Posts Tagged ‘second amendment’

Same Old Sh*t-Different sponsors…New Bill Gives the Attorney General the Power to Block Gun Sales to ‘Suspected’ Terrorists

Posted: February 26, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
1

From : http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/new-bill-gives-the-attorney-general-the-power-to-block-gun-sales-to-suspected-terrorists/

Feinstein’s new bill-(link at end of article) sure looks a lot like this bill did…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr720/text

And this one…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2159/text

More than two dozen Democrats in the House and Senate — and one Republican — want to give the U.S. attorney general the power to block the sale of guns and explosives to known terrorists, and also to anyone who is “appropriately suspected” of being a terrorist.

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act was introduced this week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). They say it makes no sense that people on the terrorist watch list are prohibited from boarding airplanes in the United States, but are still free to buy guns and explosives.

Supporters of a new bill say known or suspected terrorists shouldn’t have access to guns in the United States.

“Federal law already prohibits nine categories of dangerous persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, including the mentally ill and criminals,” said King. “Yet, after almost 14 years, we still allow suspected terrorists the ability to purchase firearms. It’s time for common sense to prevail before it’s too late.”

Feinstein and King noted that according to GAO, people on the terrorist watch list who tried to buy a weapon in 2013 and 2014 were successful about 93 percent of the time.

But it seems unlikely that a GOP-led House and Senate will agree to give the attorney general the power to stop gun sales, especially with President Barack Obama still in office for the next two years.

Under the bill, the attorney general would be able to stop the transfer of a gun or explosive to a “known or suspected” terrorist if it’s possible the person might use the firearm in connection with terrorism. The bill language says the attorney general can stop the transfer if he or she “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

Sales could be blocked to anyone known to be involved in terrorist activities, or anyone who is “appropriately suspected.” That term is used throughout the bill but is never defined, and would likely be a cause for alarm by defenders of the Second Amendment who might worry about giving the attorney general too much discretion in deciding who is “appropriately suspected” of terrorism.

One example of how that authority could be abused was revealed last week, when it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security had produced an intelligence assessment that focuses on terrorist attacks from right-wing groups interested in defending themselves from the federal government. That led to more criticism that the Obama administration is not worried enough about radical Islamic terrorist threats, and is overly worried about right-wing groups.

The legislation would keep current provisions of the law that allow people who are blocked from buying a gun or an explosive to know why he or she was denied, and to challenge that decision at the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit if needed.

The Senate bill is cosponsored by 11 Democrats, and the House bill is cosponsored by 14 Democrats — King is the only Republican on the bill.

Read the bill @ http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=e0e0dab0-d7d7-4dca-83da-7b68f5be2b47

Illinois Democrat’s ‘Firearms Registration Act’ may test new paradigm

Posted: February 25, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0
David Codrea
Gun Rights Examiner

Setting the state up for massive gun owner civil disobedience along the lines of what has occurred in California and is currently happening in New York and Connecticut, Democrat State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins filed the Firearms Registration Act with the Secretary of State on Friday. The act was then presented for first reading and referred to the Democrat-dominated Assignments Committee.

Is Democrat Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins ready to enforce her demands against gun owners who will not comply?

Collins’ measure “[p]rovides that every person in the State must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses in accordance with the Act,” the official synopsis declares. It also “[p]rovides that a person shall not purchase or possess ammunition within this State without having first obtained a registration certificate identifying a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition, or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm under the Act and that the application is pending.”

In addition, it requires “the Department of State Police must complete a background check of any person who applies for: (1) a registration certificate for a firearm that was lawfully owned or possessed on the effective date of the Act, was brought into the State by a new resident, or was acquired by operation of law upon the death of the former owner; or (2) a renewal of a registration certificate unless, within 12 months of the date the renewal application is submitted, the applicant passed a background check conducted by the Department in connection with the applicant’s acquisition of another firearm.”

Ominously, it also “Provides that it is a Class 2 felony to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to another person without complying with the registration requirement of the Firearms Registration Act.” That can get someone three to seven years, a punishment equivalent to that people who intentionally transmit HIV are sentenced to.

This new batch of proposed infringements is in addition to requirements already imposed by Illinois State Law requiring gun owners to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card to purchase firearms and ammunition. In fact, it’s an in-your-face to gun owners from an avowed gun hater.

Collins is a former CBS-TV in Chicago “news” editor with credentials from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, among other credentials from “progressive” academia. Fittingly, she was a “2001 Legislative Fellow for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.” She was also endorsed by the Brady campaign at the same time it threw its weight behind (former?) “gun communist” Bobby Rush and future felons (and prohibited persons) Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Rod Blagojevich.

