Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

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?

Don’t Think The BATFE Will Stop At Green

Posted: April 24, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

From NRA-ILA

Recent history shows why Congress had to rein in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) with the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.

On Friday, Feb. 13, 2015—the eve of a three-day weekend, with members of Congress back in their home states—BATFE quietly announced its intention to ban the manufacture and importation of the M855 cartridge. The plan was to take the second-most common variety of ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15, off the market.

Your National Rifle Association (NRA), ever vigilant, caught the move and immediately sounded the alarm. Staunch opposition from the public and the law enforcement community (which rejected the Obama administration’s fairy tale that this was all for them), along with stalwart leadership from U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and U.S. House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson (R-Texas), forced BATFE to back down—at least for now.  Were BATFE to formally adopt the Framework, it could jeopardize access not just to M855, but to almost all ammunition…

BATFE laid out its absurd case for the ban in its “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c).” I encourage everyone to carefully read the “Framework,” which we linked to in our online alerts on NRAILA.org. Were BATFE to formally adopt the Framework, it could jeopardize access not just to M855, but to almost all ammunition if any of the ongoing attempts to ban lead ammunition were also to succeed.

The law that BATFE cited as the basis of the Framework was added to the Gun Control Act of 1986. It prohibits the manufacture and importation of so-called “armor-piercing ammunition.” This includes “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely … from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium.” The law was passed because several special-purpose handgun bullets made of hard metals had been developed for law enforcement use, and concern arose that some of them might fall into the hands of criminals.

The core of an M855 bullet is made of lead, rather than one of the hard metals listed in the law, but BATFE designated the bullet as “armor-piercing ammunition” because of its steel tip. At the time, this didn’t present a problem in practical terms. Congress had recognized that many rifle cartridges “may be used in a handgun” chambered in a rifle caliber, so it passed the law with an exemption for projectiles “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” From the outset, BATFE said that the exemption applied to M855. Problem solved—or so it seemed.

Three years later, however, BATFE began showing signs that, in hindsight, could have served as a warning that M855’s “sporting purposes” exemption might one day be in jeopardy.

In 1989, BATFE prohibited the importation of 43 makes and models of detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles which, for many years previously, it had approved for importation as being “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”

Attempting to justify its politically motivated reinterpretation of the law during the media-driven “assault weapons” frenzy, BATFE ludicrously claimed that shooting sports based upon defensive firearm skills were not “sporting purposes.” Equally indefensibly, it also said that recreational target shooting, which it dismissed as “plinking,” was not a “sporting purpose,” but was instead a “pastime.” By that ridiculous standard, sandlot baseball, a popular version of “the nation’s pastime,” would also not be a “sport.”

Sports, BATFE insisted, consist only of hunting, skeet and trap, and “organized marksmanship competitions.” But even by this overly restrictive definition, BATFE’s rifle ban had no legitimate basis. Virtually all of the general-purpose, magazine-fed rifles that it banned were no different than the American-made Springfield M1A. At the time, this rifle predominated in the most “organized marksmanship competitions” in this country, the annual National Rifle Matches, conducted every summer by the NRA and today’s Civilian Marksmanship Program at Camp Perry, Ohio.

Having redefined “sports,” BATFE next turned its attention to redefining “sporting” firearms. The Gun Control Act had originally sought to prohibit the importation of ultra-compact, inexpensive handguns. In 1993, however, BATFE again reinterpreted “sporting purposes,” this time to ban the importation of large, expensive handguns like the Heckler & Koch SP89, which it had previously approved for importation. BATFE didn’t pick and choose which sports to consider “sporting” this time, but it ignored its own longstanding Handgun Factoring Criteria. Handguns like the SP89 had satisfied BATFE’s criteria for “sporting purposes” by having features like adjustable sights, a long barrel and a mechanical safety.

In 1994, BATFE reinterpreted “sporting purposes” yet again to ban the importation of 12-gauge shotguns it had previously approved for importation. Then, in 1998, it reinterpreted its 1989 reinterpretation of “sporting purposes” to ban the importation of semi-automatic rifles made expressly to comply with the agency’s 1989 ban.

