Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

Freedom Advocates, Pro-Gun Senators Unite to Oppose the Obama Administration’s Attempt to Censor Information about Firearms Technology

Posted: August 9, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Via NRL-ILA

Freedom Advocates, Pro-Gun Senators Unite to Oppose the Obama Administration’s Attempt to Censor Information about Firearms Technology

As we reported in June, the Obama Administration’s State Department (DOS) proposed a revision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) on June 3 that would require anyone seeking to make certain types of information about firearms publicly available to first obtain government approval. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by the proposal are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law. Our original alert encouraged gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, serious hobbyists, and others who rely on design, development, production or manufacturing information about firearms to file comments with the State Department opposing the rule and explaining its problems.

The response was overwhelming. By the time the comment period ended on Monday, nearly 10,000 comments had been posted to the Regulations.gov website, the vast majority of them adamantly opposed to the law. A DOS official put the actual number of comments (which can also be submitted by other means) at some 12,000. Those opposing the rule include police officers, engineers, research universities, scholastic rifle teams, defense contractors, gunsmiths, firearm instructors, professors, IT professionals, and thousands of gun owners who enjoy fabricating or working on firearms for their lawful personal use. Their input illustrates not only the proposal’s restraints on free speech but the numerous practical problems it would pose for a variety of professionals, students, researchers, and other law-abiding Americans.

NRA’s own comments were submitted on Monday. The comments begin by emphasizing that the larger Export Control Reform effort of which the June 3 proposal is a part has always intended to move firearms off ITAR’s list of controlled items (the U.S. Munitions List) to a list subject to more flexible controls administered by the Commerce Department.  The whole point of having dual systems of control is to recognize that especially sensitive or sophisticated military technology (like that used in nuclear subs or ballistic missiles) requires a different level of regulation than items like firearms that have both military and civilian applications. Yet the Obama Administration, solely for political reasons, continues to treat the same sorts of firearms that some 100 million Americans (and countless foreigners) already have in their homes as if they are as militarily sensitive and consequential as aircraft carriers or strategic bombers.

Our comments also note that a proposed definition of “defense service” is so far-reaching that it could hinder efforts by NRA and NRA certified instructors to provide firearm education and safety training within the U.S. Under the proposal, a foreign person lawfully present in the U.S. could not participate even in “basic” operational training with a firearm unless the person had been approved to receive that firearm as an export in another country. This means, for example, that a foreign exchange student living with an American host family could not lawfully obtain the necessary training to safely use and handle a borrowed bolt action rifle to accompany the family on a deer hunt. Obviously, this is too restrictive and does nothing to further America’s national security.

The bulk of NRA’s comments, however, are devoted to explaining how the proposal would impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on firearm-related speech protected by the First Amendment.  We also expose DOS’s falsehood that the proposed requirement for “preauthorization” to discuss technical aspects of firearms and ammunition is merely a “more explicit statement” of current practice and policy. The comments quote extensively from case law and Department of Justice memorandums dating back to the 1970s which warn DOS that it cannot constitutionally impose a broad requirement that Americans first obtain government approval before speaking publicly about unclassified military technology.  We also show how DOS, under prior administrations, removed a similar preauthorization requirement in response to these concerns. “Not only is the preauthorization requirement a radical departure from DOS practice as it existed immediately prior to the proposal’s publication date,” our comments state, “it is a return to policy DOS had abandoned in the 1980s as incompatible with the First Amendment.”

Finally, our comments expose how another supposed clarification is actually a massive power grab by DOS, with the proposal’s insistence that speech published online must be treated as an “export,” because of its presumed availability to foreign persons. Not only is DOS’ attempt to seize control of Internet content futile from a practical standpoint, it was never authorized by the Congress that original passed ITAR’s enabling legislation, the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Internet had yet to be developed at the time of the AECA’s passage, so it authors could hardly have appointed DOS the government’s official Internet censor. More to the point, even if they had tried, the First Amendment would have stopped them.