When she joined rabidly anti-gun “priest” Mike “Snuffy” Pfleger for a media blood dance, they were strangely silent on the fact that the ones doing the killings in Chicago are exempt from gun registration schemes they would impose on the law-abiding. That’s because in Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that requiring felons to register guns violated Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Collins knows this, of course, as do all gun-grabbers who would require registration, which is a prerequisite for confiscation. That increasing numbers of gun owners know that and have defiantly told those enacting such Intolerable Acts to get bent is not lost on impotent and enraged state monopoly of violence cultists, who vent their fury by demanding others employ that violence to bend the “scofflaws” to their will.

Whether or not Collins’ latest deliberate act of spitting on freedom stands a chance of being enacted remains to be seen. Regardless, a critical mass of gun owners will not let that alter their resolve to hold fast to their rights and to not back up another inch. There’s a new paradigm, with a growing number of determined citizens recognizing what colleague Mike Vanderboegh has identified as two countries sharing the same territory, and where his fundamental question “Do the people serve the government or does the government serve the people?” has yet to be ultimately tested in our time.

Whether or not it is tested depends on how far domestic enemies with “appetites for the liberty and property” of others are willing to press those they would compel obedience from. If they’re not willing to enforce against all, it will show a self-defeating weakness in the Chicago machine, and encourage other gun owners to join in and spread mass defiance even further. And if they are, we’ll all get an unequivocal answer to that question.

http://www.examiner.com/article/illinois-democrat-s-firearms-registration-act-may-test-new-paradigm?CID=examiner_alerts_article

I-594 groups seek to fight suit by gun-rights backers

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

The coalition that sponsored last fall’s successful gun-purchase background-check initiative wants to intervene in a lawsuit trying to overturn the state law.
By Joseph O’Sullivan
Seattle Times Olympia bureau

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson on Monday applauded an attempt by a coalition of gun-regulation groups to intervene against a lawsuit seeking to roll back the new law expanding background checks on gun buyers.

A lawsuit filed in December by gun-rights supporters alleges Initiative 594 violates the Second Amendment and can inadvertently criminalize people because its language is too vague. Ferguson, along with the state Attorney General’s Office and Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste, are currently named as defendants.

On Monday, the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, I-594 citizen sponsor Cheryl Stumbo and the local arm of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety filed to join the defendants in the lawsuit.

“It’s my role to defend initiatives lawfully passed by the people of Washington state, and my office will do so vigorously,” Ferguson wrote in an email. “We welcome the participation of the backers of the initiative in the process.”

The move, which a judge must first approve, would allow the groups to file motions and offer a full defense of a law they campaigned hard to enact.

Approved by 59 percent of voters last November, Initiative 594 expanded background checks on gun buyers beyond the federal standard to private sales like some found online or at gun shows.

But the lawsuit lays out concerns by firearms-training groups, private security guards and inspectors, and others. Among the plaintiffs are the Northwest School of Safety; Puget Sound Security Inc.; Firearms Academy of Seattle; the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation; and Alan Gottlieb, the foundation’s executive vice president.

In quick succession Monday morning, Gottlieb ticked off two reasons for gun-rights supporters to take heart with the new developments.

“I think the other side has now realized that our challenge has some very good merit to it,” he said. “The second thing is I think it shows a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the Attorney General’s Office in being able to defend.”

It is common for groups that have pushed initiatives to later become involved in the related lawsuits, according to Hugh Spitzer, acting professor of law at the University of Washington’s School of Law.

In this case, “it enables the proponents to supplement the arguments that the attorney general makes,” said Spitzer.

The development comes as gun-rights supporters have ricocheted between rallies and hearings at the Legislature, trying to find support to change or repeal I-594, or send it back to voters in a referendum.

But those bills appear to have died in the Democrat-controlled House. And a January rally at the Capitol against I-594 succeeded only in the banning of guns in the Legislature’s viewing galleries after armed demonstrators entered those areas.

Stumbo, I-594’s citizen sponsor and a survivor of the 2006 Jewish Federation shootings in Seattle, described the lawsuit as a frivolous action brought by the gun lobby.

“The same individuals who failed to weaken our state’s gun laws in last year’s election are now using the court system to do exactly that,” Stumbo said in prepared remarks.