Fast-forward to the present. The BATFE attempt to ban M855 ammunition features its most far-fetched reinterpretation of “sporting purposes” to date. First, instead of considering, as the law requires, whether a projectile is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,” the Framework claims that what counts is the type of handgun in which the projectile can be used.  BATFE argues the new focus on handguns is necessary because AR-15-type handguns pose a “significant risk” to law enforcement officers.

Originally, the BATFE granted M855 a sporting purposes exemption because the ammunition can be used in rifles. Now, it says that a center-fire projectile is sporting only if the only handgun in which it can be used is a single-shot. When “a handgun’s objective design is not limited to primarily sporting purposes, such as handguns designed to be carried and concealed, it may be reasonably inferred that ammunition capable of use in such handguns is unlikely to be used primarily for sporting purposes.” I guess the BATFE never heard of either wadcutter .45 caliber rounds used for Bullseye Shooting (or the NRA’s Conventional Pistol) competitions or hunting projectiles designed for revolvers.

BATFE argues the new focus on handguns is necessary because AR-15-type handguns pose a “significant risk” to law enforcement officers. That argument fails for multiple reasons. First, the exemption should not be based upon the type of firearm in which a projectile could possibly be used, but upon how the manufacturer or importer of the projectile intends it to be primarily used. Otherwise, ammunition designed for rifles can be jeopardized the minute someone creates a handgun that can fire it.

Second, the FBI reports that no law enforcement officer has been killed with any handgun chambered in .223 Rem. or 5.56×45 mm NATO during at least the past 35 years, and BATFE’s Framework makes no claim this has ever happened.

Third, the manufacturer or importer of a projectile cannot possibly know what type of firearm someone might use to fire the projectile. Congress could not have intended to place manufacturers and importers at risk of prosecution because their products might be used in a way for which they were not intended.

BATFE’s latest politically motivated twisting of “sporting purposes” has President Barack Obama’s fingerprints all over it. Obama is still livid over the fact that in 2013, the Senate voted down Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s “assault weapons” bill on a bipartisan vote of 60-40. He claimed if Congress wouldn’t act, he would.

To carry out the administration’s goals, BATFE didn’t just reinterpret the law, it effectively rewrote it. Untold millions of M855-type cartridges and projectiles have been manufactured, imported, sold and used for sporting purposes over the years. Since the mid-1990s, AR-15s have accounted for the vast majority of rifles used in  center-fire rifle shooting sports, and M855 ammo accounts for between a quarter and a third of all .223 Rem./ 5.56 mm cartridges sold. Simple math tells you the overwhelming use of those rounds has been lawful.

After creating a furor, BATFE retreated from its attack on the AR-15. Gun owners who contacted their senators and representatives to request congressional action to thwart BATFE’s ban were a key factor in this about-face. Majorities in both the House and Senate signed letters in opposition to the ban.

Nevertheless, as long as BATFE enjoys the support of an administration willing to bend the law to its agenda, the threat will linger. And that brings us to 2016.

Next year, we will have the chance to steer America back on course. A pro-Second Amendment Congress and president can curb BATFE from thwarting the will of the American people. Where BATFE’s ever-changing misinterpretations of “sporting purposes” are concerned, that must include revising federal laws to ensure they respect the right of Americans to acquire firearms and ammunition for all legitimate purposes.

Let’s ensure BATFE’s bogus Framework is trumped by America’s Framework, the U.S. Constitution. For the future of our country, we can strive to do no less.

From the “Common Sense Gun Control” Crowd…

Posted: April 22, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , ,
1

“Nobody wants to take your guns.” Yeah, right.

“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for
controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” — Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.”
Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Andrew Cuomo

“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”
Michael Dukakis

“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” — U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” — Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

“Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.”
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

“[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!” — John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.” — Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

“Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” — Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
— Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” — U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” — Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes
interview.