Surprisingly (or maybe not), the media has been surprisingly silent on the government’s attempt to censor speech about constitutionally-protected firearms owned by millions of Americans. NRA’s comments quote statements from a press conference in which a DOS official sets up a strawman by insisting the proposal would not ban “general descriptions” or “imagery” of firearms. What the official fails to mention, however, is that more detailed information about firearm technology would be seriously curtailed. Worse, because the proposal is so awkwardly and confusingly drafted, even unregulated speech would likely be chilled because of the inability of individuals and media outlets (like Internet service providers) to determine when the regulatory line was crossed. Is the mass media so hypocritical that it’s willing to sacrifice a whole category of legitimate, constitutionally-protected speech, simply because it supports a gun culture the media detests? So far, that seems to be the case.

Fortunately, pro-gun representatives in the Senate have been more conscientious in protecting the public trust on this issue.  Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) led an effort that resulted in a 28 senators signing on to a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, opposing the June 3 proposal. According to the letter, “certain definitions within the proposal are so broad as to capture actions essential to the exercise of a citizen’s Second Amendment rights.” It goes on to state that the new definitions could capture “information such as how to legally modify or assemble a generally available firearm, such as a hunting rifle or self-defense handgun, or information on the development of new loading information for existing firearm ammunition.” “These types of activities,” the letter warns, “are part and parcel of how many Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights.” The signatories accordingly “urge the State Department to modify or delay these misguided changes to the ITAR in order to ensure they do not violate the First and Second Amendments or until commonly owned firearms and ammunition are not adversely impacted.”

Once again, America’s gun owners, and their elected officials, with the backing and support of your NRA, have risen to the challenge of opposing an attempt from the Obama Administration to use executive authority to limit Second Amendment rights. Whether the proposal will be enacted as written, in a modified form, or will be scrapped, remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, DOS has received a clear message that America’s gun owners will not stand by to let either their First or Second Amendment rights be trampled.

Cornyn’s NRA-Backed Mental Health Bill Needs to Address Key Questions

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

Via David Codrea

“A+”-rated* Sen. John Cornyn has the National Rifle Association’s backing for a “modest” bill “that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers,” Fox News is reporting. The legislation is generating no small amount of debate among gun rights advocates, with some supporting it as a pragmatic move designed to thwart more draconian proposals, and others characterizing it as a preemptive surrender (and worse).

Without getting into that debate, because there will be plenty of others weighing in on both sides, I’d instead like to just ask a few questions that all who are interested in due process ought to be interested in seeing answered. By way of disclosure, my longstanding contention is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, but that’s not likely to be reflected in social policy anytime soon, so it’s not the focus here.

Backers of the bill tell us “due process” protections will be increased for veterans and others under Cornyn’s bill. Per his spokesman, “This bill codifies into law that individuals must get their day in court they’re entitled to, and no agency or state can make their own determination without that.”

It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial  that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?

What protections will exist to offset politically-connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask, because APA includes in its advocacy platform registration-enabling, background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.

Significantly though, even APA admits:

Only a small proportion of individuals with a mental disorder pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.

Casting a wide net and leaving the shot-calling up to those with subjective political motivations has historical precedence – predominantly in “gun control” havens.

Also of interest – or it should be – how will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health prescription to deny them? What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure be to “err on the side of caution”?

Read the whole thing Here

Report: Columbus Mayor Coleman’s Gun Stoppers program a complete failure; FBI investigating illegalities in Coleman’s office

Posted: August 4, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , ,
0

If reports from WBNS 10TV (CBS Columbus) and a whistleblower are accurate, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman (D) may soon join the lengthy list (see here and here and here) of members of anti-gun extremist Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) to face serious charges.

From the report:

It was billed as a way to fight rising crime waves and get more guns off city streets and the city’s Gun Stoppers program was announced with much fan-fare.

