Posts Tagged ‘Gun Rights’

Media-touted FBI “Mass Shooting” Report Debunked

Posted: June 15, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

Via NRA-ILA

A misleading 2014 FBI report that fueled media claims that mass shooting incidents in the U.S. are rising sharply has been thoroughly debunked. In a piece appearing in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ March 2015 ACJS Today newsletter, Economist John R. Lott carefully lays out the flaws in the Bureaus’ “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013” report.

First, Lott takes the media to task for misrepresenting the underlying scope of the report, and for FBI’s failure to adequately explain the content to its readers. Rather than track mass shootings or murders, the report in fact attempts to track “active shooter incidents.” This is significant because it encompasses events where no one was shot or killed.

Despite this, media outlets ran sensational headlines, like the New York Times’, “F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000.” Lott contends that FBI exacerbated this misperception, noting, “The report discusses mass public shootings, but it never makes it clear to the readers that these types of fatalities and attacks are actually not increasing over time.”

The media’s distortion of findings to fit their own anti-gun agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected. When done under the auspices of the FBI, such behavior is unacceptable. Whether this report is simply shoddy work, or veiled advocacy, is not altogether clear; however, Lott concludes, “The FBI report appears to be politically driven.”

Next, Lott criticizes the authors for selecting their data to show a notable increase in “active shooter incidents.” Lott shows that the inclusion of non-mass shooting incidents where zero or one person was killed have the effect of skewing the data to show a surge. Further, Lott explains that the researchers failed to include at least 20 shooting incidents, and that the omitted events were disproportionately from the earlier years of the period studied.

Lott also takes issue with the limited time period studied by the researchers. When data on mass shootings from 1977 through 2014 are used, and the incidents studied are limited to those where at least two or more people were murdered, the supposed annual increase in shootings is “no longer statistically significant.”

A pair of researchers who worked on the FBI report issued a defense of their work in the May edition of ACJS Today. The researchers attempted to shift blame for the misunderstanding to the media, noting, “We wonder if some members of the media intentionally misreported findings in an attempt to generate a bigger headline or advance their own agendas.” As to why their report was missing so many relevant incidents, they admit, “We acknowledge in the FBI report that our data are imperfect.”

The media’s distortion of findings to fit their own anti-gun agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected. When done under the auspices of the FBI, such behavior is unacceptable. Whether this report is simply shoddy work, or veiled advocacy, is not altogether clear; however, Lott concludes, “The FBI report appears to be politically driven.”

Nullification 1, Brady Campaign 0: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Kansas 2nd Amendment Protection Act

Posted: June 15, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
2

h/t MaddMedic

Last week, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, saying the suit from the Brady Campaign was “without merit.”

The law, signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in 2013, draws a line in the sand on federal gun control. It reads, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

State and local agents would be prevented from enforcing any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”  Based off this text, the state of Kansas would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.

A second part of the bill seeks to encourage more gun manufacturing in the state by declaring null and void any federal restrictions, under the commerce clause, on firearms made and sold within the state.

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

This section of the bill is backed up by criminal charges.

It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony

Any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section shall be commenced by service of complaint and summons upon such official, agent or employee. Such official, agent or employee shall not be arrested or otherwise detained prior to, or during the pendency of, any trial for a violation of this section.

Once a federal agent violates this law, they would be served with a complaint and summons, whereby criminal proceedings can begin.

BRADY CLAIMS

At the heart of the Brady Campaign’s legal argument is that the state law is ” an unconstitutional attempt to nullify federal gun control regulations.” Their concern is that state enforcement of the act “will have the effect of deterring application of federal gun laws in Kansas.”

That’s exactly what the bill is supposed to do.

Additionally, Brady complained, one of its members could have been prosecuted by the state for trying to help federal agents enforce federal gun laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson dismissed the claim on the basis of “subject matter jurisdiction,” noting that no actual prosecution had taken place.

…Brady Campaign lacks Article III standing to challenge the Second Amendment Protection Act in this lawsuit because it has not shown that enforcement of the statute inflicts an actual or imminently-threatened injury on any Brady Campaign member.

While it may seem like this was a technical victory, it is important to remember not who challenged the law, but who didn’t: the federal government. Guns.com aptly summed up their all bark and no bite stance:

While the U.S. Department of Justice panned the law, calling it unenforceable, it was only the Brady group that sought to challenge it.

