grade from the NRA mean you support gun rights for suspected terrorists?” the attack on Domino read. Along with his picture, the Moms included a photo of Al Qaeda’s American-born propaganda tool, Adam Gadahn, whose previous affiliations in the “gun control” debate were with anti-gunners shamelessly exploiting another lie, that full-auto weapons could be bought without background checks and IDs at U.S. gun shows.

“Does your A grade from the NRA mean you support the rights of felons to buy and own guns?” the hit piece on Chabot asked. His portrait was paired with a heavily tattooed prisoner behind bars.

“Does your A grade from the NRA mean you oppose taking guns from domestic abusers?” the smear against Kaifesh insinuated. Accompanying his picture was the image of a distraught, heavily-mascaraed woman with her fists clenched against her cheeks suggestive of both Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” and MacCaulay Culkin in “Home Alone.” For some unexplained reason, the model in the staged photo shoot has what appears to be masking tape across her mouth — either that or she’s wearing a turtleneck like Mort from “Bazooka Joe” comics. With these crazy MILMs, who the hell knows?

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers,” novelist Thomas Pynchon noted in “Gravity’s Rainbow.” In this case, the minds behind the Moms ask those questions for us in order to manipulate emotions and suppress critical examination. After all, who wants terrorist, gangbangers and wife-beaters shooting victims?

The targets of the misleading Bloomberg hit pieces are enabling nothing of the sort, of course. And nothing being demanded would stop the bad guys anyway.

If a person is a known threat, public safety demands he be apprehended. If he’s only a suspected threat, there’s this little protection we’re supposed to have called due process, where people get a trial, are proven guilty and are sentenced. What they’re going for here is a “terror watch list” for guns, as if tipping off those who are under surveillance makes for smart intelligence work. What they’re also going for is people who are not in custody being stripped of fundamental rights and liberty, not that the Bill of Rights means anything when you‘re a “progressive” with an agenda to shove down throats. Besides, there’s another, bigger deception going on: These people are using fear of an Al Qaeda boogeyman to justify deprivation of liberties they really want extended to those they paint as domestic terrorists – that is, anyone who believes the right to keep and bear arms is a legitimate deterrent to tyranny, and in a last-resort right to rebellion.

OK, but what about felons, that is, people who have already received their due process? We’ll put aside my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, and focus on the way things are. Such criminals are already prohibited by law from having a gun – for all the good that does at stopping them. What the Bloombergians want here is to end all lawful (!!!) private sales and transfers, done under another deception as we’re seeing unfold in Washington State, so-called “universal background checks.” And yes, of course they’re aware that the National Institute of Justice produced a “Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” report in which it concluded “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

So of course what they really want is gun registration (something the gun-grabbers know felons are exempted from, because requiring it of them would violate their right against self-incrimination). If all they really intended was to ensure recipients of firearms transfers were legally eligible, “common sense gun safety advocates” would be promoting a Blind Identification System, which could verify no legal impediment to a transfer exists but record no information identifying either gun buyers or what they purchased. And, again of course, the real reason they want registration is to facilitate confiscation.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bloomberg-moms-political-spots-relied-on-deceptive-voter-manipulation?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Older Entries
Newer Entries