Posts Tagged ‘self defense’

Gun control legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there is potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” he said. “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.”

Rodger, 22, killed six people and injured 14 others before taking his own life during a wave of attacks across Isla Vista near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, that he carried out with two knives and three handguns that he legally purchased.

The rampage was prefaced by a video uploaded to YouTube of Rodger discussing his plans, as well as a 107,000-word manifesto, both of which were circulated minutes before he began killing.

“This is almost the kind of event that’s impossible to prevent and almost impossible to predict,” Janet Napolitano, the university’s president and a former homeland security secretary, said in the aftermath of Rodger’s ambush.

Twenty months later, implementation of the bill is expected to give family members a mechanism for having loved ones briefly lose access to their own, legally acquired weapons in hopes of stopping similar rampages.

“It’s the family members, it’s the people closest to the perpetrator, who are in the best position to notice red flags,” Wendy Patrick, a San Diego State University professor and lawyer, told San Diego’s CBS affiliate this week.

Second Amendment advocates have cried foul, however, and insist that legislation is not the answer in a state already ripe with gun rules that are more restrictive than most anywhere else in America.

“We don’t need another law to solve this problem,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told The Associated Press. “We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”

source

Andrew Branca, the author of the “Law of Self Defense,” recently reviewed a study on racial bias and Florida’s Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws published in the Elsevier Social Science & Medicine. The study, “Race, law, and health: Examination of ‘Stand Your Ground’ (SYG) and defendant convictions in Florida” (Social Science & Medicine, Volume 142, October 2015, pages 194-201; pay-walled) makes troubling claims about racial bias and convictions.

The study’s authors conclude that a defendant was two times more likely to be convicted in a case that involved a white victim than a non-white victim; that the race of the victim was “a predictor of conviction of the defendant,” and that Florida’s SYG legislation “has a quantifiable racial bias.” The study’s abstract exhorts other states with SYG laws “to carry out similar analyses to see if their manifestations are the same as those in Florida, and all should remediate any injustices found.”

Are these “manifestations” of racial bias a matter of settled science? Does this study really provide evidence of unequal treatment under the law? Pulling back the curtain, Mr. Branca examined the underlying data used – a listing of cases compiled by the Tampa Bay Times, a Florida newspaper, “supplemented with available online court documents and/or news reports.” The study itself was based on a subset of 204 cases out of the newspaper’s entire dataset of 237. After a close analysis of every one of the 237 cases, Mr. Branca found that 181 (over 76 percent) did not qualify as SYG cases at all, based on the legal definition of the term. It follows that even if all of the 56 remaining cases were included in the study’s subset of 204, the vast majority of the subset (148 cases, over 70 percent) were not actually SYG cases. Accordingly, research conclusions drawn from the 204 cases as if they were all SYG cases arguably lack factual integrity and scientific reliability.

In response to these observations, the authors advised that they opted to use a definition of SYG – a legal concept – “as it has been used in the media around highly publicized cases (e.g., Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman) and not the legal definition” provided by Mr. Branca. Instead of evaluating SYG cases using the relevant definition applied by the Florida courts in determining guilt and convictions, the study employed a “definition” of cases “related to SYG” because, presumably, that’s how the newspaper staff decided to structure the original dataset. It’s helpful at this point to include a quote from Mr. Branca:

Surely it must be self-evident that whatever the impact of SYG on conviction rates, it can only be the “legal definition” as actually applied by the criminal justice system that could possibly have an effect, and that the “media definition” that is not applied by the criminal justice system (because it is not law) cannot have had any effect on conviction rates.

(His full response is expected to be published as a dissenting commentary regarding the study in a future issue of the Social Science & Medicine publication.)

Alleging a racial bias in the administration of justice is a grave charge and deserves a thoughtful, scrupulous and responsible analysis – particularly if the results are being used to justify efforts to “remediate any injustices” found to exist. We can hope for more objective analysis in the future.

© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

Via JPFO

By Donald L. Cline. June 24th, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ***************** “None of those shootings would have been stopped by background checks,said Johnson,the key opponent of last year’s bill.”*********************************************

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — Fresh off a victory in Washington state, a leading gun control group backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg is hoping to make Oregon its next prize in a campaign to require gun sales to go through universal background checks.

Everytown for Gun Safety backed a voter-approved initiative in Washington last year that made the state the 17th in the country to expand background checks past the federal standard applying only to licensed gun dealers.

“This is our top priority,” said the group’s spokeswoman Erika Soto Lamb.

The organization came out of a merger last year between Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. It has been spending tens of millions of dollars on political operations.