This failed lawsuit by the Brady Campaign demonstrates the effectiveness of SAPA in two ways. One, it was upheld in federal court, which proves that such legislation is not merely political grandstanding that will be overturned in the courtroom.  Two, the federal government’s unwillingness to contest its constitutionality – for now – speaks greater volume than any words they may speak against it.  The boxer who takes his gloves off should not speak like one who puts them on.

Read the rest @ http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/nullification-1-brady-campaign-0-federal-judge-dismisses-suit-against-kansas-2nd-amendment-protection-act/

Gun groups denounce push for handgun licenses

Posted: June 14, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights advocates are assailing Democrats for a controversial legislative proposal that they say would restrict access to handguns.

People would be required to obtain a license before purchasing some firearms under the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act, which was introduced Thursday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and a trio of Connecticut lawmakers.

The legislation also seeks to expand background checks to all handgun sales and block people under the age of 21 from purchasing those firearms.States could refuse to implement the handgun regulations, but would risk losing federal funding for doing so.

Though the legislation stands virtually no chance of passing the Republican Congress, the NRA expressed outrage at the proposal, calling it an attempt by Democrats to “delay and deny” gun purchases.

“They cannot ban guns because of the Constitution, so they want to make it so difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to self-protection,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.

“Someone should send them a copy of the Constitution — specifically, a copy of the Second Amendment,” she added.

The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act would zero in on handgun purchases, but exempt rifles and other types of firearms.

It is backed by a study from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research that found handgun licenses dramatically reduce homicide rates.

“Of the thousands of Americans murdered every single year by firearms, nearly 90 percent of those deaths occur with a handgun,” Van Hollen said. “With mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends dying every day because of guns, there is no question that gun violence is tearing at the fabric of our communities.”

In addition to Van Hollen, who is running for the Senate, three Connecticut Democrats back the handgun bill: Rep. Elizabeth Esty, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen. Chris Murphy. Connecticut was the site of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in 2012.

Their bill would provide states with an incentive to strengthen their guns laws. States that follow through with the handgun regulations would receive federal funding to carry them out, while those that refused would risk losing money.

To qualify, states would have to implement laws that require prospective gun owners to apply for a firearms license from a local police station. They would be required to pass a background check, including submitting fingerprints and photographs.

Those who pass the background check would receive a firearms license that they must provide to purchase a handgun.

The Democrats say the handgun bill would help law enforcement officials weed out criminals and other people who are not allowed to purchase guns.

But Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, called it a “blatant attempt to fingerprint every law-abiding gun owner in the country like a common criminal.”

“Since they support licensing for exercising Second Amendment freedoms, do they also support licensing of newspaper columns, political speeches and sermons?” asked Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America.

The lawmakers called it a gun safety solution.

“States require licenses to drive a car or even to fish in local rivers, so requiring a license to buy a deadly handgun is a commonsense step that could save countless lives,” Van Hollen said.

“Requiring a license to purchase a deadly weapon is at least as important as requiring one to drive a car,” Blumenthal said.

But gun rights advocates warned the proposal would effectively create a national gun registry.

“Driving a car and fishing are not constitutionally-protected rights,” Baker responded. “The Second Amendment protects our individual right to own a gun.”

“One does not need the permission of the government in order to exercise a fundamental constitutional right,” added Larry Keane, senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

The bill is just the latest attempt by gun control advocates in Congress to close a background check loophole they say makes it easier for criminals to purchase guns.

Even though most gun owners go through lengthy background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, these same requirements do not always apply when buying guns online or at gun shows.

Gun safety advocates say toughening the rules would reduce gun violence around the country.

“It shows the tremendous opportunity we have to prevent gun deaths and make all of us safer just by keeping guns out of the wrong hands through good policy like expanded background checks,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Fran Wendelboe: Women, guns and concealed carry

Posted: June 14, 2015 by gamegetterII in gun rights
Tags: , , , , , ,
1

Firearm retailers estimate women made up 20 percent of their sales in 2013.

The state of Vermont, our neighbor to the left geographically and politically, does not issue or require a permit to carry a weapon openly or concealed. This has been the case for more than 100 years and is known as constitutional carry because the “permit” is said to be the Constitution.

The Legislature in Maine just passed basically the same thing, and it is expected to be signed by the governor. The Maine legislator who sponsored the bill, Sen. Eric Brakey, said, “All it does is say if you are someone who is already legally able to open carry a handgun that you can also put on a jacket without being a criminal.”

Maine will become the eighth state with this gun policy, and experiences in other states indicate that the loosening of gun permit laws has not had a significant negative impact.

Here in New Hampshire, it is a totally different picture.