But 10 Investigates recent review of the program, shows it’s unclear how many guns were taken off the street – if any.

According to the article, Mayor Coleman’s Office introduced the Gun Stoppers program in 2010 utilizing a $50,000 federal grant. The grant paid for Gun Stoppers to be run jointly by the city and Crime Stoppers and gave cash rewards up to $1,000 for “tips that lead to an arrest and the confiscation of an illegal gun.”

The program was brought back in the news recently, when former Crime Stoppers director Kevin Miles claimed: “I can tell you there wasn’t a single gun turned in but I do know that they reported there was guns that were recovered with money from that program.”

Using city, county and court records, 10 Investigates reviewed the program and found Gun Stoppers paid out a total of $19,000 to tipsters.  The records, though, never listed any gun that was seized.

Police agency representatives associated with the tips told 10TV they were not directly involved with the program and said they have no records of guns associated with the Gun Stoppers program.

CrimeStoppers told the news station they don’t have any information on guns collected by their Gun Stopper program. 10TV reports that they did provide a list of arrests made in connection to the tips, but that court records show that not all the crimes even involved guns.

One award was paid for information that led to the arrest of Michael P. Reilly. Reilly was charged with multiple counts of aggravated robbery and robbery. Court records, though, show the weapon used was a knife, scissors or sharp instrument.

Another case involving the arrest of Darrian T. Cordell, where a gun was found in a car stop. The trooper testified that he stopped the car because it was following too closely in the early morning hours.

And three tips paid out exceeded the program’s $1,000 cap.  (Note: those payouts were for $3,000, $3,500 and $2,500.)

Case files show that some of the cases were where no guns were used in commission of the crime.

The report goes on to say that Columbus Public Safety’s Deputy Director Dan Giangardella said he could not give an exact answer when asked how many guns were taken off Columbus streets through Gun Stoppers. “I don’t have an exact count for that. Dozens?”

Noting that Mayor Coleman once gave public congratulations for Gun Stoppers, 10TV reports that Giangardella described Gun Stoppers as only a “a mildly successful program.” In an email to 10TV, Giangardella admitted that the program was changed in 2011, more than a year in the running, so that it “no longer require confiscation of guns.” (It’s must easier to claim a program’s “mild success” if you move the goal posts once you realize it is failing.)

The Buckeye Firearms Association opposed the Gun Stoppers program since its beginning. Gerard Valentino with the Association’s board said, “This whole program is designed to take illegal guns off the street, yet their own actions show us it must not be that big of a problem because they’re using the money inappropriately and for completely different issues.”

Former Crime Stoppers director Kevin Miles told 10TV that FBI agents recently asked him about allegations of corruption inside Columbus City Hall.

Miles is quoted as saying he saw financial abuses in the Gun Stoppers program committed by Lee Roberts, who Buckeye Firearms Association exposed in 2012 as a MAIG staff member working in a tax-payer funded position created for him in the Columbus mayor’s office (effectively using public dollars to lobby against citizens’ Second Amendment rights).

According to Miles, Roberts told him to spend the money on ads with a GLBT local magazine called Outlook Columbus. Miles told 10TV Outlook got the majority of Gun Stoppers ad dollars because they supported the mayor.

Buckeye Firearms Association has been reporting on corruption within Coleman’s office for years.

Emails obtained by Buckeye Firearms Association and Media Trackers Ohio in 2012 revealed that Roberts and Coleman’s office conspired to use the deaths of three high school students to limit Second Amendment rights within hours of the February 2012 shootings at Chardon High School. The emails also revealed that Roberts also worked with staffers of then-New York Mayor Bloomberg to leverage the shooting of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords for new federal gun restrictions.