In Jersey, A Flintlock Pistol Can Get You A 10-Year Jail Sentence

Posted: February 17, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1

Where is there any justice in locking up a 72-year-old man for up to 10 years for having an antique flintlock pistol? I’m sure in the Garden State authorities can find frivolous reasons, but there really isn’t any justification for such a prosecutorial overreach.

NRA News’ Ginny Simone ventured into New Jersey to speak with Gordon VanGilder, public enemy No. 1 in Cumberland County. VanGilder is a retired teacher whose career spanned 34 years. He’s an admirer of 18th century artifacts and historical memorabilia and bought the pistol to go with his collection. The pistol featured in Simone’s report is approaching its 300-year anniversary.

Simone reported that Gordon was arrested last November while heading home after lunch. A Cumberland County Sheriff’s Deputy pulled over Gordon for a traffic violation, but wanted to search his car. Upon discovering a flintlock pistol in the glove compartment, VanGilder said that another deputy wanted to let him go since he knew the firearm was an antique. The Sheriff disagreed. VanGilder was arrested the following morning, and faces up to ten years in prison; three and a half to five years of that sentence must be served before parole can be considered.

To make things more absurd, the prosecutor in the case told VanGilder’s lawyer­–Evan Nappen–who’s in the video; that ballistics test will be run on the firearm.

This case will impact Gordon’s pension as a New Jersey educator, his ability to vote, and his reputation. He will be a convicted felon if the State of New Jersey is successful in their crusade against him.

While Gordon noted that he was probably in violation of the law, he wasn’t if he was going by the federal statute, which exempts such a class of firearms. The conflict between state and federal laws is a constitutional question. Maybe this case will settle that egregious discrepancy.

Yeah, New Jersey is still one of the worst states in the country.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/02/16/in-jersey-a-flintlock-pistol-can-get-you-a-10year-jail-sentence-n1957628?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

Senate bill targets Gary gun lawsuit

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

Chicago Tribune-

“…In August, 1999, troubled by gun violence that wracked his city, former Gary mayor Scott King sued 21 gun manufacturers and distributors and six local dealers and three associations. Two local retailers reached settlements with the city, including the now-closed Fetla’s in Valparaiso and Westforth Sports in Gary. Ameripawn in Lake Station no longer sells handguns.

A trial court judge dismissed gun manufacturers and dealers, but a higher court reversed the ruling.

The lawsuit contended major manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, Colt and Beretta and gun dealers should be accountable for readily supplying guns they know will reach criminals and others who illegally can’t buy them.

King pointed to an investigation by Gary police in which undercover officers made straw purchases of at least nine handguns and boxes of ammunition after telling gun store clerks they were convicted felons or juveniles.

In its successful appeal, the city pointed to 70 murders in 1997 and 54 in 1998. From 1997 through 2,000, 764 recovered handguns were sold by dealers named as defendants.

About 30 cities across the country, including Chicago, filed similar lawsuits. All of them have been dismissed except Gary’s. Setting aside the gun makers’ arguments that a federal shield law protects them from suits, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled the case could proceed in 2009.

Gary gun suit timeline

Aug. 27, 1999 — City of Gary files suit against gun dealers, manufacturers, trade associations

December, 1999 — City settles with Fetlas, a Valparaiso retailer for $10,000

March, 2001 — trial court dismisses lawsuit, calling it unconstitutional

September, 2002 — Indiana Appellate Court reverses dismisal against certain gun dealers, allowing case to proceed.

December, 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court rules Gary may proceed with its lawsuit against gun manufacturers and sellers.

May, 2005 — Ameripawn in Lake Station agrees to stop selling pistols.

November, 2007 — City reaches confidential agreement with Westforth Sports

January, 2009 — Supreme Court denies petition for transfer.

January, 2015 — Senate Bill 390 would prohibit lawsuits against gun industry and it would be retroactive to Aug. 26, 1999.”

Read the whole story @  http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-gary-gun-suit-bill-focus-st-0217-20150216-story.html

BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo

Posted: February 14, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
2

NRA-ILA

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “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.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:

Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles

A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles

Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.

BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Check back early next week for a more in-depth analysis of this “framework” and details on how you can submit comments.

How to comment – from the BATFE

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

Fax: (202) 648-9741.

Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

*** Judge rules federal interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional ***

Posted: February 12, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

(Reuters) – A U.S. ban on the interstate sales of handguns by federal firearms dealers to buyers from other states violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal judge in Texas ruled on Wednesday.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor stemmed from a challenge to the ban brought by a Texas firearms dealer and a couple from the District of Columbia in July 2014.