“We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.” — Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

“I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers… No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.” — Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

“I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” — William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

“The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” — U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,
1991.

“I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” — Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report “Handguns in America”, October
1997

“We must get rid of all the guns.” — Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on “The Phil Donahue Show” September 1994

“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” — Sarah Brady 7/1/88

“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” — Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

“We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true…” — U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

“My bill … establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns.” — U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal.” — Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker’ magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

“Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.” — President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1

“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” — U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

“The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” — The Washington Post – “Legal Guns Kill Too” – November 5, 1999

“There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution.” — USA Today – Michael Gartner – Former president of NBC News – “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?” – January 16, 1992

“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

” 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.”
Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” — NIJ Memo on a new “Assault Weapon” Ban. 2013

“The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection” (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. (“High-cap” means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40’s–AK pattern rifles–or 60’s–AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”
Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

“People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.” Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? “Final Solution” anyone?)

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey’s State Legislature, May 9, 2013

“No one in this country should have guns.” Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013

Cleveland gun edicts violate law, infringe on rights and won’t stop violence

Posted: April 21, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Via David Codrea

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson shares the spotlight with another notorious gun-grabber, Attorney General Eric Holder.

Admitting that legislation it passed Monday will not stop violent crime, Cleveland politicians instead came up with excuses for imposing it on citizens anyway, Northeast Ohio Media Group reported. All but one Council member, Zack Reed, voted in favor of the new edicts, which in many areas duplicate state law, but supposedly will allow the city to keep resulting fines.

Whether any such coveted revenues will outweigh further legal costs the city will face is a question taxpayers should be asking their representatives who insisted on reopening an issue presumably already settled in the courts. Ohio Revised Code claims preemption by the state in the field of non-federal firearms regulation, and the matter was supposedly already settled when the City of Cleveland lost against the state in 2010, with the Supreme Court of Ohio “uphold[ing] as Constitutional state law displacing local gun-control ordinances.”

In addition to the duplicate laws and creation of a “gun offender registry,” the Cleveland diktats create several new burdens on law-abiding gun owners, including presuming to dictate reporting requirements for private sales (creating a de facto registry) and to impose storage mandates. Ohio Code declares “a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition,” meaning the city has nothing lawful to say about imposing constraints. The new decree also imposes a stolen gun reporting requirement that would appear to exempt criminals, as requiring them to attest they were in violation of the law prohibiting them from possessing a gun in the first place would also require self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Rather than directly addressing Councilman Reed’s challenge to show how the new edicts would have prevented any of the 25 homicides the city has experienced so far this year, supporters of the legislation offered unsubstantiated platitudes. Safety Director Michael McGrath fell back on the “possibility of saving a life” talking point used to restrict the rights of everyone else while saving nothing and no one. Councilman Michael Polensek even admitted “the bad guys are not turning in their guns. The bad guys are not registering. The kids who want to shoot indiscriminately on the street won’t stop,” and Council President Kevin Kelley “said that the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence” and instead offered bromides about “council’s values and … good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”

In other words, knowing full well what they are imposing will accomplish no reduction in violent crime, and in fact, violate Ohio law, they are nonetheless using the coercive force of the city to mandate citizen compliance — or else. But the desperate to appear effective politicians behind the scam will all get their names in the press and claim bragging rights that they are both “doing something” and showing leadership.

In any legitimate field of endeavor, that would be considered not just malpractice, but outright shameless fraud.

UPDATE: From an email alert received moments after publishing this article:

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/cleveland-gun-edicts-violate-law-infringe-on-rights-and-won-t-stop-violence?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Chicago defensive gun use refutes ‘gun safety advocate’ contentions

Posted: April 21, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Via David Codrea-

An Uber driver with a concealed carry permit, something self-designated “common sense gun safety law” advocates fought tooth and nail, saved a crowd of people on a Chicago street after a criminal opened fire on them by shooting the assailant, The Chicago Tribune reported Monday. Per the Assistant State Attorney, no charges will be filed, because the driver acted lawfully “in the defense of himself and others.”