Coleman spokesman Daniel Williamson suggested in a Media Trackers interview that Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) and Coleman staffer R. Lee Roberts were not involved in lobbying legislators against the legislation. However, internal emails show that not only was Williamson aware of MAIG’s active opposition to the bill, Williamson himself assisted in lobbying efforts. Contrary to Williamson’s claims, the emails proved that Roberts spent months agitating against Ohio’s Restaurant & Car Carry Rules Fix in 2011. After the bill passed, emails prove Roberts also conspired with Williamson to lobby Governor Kasich not to sign it.
It is not known whether reports of an FBI investigation effected Coleman’s decision not to run for a fifth term.

Among the candidates seeking to replace him is the Democrat president of the Columbus City Council, Andrew Ginter.

Instead of expressing concern about the allegations, Ginter chose to attack the whistleblower and his claims.

“They seem a bit bizarre to me. And interesting to me they come about some 5 years after the fact. We all know of the situation with Mr. Miles departure from Columbus and the fact that some things were done under his watch with Crime Stoppers that kind of beg the question , why now and why in this type of approach?” said Ginther.

Ginter, who has received the endorsement of Coleman, stood at the mayor’s side during the 2010 Gun Stoppers rollout.

The Trace: Just Another Effort to Mislead America

Posted: August 4, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , ,
0

One recurring truth about the anti-gun movement is how often they try to create new organizations which claim “neutrality” or “moderation” on the Second Amendment, but in reality are nothing more than carbon copies of all the anti-gun groups that have come before them.

As we reported a few weeks ago, fanatically anti-gun Michael Bloomberg has found a new venture to pour his money into.  It’s called “The Trace”, which claims to be a fair news organization devoted to researching “gun violence.” The head of the new group, former New Republic Magazine editor James Burnett even went as far as to suggest the group will not publish editorials supporting specific legislation or candidates, but simply provide information and news stories in opposition to “gun violence.”  But let’s look at reality.

First, the group has no need to endorse specific legislation or a given candidate to achieve their anti-gun goals.  All they have to do is gin up “news” or biased “analyses” that provide specific anti gun messaging which supports whichever draconian law is Bloomberg’s favorite flavor of the day at the national or state level.  Obviously, this information will then provide the foundation for countless more news stories from the anti-gun press, countless more anti-gun legislative initiatives, and countless more talking points for anti-gun candidates to use when running for office.  And this is exactly what “The Trace” will work tirelessly to make happen.

And we can’t forget who is making this all possible. “The Trace” is funded not only by Bloomberg, but also by the famously anti-gun Joyce Foundation and the cofounder of the reliably anti-gun Huffington Post. With financial support like that, does anyone believe that there will be any information from “The Trace” that is anything other than anti-gun propaganda?

Burnett stated that “The Trace” is needed because there is not enough anti-gun violence coverage in the media.  One wonders if he has ever read the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, or any one of a number of big city newspapers that attack our Second Amendment rights on a regular basis.  Or perhaps he does not have cable TV and so is not exposed to anti-gun coverage on CNN or MSNBC.  It sounds more like Editor Burnett lives where pigs fly and unicorns win the Kentucky Derby.

There can be no doubt that Bloomberg and his allies are focusing resources towards an all-out assault on our rights with “The Trace” simply another move to fulfill their broader mission.  As subverting the truth to achieve their goals has been well established as a tactic of choice, we can expect the same from “The Trace.”  NRA-ILA will not let their lies and distortions go unanswered, and together we can stand up to Bloomberg and his media allies, especially when he stacks the deck against freedom in such an unmitigated and craven way.

Were Guns “Much More” Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s?

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

[Recently], Time magazine published a piece that pushes the narrative that today’s firearms laws are permissive in comparison to those of the early 20th century. Titled, “Guns Were Much More Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s than They Are Today,” the piece contends that “Those who look to America’s past to extol a time when nothing stood between an American and a gun need to look again.” The obvious goal of the work is to convince the uninformed that any notions they might have about America’s long-standing culture of gun ownership should pose no barrier to future restrictions, particularly on the ownership of semi-automatic firearms.