The federal law prohibits a dealer from transferring a handgun, but not a rifle or shotgun, to an individual who does not live in the state in which the dealer’s business is located.

“While we expect the government to appeal, we are confident that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will agree with Judge O’Connor’s sound ruling,” attorney William Mateja, who represented the challengers, said in a statement.

Andrew and Tracey Hanson met with licensed firearms dealer Fredric Mance Jr. in Texas about buying two handguns, but did not complete the transaction because they could not take immediate possession of the weapons, according to court papers.

Federal law required Mance to transfer the handguns to a federally licensed dealer where the Hansons live, Charles Sykes in the District of Columbia, where they could complete the purchase after paying shipping and transfer fees.

The Hansons and Mance, all members of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, argued in their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that the ban limits consumer choices and infringes on their rights.

O’Connor found that the ban violated the second and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He also distinguished the ban from other firearms restrictions such as those that target specific people, such as felons or the mentally ill.

“As law abiding, responsible citizens, the Hansons likely do not pose the threat to public safety that motivated Congress to enact the federal interstate handgun transfer ban,” O’Connor wrote in his decision.

O’Connor said the government demonstrated a compelling interest in preventing handgun crime, but failed to show how the transfer ban alleviates the problem of prohibited people acquiring handguns by crossing state lines.

Hundreds pack Vermont Statehouse to debate gun bill

Posted: February 11, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Hundreds of Vermonters on Tuesday night debated proposed legislation that would expand background checks for gun buyers and impose other new firearms restrictions.

At a packed Statehouse, the Senate Judiciary and Health and Welfare Committee heard testimony from supporters and opponents of the legislation, though opponents in the hall and nearby rooms where video was piped in easily outnumbered supporters.

Several opponents pointed to Vermont’s rank in FBI statistics as the safest state in the country. They argued that Senate Bill 31 isn’t needed.

“If I’m being assaulted on a city street, I’d rather have a .38 on me than a copy of S. 31,” said Erika Eldred.

Read the rest @

http://news.yahoo.com/liberal-gun-loving-vermont-restrictions-face-fight-071329945.html

VA raises concerns about gun registry with offer of free gun locks

Posted: January 8, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

As President Obama dodges a reminder of the veterans’ health-care scandal this week, the Department of Veterans Affairs is offering free gun locks to veterans if they provide details on the number of guns they own and their home address, raising concerns about a government-run gun registry.

Some veterans have received a form letter in recent days from the VA offering gun locks if they return a completed form listing their name, address and number of guns in the home.

“As your partner in healthcare, we are committed to keeping you and your family safe,” states the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times. “Gun locks have been shown to greatly reduce death and injury caused by firearms in the home. If you own a gun, we hope you will request and use a gun lock.”

The letter said agency officials “hope to reach all our veterans with this offer.” The VA said it will mail the locks to the address provided by a veteran.

One veteran who received the letter said it raises concerns about “a gun registry in disguise.”

“Young soldiers are already notoriously reluctant to admit any problems with post-traumatic stress disorder,” said the veteran, who asked to remain anonymous.

“Imagine the effect if the average 23-year-old private … back from Iraq, already reluctant to ask for help … is now hearing rumors that if he seeks help from the VA for sleeplessness, PTSD, nightmares, etc., Big Brother is going take his guns away? Now young veterans will really avoid asking for help,” the veteran said.

Potential Holder replacement requires intensive scrutiny, resolve to score vote

Posted: November 7, 2014 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,
0

Here's the new boss? Same as the old boss?

Here’s the new boss? Same as the old boss?

“Calling her “an under-the-radar contender to become the first black woman to head the Justice Department,” a Thursday Associated Press profile on United State Attorney Loretta Lynch leaves more questions than answers. She’s “low-profile,” we are told. She doesn’t generally talk to the media. She doesn’t give many speeches.

With that being the case, how are all of us, but gun owners in particular, supposed to determine whether or not she would be an acceptable nominee, and if we should reward or punish our Senators for rejecting or confirming her if she is put forth? What is it we can infer, what is it we know, and what is it we need to determine before we can make an informed assessment?

The fact that she’s an Eastern District of New York prosecutor needs to be a big red flag, but not an automatic disqualifier. After all, Alex Kozynski is Chief Justice of the “liberal” Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals headquartered in San Francisco, and he’s the guy whose dissenting opinion in Silveira v Lockyer included the astoundingly refreshing observation that “the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/potential-holder-replacement-requires-intensive-scrutiny-resolve-to-score-vote?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Newer Entries