There are two problems with this story.

First, chief MILM Shannon Watts says this never happens. And second, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy says if it does, he’s trained his men to kill you first and ask questions later.

Three problems, actually, when you consider all the smug antis, like CNN’s resident ignoramus James Alan Fox, who assure us firing at an assailant in a crowd situation will only make things worse, and what we really need is more citizen disarmament.

What’s evident is that the “gun safety advocates” would rather the driver had been unarmed and the people being fired upon undefended. That way, they would have been able to up their “gun violence” hysteria, plus they would have had fresh blood to dance in and exploit for more citizen disarmament edicts.

People are waking up to that and it’s not working, unless, of course, you’re a “progressive” who takes his talking points from garbage like a hit piece in The Atlantic by a totally unqualified critic, or desperate one-sided Mother Jones propaganda presented as objective journalism.

It has to be driving these people nuts that despite all of Michael Bloomberg’s money, all of the grandstanding politicians and all of the efforts by an overwhelmingly sympathetic media, people are recognizing the truth in increasing numbers. And that means they’re also recognizing the lies in the gun-grabber narrative about armed citizens.

Must Be Anti-Gun Asshattery Day-Yet Another Example

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

Via NRA-ILA…

Oregon: Radical Anti-Gun Bills on the Move in Salem

This bullshit is brought to you courtesy of Bloomberg and co. Oregon was the next state on their list-They’re trying to check ’em off one by one.

On Tuesday, April 14th, Senate Bill 941, which seeks to expand background checks to private transfers, is scheduled for a vote by the Senate.  Please continue contacting your state Senator and strongly urging him or her to OPPOSE SB 941.

As previously reported, SB 941 would require individuals to appear before a gun dealer to request a criminal background check prior to privately transferring a firearm. Transfers include, but are not limited to, sales, gifts, loans and leases. Failure to comply with this mandate could result in stiff penalties and possible loss of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

On Thursday, April 16th, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing and possible work session on Senate Bill 945.  Introduced by state Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D-17), SB 945 creates the crime of endangering a minor by allowing access to a firearm. This bill would essentially require a person to lock-up or render their firearms inoperable.  Failure to do so could result in stiff penalties, including a five year prohibition on firearm possession.

On Friday, April 17, both Senate Bill 525 and Senate Bill 913 are scheduled for a work session and a committee vote.

As previously reported, SB 525, introduced by state Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-25), would expand the list of those prohibited from owning firearms.  NRA does not support any expansion of the prohibited persons categories as defined by federal law.

Under SB 913, the ivory regulation bill, the sale, offering for sale, possession with intent to sell or importation for purchase or sale of any ivory or ivory product would be prohibited.  Virtually any lawful item containing any amount of ivory, with very limited and narrow exceptions, would be rendered valueless as it would be an offense for you to sell it or for another person to buy it.

Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and politely urge them to OPPOSE SB 945, SB 525 and SB 913.

Senate Judiciary Committee Members:

Senator Ginny Burdick (D-18)
(503) 986-1718
Sen.ginnyburdick@state.or.us

Senator Sarah Gelser (D-8)
(503) 986-1708
Sen.saragelser@state.or.us

Senator Jeff Kruse (R-1)
(503) 986-1701
Sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us

Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-4)
(503) 986-1704
Sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

Senator Kim Thatcher (R-13)
(503) 986-1713
Sen.kimthatcher@state.or.us

More Anti-Gun Asshattery

Posted: April 15, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1
 Clare O'Connor  Forbes Staff

Bloomberg-Backed Gun Control Group Upping Ante To End Open Carry At Kroger

Everytown and Moms Demand Action’s latest ad follows their print campaign, pictured, showing what Kroger doesn’t allow in its stores (here, outside food) versus guns, which are allowed.

Back in August, billionaire-backed groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action joined forces to pressure Kroger KR -1.45%, the country’s largest grocery chain, to change its position on the open carrying of firearms in its stores.