The piece was written by long-time anti-gun author and SUNY Cortland Political Science Professor Robert J. Spitzer. Since the 1990s, Spitzer has been writing columns and books advocating for gun control; often focusing on semi-automatic firearms. In these pieces Spitzer pushed – now mostly recognized as silly – misconceptions about popular semi-autos, such as “The lighter weight, compact design, and pistol grips give the ability to ‘spray fire’ – often from the hip,” and, “Their concealability adds to their criminal appeal.”

Further, Spitzer advocated for the – now thoroughly rejected – notion that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms. In his 1995 book, The Politics of Gun Control, Spitzer claimed, “The desire to treat the Second Amendment as a constitutional touchstone by gun control opponents is understandable… Such claims are, however, without historical, constitutional, or legal foundation.”

However, the thesis laid out in the column’s title only works if one completely ignores the federal government’s entrance into the field of firearms control, and subsequent restrictions on firearms enacted in several states. In the 1920s and 1930s, Americans purchasing firearms could simply order rifles or shotguns by mail right to their front door. The Gun Control Act of 1968 brought about much of the modern federal gun control regime, including federal prohibitions certain categories of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, importation restrictions, and the licensing and regulation of firearms dealers. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993, which requires background checks on those purchasing a firearm from a dealer. In the 1990s and 2000s, several states restricted access to semi-automatic firearms, and some states have continually expanded their categories of prohibited persons. A quick glance at two of BATFE’s publications, the “Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide,” and “State Laws and Published Ordinances,” makes it abundantly clear that 2015 America isn’t some sort of unfettered gun rights utopia in comparison to the early 20th century.

Perhaps most bizarre about Spitzer and his work is that even after decades of advocating for gun restrictions, the professor still appears to know little of the firearms he seeks to ban, botching terminology at every turn. In his latest piece, Spitzer notes that modern hunters are likely to use something he describes as a “semi-automatic long barrel gun.” Later, he claims that in the early 20th century states had little patience for “semi-automatic firing married to the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading.” Anyone with a cursory knowledge of firearms would know that the latter characteristic is a prerequisite of the former. Further on, Spitzer uses the term “large capacity bullet magazines.”

Over the years Spitzer has been wrong on the history of gun control, wrong on the Second Amendment, and displayed a severe lack of basic firearms knowledge. Unfortunately, when it comes to an anti-gun periodical like Time, the ability to further the publication’s political agenda, rather than accuracy, appears to be the chief requirement for publication.

© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Make No Mistake: “The Trace” is No Impartial News Organization

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

Editor’s Note: TheTrace.org recently contacted Buckeye Firearms Association about the closing of the media access loophole. The resulting article, entitled “Another State Just Made It Impossible for Reporters to Access Concealed Carry Records,” is posted here.

Readers Beware.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently revealed a new tactic in his ongoing campaign to impose his anti-gun agenda on Americans with the launch of “The Trace .” The new website describes itself as a “media organization dedicated to expanding coverage of guns in the United States.” Bloomberg, of course, already owns and controls one of the largest media empires in the world in Bloomberg LP , but apparently it is not adequately biased to serve his anti-gun agenda.

According to editorial director James Burnett, “The Trace” is not an “anti-gun” organization, but hopes to “appeal to people across the spectrum on the issue.” But the content makes it clear that the organization is just another Bloomberg-funded gun control project. The site even states, “We bring an admitted bias to our beat.”

Huffington Post further illustrated this intentional bias while celebrating the launch of the new “news” organization. “We believe that the rate of gun violence is too high and we believe that there is not enough information about the issue as a whole,” editorial director James Burnett said in his interview. “As journalists, we have it as our mission to address that shortage of information.”

Like other Bloomberg backed organizations (Everytown for Gun Safety, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America), “The Trace” has already earned a lack of credibility among gun owners. Within the first few days of operation, the organization has readers outraged over one-sided reporting on issues and reckless disregard for facts.