Senate Bill 116, allowing concealed carry without a permit, passed the Senate along party lines, with a 14-9 vote. The House put its stamp of approval, 212 to 150. In the House, there was party crossover, with 11 Democrats voting for the bill and 14 Republicans voting against it. While slim, it is arguable that this passed with bipartisan support.

Why is it different here? Gov. Hassan has threatened a veto, and it now sits on her desk. At a time that more women are buying guns and attending training classes, it seems odd that a female governor would take a stance against women being able to carry guns in their purses, glove compartments or briefcases. Men often wear suits and use the convenience of a holster, but while many women do wear suits, most do not on a daily basis.

Having a firearm and knowing how to use it is empowering to women. Talk about equal rights: Owning a firearm with proper training and skill is the No. 1 equalizer between the biological-physical disparity of most men and women. Long gone are the days when we “wimminfolk” had men in our households to protect us. Many women today live alone either by choice or circumstance. Relying on 911 is just not reliable enough, particularly in rural areas. How many young women have we heard about recently in the press who were abducted and killed? With a firearm, they would at least have had a chance.

I remember a few years back when an elderly woman way up in the North Country had a drunk man break into her home late at night. Her community did not have a local police force at night and relied on the state police. She was told when she called 911 that the soonest they could get there was a couple of hours. What if it had not been a drunk man but a violent one? The sound of pumping a shotgun is enough to stop intruders in their tracks and often results in a quick retreat.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation did a survey on women and guns in early 2015. The findings show that half of the women intended to buy a gun in the next year. The women in the study owned both semiautomatic pistols (56 percent) and shotguns (50 percent). Of the women in the survey, 73 percent had taken training classes. Here in New Hampshire, there are a number of training courses specializing in women’s shooting both for protection and for sport – and they fill quickly. The study showed a 60 percent increase in women who are target shooting. This has grown from 3.3 million women in 2001 to 5.4 million women in 2013. I personally know a female member of the press here in New Hampshire, a liberal Democrat, who regularly goes clay shooting. A report on CBS News in August 2014 pegged the number at more than 6 million – almost a 70 percent increase in a decade. Firearm retailers estimate women made up 20 percent of their sales in 2013. Since 23 percent of women say they personally own a gun, that puts the estimate at 28.1 million women. Ladies, guns aren’t just for men anymore! And they certainly aren’t just for Republican women.

I have been a firearm owner all of my adult life, had extensive firearms training and got my first concealed carry permit in my early 20s. My life has also been touched by losing my father to a gunshot. Did I blame the gun? No, I blamed the hand pulling the trigger. Does someone blame the credit card (or the credit card issuer) when a compulsive shopper runs up a card, or the card when an alcoholic buys booze and goes out and drives and kills someone, or the U.S. Mint when someone uses cash to buy drugs? Of course not. I bet there is a sharp knife in every kitchen in America, and there are deaths by knives. Do we ban or restrict knife ownership? Of course not.

The anti-gun lobby uses all kinds of red herrings to demonize gun ownership. I agree there are too many gun deaths in America, but when one takes a strong look at the statistics, one realizes that it is the type of “hands” using those guns. Gangs, violent criminals, drug addicts and those with mental illnesses who should not have a gun.

But do you deny millions and millions of law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves in their homes and businesses? Criminals will always be able to get guns. This is proven by the highest number of gun deaths happening in areas with the strictest and most limited ownership of firearms. And if you happen to live in those neighborhoods, not only are you unable to protect yourself, but in the current climate, police officers are getting more and more hesitant about going into these neighborhoods.

Those who demonize guns and push the premise that guns are dangerous and should be limited, banned, illegal and on and on do a real disservice by making people wary and afraid of them. Efforts should be focused on responsible ownership, and training in proper usage, safe storage and shooting skills.

I truly believe an armed America of law-abiding citizens is a safer America. Our forefathers surely thought so and enshrined that guiding principle in our Constitution, which was seconded in our own New Hampshire Constitution.

Firearm ownership: It’s not just for men anymore. Women are finding that gun ownership can be recreational, allow for confident independence in living alone, and serve as a real tool for self defense and protection.

(Fran Wendelboe is a former seven-term Republican legislator, longtime conservative grassroots activist and small-business owner. She lives in New Hampton.)

Legislation Proposes $60 Million for Anti-Gun Research

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

Via NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More…

APPEALS COURT RULING

Detention of person carrying gun illegal

Toledo man can sue city police

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via David Codrea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Older Entries
Newer Entries