The two groups, bolstered by a $50 million philanthropic injection from Michael Bloomberg, focused their attention on Kroger following a spate of lobbying victories.

In the span of a few months, they’d watched Starbucks SBUX -0.44%, Target TGT +0.12%, Sonic, Chipotle, Chili's and Jack in the Box respond to their demands by asking shoppers to leave their guns at home.

The groups followed their tried and true formula, starting a petition and mobilizing their hundreds of thousands of supporters to use a dedicated hashtag, #GroceriesNotGuns, across social media.

Kroger (market cap: $37 billion) wouldn’t budge, however. That August, the Ohio-based 2,625-store grocery giant — the country’s second largest general retailer, behind Walmart — released a statement saying it would “follow state and local laws” on open carry.

The following month, Everytown and Moms Demand Action upped the ante against Kroger, launching the umbrella group’s first ever large-scale corporate campaign, with an advertising spend of six figures.

Its ad blitz aimed to contrast items banned from Kroger stores — like outside food and skateboards — with openly carried rifles, which are permitted.

Kroger remained unmoved by that campaign, as well as a rally held outside its corporate headquarters the following month to coincide with the chain’s annual meeting.

Everytown and Moms Demand Action isn’t giving up just yet. On Tuesday, the two groups launched their latest joint effort against the open carrying of guns in Kroger stores, releasing a video ad they’ll promote widely online called Not Allowed.

In the video, seen below, a man walks unhindered through supermarket aisles with a large firearm strapped to his back, while other shoppers are stopped for bringing in a dog or a water gun:

Everytown and Moms Demand Action have also launched a microsite where supporters can enter totals spent on groceries at Kroger competitors. They aim to prove to the retailer that inaction on the issue of open carry is resulting in lost sales.

A representative of the two groups made it clear they’ll carry on pressuring Kroger until the supermarket chain agrees to ask customers to forgo their guns while grocery shopping. Their expenditure on this campaign is just shy of the $1 million mark to date.

Kroger did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This post will be updated if they do.

Re-Run of Anti-Gun Asshattery

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

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) is set to reintroduce legislation this week that would provide a $2,000 tax credit to people who chose to turn in an assault weapon to law enforcement.

According to the Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act, the term ‘specified assault weapon’ that people could turn in for the tax credit includes a long list of pistols, rifles and shotguns including:

AR–15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95, Striker 12 and “a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has— a folding or telescoping stock, a threaded barrel, a pistol grip, a forward grip, or a barrel shroud.”

Click here to see the list of weapons covered by the bill.

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense. There is no reason on Earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield,” DeLauro says in her press release.

The SAFER Streets Act creates a $2,000 refundable tax credit ($1,000 for two consecutive years) for an assault weapon owner who gives their firearm to law enforcement.

DeLauro first introduced the bill in 2013.

Congressional Democrats plan to introduce national gun buyback legislation for “assault weapons.”

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

The measure is titled, “Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act.” It will be put forward by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

According to The Hill, the measure will differ from local gun buybacks in that those turning in weapons will receive a tax break rather than cash.

DeLauro explained: “Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense. There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for the battlefield.”

DeLauro did not note that M4 carbines–the AR-15 variant that is actually designed for the battlefield–operates in full auto or in three-round automatic bursts. The AR-15s sold to civilians are simply semi-automatic rifles that are difficult to shoot accurately if fired rapidly.

This is a mistake Democrats have made again and again since Adam Lanza’s attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. They fail to understand that the reason he was able to kill so many people was not because he stole and possessed an AR-15, but because his targets were unarmed. He chose to attack in a gun free zone for a reason.

But DeLauro and other Democrats are stuck in rut when it comes to trying to get rid of the AR-15, so they plan to offer “up to $2,000 in tax breaks” for those who turn them in.

She will be introducing the bill in conjunction with National Public Health Week.

Co-sponsors for DeLauro’s bill include “Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), and David Cicilline (D-R.I.).”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/06/report-congressional-dems-introducing-national-gun-buyback-for-assault-weapons/

Older Entries
Newer Entries