It is clear that Bloomberg’s true goal is not to increase education and awareness on firearms and firearm safety, but to even more thoroughly color the information that reaches Americans about their Second Amendment rights. Orwellian propagandists have nothing on the sprawling Bloomberg newspeak machine.

Readers who may stumble across an article in “The Trace” — and any legitimate reporters seeking to inform themselves and the public on Second Amendment issues — should ignore the advocacy “journalists” at the “The Trace” and treat them like the Bloomberg, anti-gun staffers they are.

Click here to read the entire op-ed at NSSFBlog.com.

Gay Marriage Organizers Set their Sights on Guns

Posted: July 12, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , ,
0

h/t MaddMedic

Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.

Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…

When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.

Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.

We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.

From Here

Cuomo Administration, Senate Republicans Agree To Changes In Gun Control Law

Posted: July 11, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

h/t The Grey Enigma

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Senate Republicans and Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration have agreed to change part of the state’s gun control laws.

Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said Saturday that an agreement had been reached to suspend development of a database for checking the backgrounds of ammunition buyers.

The database was included as part of the so-called “SAFE Act,” which was enacted following the 2012 Newtown school massacre.

According to the agreement signed by Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan and top Cuomo aide Jim Malatras, the database is being put on hold because the state police determined the necessary technology doesn’t exist yet.

It won’t be revived until the technology and state funding are available.

In the past, Cuomo has resisted calls to change what he considers a signature achievement.

On Friday, Azzopardi said Republican Sen. James Seward, a critic of the SAFE Act legislation, “mistakenly” said a moratorium on Internet sales of ammunition would be lifted as well. Azzopardi said that was not part of the deal agreed upon.

Spokesmen for the GOP majority and Seward didn’t initially respond to requests for comment.

Democratic State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie called the agreement “an ill-advised end run” around the legislation

source

David Codrea: Case SCOTUS Didn’t Hear Points to Larger Concern for Gun Owners

Posted: July 4, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

Via David Codrea

The fallout from two recent Supreme Court rulings is receiving needed attention, as it’s up to activist gun owners to keep apprised of looming threats and opportunities, and to minimize damage/maximize gains of case outcomes. For one decision, Gun Owners of America has been at the forefront of warning against the anti-gun dangers hidden in Obamacare. On the flip side, some are looking at the same sex marriage ruling to prompt states to recognize concealed carry permits. But as important as those concerns are, they may ultimately become moot points if a case SCOTUS declined to hear is an indicator of things to come . . .

“The Supreme Court … refused to accept a case which sought to allow states to supplement a federal voter registration form so as to require proof of citizenship to vote,” Legal Insurrection reported Monday. “This is not just a battle of forms. It’s a battle for preventing theft of elections.”

“A new study … indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterm,” National Review reported in November. “Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic … Al Franken’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race [is] one likely tipped by non-citizen voting.”

While Obamacare is cited as a law that was passed by adding Franken’s 60th vote to the total, his hostility to gun rights and his affirmation of anti-gun nominees to administration and federal court positions were also enabled by his questionable win. A co-sponsor of the “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act,” which called for up to a 10-year prison sentence for violations, Franken is rated “F” by both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.

Still, the High Court’s deliberate indifference may have been based on recognizing that ascertaining proof of citizenship may itself soon be a moot point if establishment Democrats and Republicans have their way. That’s because the Obama administration is paving a “pathway to citizenship” for foreign nationals illegally residing in the U.S. Likely Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has pledged that as a priority. And GOP leadership and current flip-flopping frontrunner Jeb Bush are servicing their Chamber of Commerce patrons to ensure a continued source of “cheap” (meaning paid for by everyone else) labor.

Add to that an overlooked but undeniable danger identified by activist and journalist Rick Oltman in an exclusive report the media and political establishments have ignored, but that merits widespread attention: Expect a “massive naturalization of legal permanent residents [LPRs] before the 2016 election,” a move that will overwhelmingly favor Democrats.

That’s especially dangerous, because the Democrat Party includes “gun control” as a central part of its national platform:

Read the rest @ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/david-codrea/case-scotus-didnt-hear-points-to-larger-concern-for-gun-owners/

Gun-banners are after more than the 2nd Amendment

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

Via JPFO

By Donald L. Cline. June 24th, 2015

I am a Constitutional scholar and a pro-right to keep and bear arms activist. I am writing today to bring to the attention of the —-NRA members and leadership a fundamental issue everyone seems to be ignoring: The right to keep and bear arms is not the only right being assaulted today by the anti-rights gun-banners, and we are helping them accomplish their objective! It is time to stop helping our enemies.

When the Brady Act of 1993 was proposed, with its attended Form 4473 interrogation and NICS check, the NRA leadership thought it was a good idea. Apparently the NRA leadership did not realize it was a stalking horse. The object was not to reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms, and its backers knew it. And in fact it has not reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms. Not one bit. The object was to sucker gun owners into supporting destruction of their Fourth Amendment-guaranteed right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct.

The object was also to confiscate from citizens their right to keep and bear arms without due process, and replace it with a government-issued privilege which could be permitted or denied by a faceless bureaucrat in some FBI basement boileroom.

The object was also to further erode – let’s face it, destroy, once and for all – our 10th Amendment-guaranteed right to a federal government exercising only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and a State government exercising only those powers not prohibited to it by the Constitution.

  •   Interrogation and search and seizure of rights without probable cause: The purchase or transfer of a firearm is not probable cause of criminal conduct.
  •   The taking our RIGHT to keep and bear arms without due process: A compelled interrogation and search under color of bogus law is not due process.
  •   The federal government doesn’t even have the authority to license gun dealers or commission ATF agents or to monitor, notice, oversee, infringe upon or interfere with our right to keep and bear arms in any way.
  •   Government does not have the lawful power to command the waiver of a right as a precondition to allowing you to exercise a right.
  •   In fact, government does not have the lawful power to allow or deny the exercise of a right in the first place: State government have the Police Power to regulate the USE of arms – when, where, under what safety regulations, under what criteria for self-defense (so long as self-defense is not prohibited) – but under the 2nd Amendment and the prohibition clause of the 10th Amendment, even State governments have no lawful power to ‘regulate’ the right to keep and bear arms.
  •   Article VI of the U.S. Constitution binds the judges to the supreme Law of the Constitution, the laws or Constitution of any State notwithstanding.

People are actually proud of the fact they have met government criteria to allow them to exercise a right government has no authority to allow or deny, when in fact they have waived their right to keep and bear arms AND their right to be secure from interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause AND their right to due process. When government decides to confiscate firearms, gun owners won’t have anything to say about it: They have waived their rights. ALL of their rights under the Rule of Law.

The have rendered the first nation in the history of the planet to establish the rights of citizens superior to the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords irrelevant and moot.

Compelled background checks is and was a stalking horse: Now the next step is being undertaken: Constitutional subversive Michael Bloomberg and his wealthy cronies are going around the country buying voter initiatives to expand these bogus background checks into what they call “Universal Background Checks.” The law is now in effect in Washington State, Oregon and Colorado, and is about to be voted on in Nevada and Arizona and Maine. Once this color of law is entrenched, whether it is enforced or not, the next step will be to require background checks for anyone wishing to speak out against government tyranny. Compelled background checks for anyone wishing to exercise their right to march in a protest rally. Compelled background checks for anyone petitioning government for redress of grievances. You must prove your ideas are not a threat to government, don’tcha know?

Background checks MUST be voted down. And the illegal, bogus, unconstitutional color of law known as the Brady Act of 1993 must be struck down with extreme prejudice. Not one crime has ever been prevented by the Brady Act.

Donald L. Cline
frdmftr@frdmftr.net
www.frdmftr.net

Older Entries
Newer Entries