Now its attention is on Oregon, where the state Legislature narrowly failed to pass legislation two years running to require background checks for private gun sales.

According to state records, Everytown spent nearly $600,000 on the 2014 election — $450,000 in contributions to candidates and committees, and $110,000 on other grassroots efforts.

Part of that was devoted to strengthening the Democratic majority in the state Senate, the key battleground.

Democrats ended up expanding their majority by two seats to 18-12 in the Senate. The party holds a stronger majority in the House. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, is a longtime supporter and is expected to sign the bill if it passes.

“There’s a loophole there that can be closed,” said Lamb.

Oregon voters extended background checks to require them for sales at gun shows in 2000.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, plans to introduce legislation to expand that to private gun sales. The bill would require anyone selling a gun privately to call state police for a background check on criminal history and mental illness. It would exclude sales among family members, inheritances and antique guns.

“I want to put closure on the only loophole we have on the background check law,” said Prozanksi, a native Texan who owns a few guns. “Most all of us gun owners, as well as the general public, believe we should take reasonable steps to stop felons from getting easy access to guns. This will do that.”

Opponents include Democratic state Sen. Betsy Johnson of Scappoose and the National Rifle Association.

“The NRA is not privy to the specifics of the legislation, but Oregonians should not be fooled by the rhetoric from out of state gun control groups funded by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a statement. “They are pushing an extreme anti-gun agenda that seeks to curtail Oregonians’ constitutional right to self-defense.”

Under federal law, background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System are required for sales by licensed gun dealers, but not at gun shows or private transactions. The checks target convicted felons, people under indictment, the mentally ill, drug users, people under restraining orders, dishonorably discharged veterans and people in the country illegally. But not all states report mental health records to the system.

About 40 percent of Oregon households have guns. And the state has had its share of horrifying shootings.

In 1998, Kip Kinkel went to his high school in Springfield with guns his parents bought to teach him to shoot. He opened fire on the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 25.

In 2012, three days before the deadly Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, Jacob Tyler Roberts took a stolen semi-automatic AR-15 rifle to the Clackamas Town Center mall outside Portland, where he killed two people and wounded one before killing himself.

Last June, high school freshman Jared Michael Padgett took his brother’s assault-style rifle to school. He killed a student and wounded a teacher before killing himself.

None of those shootings would have been stopped by background checks, said Johnson, the key opponent of last year’s bill.

“It puts law abiding citizens at a significant disadvantage,” she said. “And it does not touch the problem, which in most cases involves severely mentally ill, disaffected, alienated young people causing mayhem.”

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-focus-effort-expand-background-checks-guns-154828650–finance.html

 

These people will never,ever stop-unless we allow them to attain their goal of a complete ban on all civilian ownership of firearms.

They are going to keep doing this shit state by state,and every state that they succeed in passing “universal background checks” and/or “safe storage” laws,CAP laws,banning “assault rifles” and on and on-we will have no gun rights.

Gun owners  HAVE to get involved,we have to stop these people,they have succeeded in finding a weak point-and they are going all out with their offensive. So far,they won in Washington state,and are working on Nevada,Oregon and Vermont,and they will keep going,even if they lose in one state-they are just going to go down their list,putting as many as they can in the W column.

They know they can’t get this bullshit passed in DC,that’s why they’re going state by state,and going all out with their propaganda campaign before gun owners even find out they have filed the paperwork to get this horsepucky on the ballot.

Anyone who lives in any of the states that Bloomberg and Ms. Watts attack needs to get everyone they know to call,write,and e-mail their state representatives as soon as it’s discovered these enemies of the Constitution and our rightful liberty are trying to impose these draconian measures on others because of their hoplophobia,and their dreams of everything suddenly being rainbows,unicorns,puppies and butterflies if they could just ban guns.

The rest of the states on their hit list…

https://starvinlarry.com/2014/12/04/bloomberg-gun-control-group-targets-more-than-12-states/

The Sniper Insurgent

Posted: September 16, 2014 by gamegetterII in firearms, shooting
Tags: , , , , ,

Got the link to this one from WRSA…

“The “specially trained sniper” is either someone school trained to be a sniper, or someone who has moved up from “skilled marksman” to sniper (such as Simo Haya, Vasily Zaitsev or Carlos Hathcock). In the case of Simo Haya it was clearly the school of hard knocks, in Zaitsev’s case it was battlefield promotion, and in Hathcock’s case it was part of the USMC standing up a new sniper school. The Iraqi sniper, “Juba” is someone I consider to be a trained sniper, although I do not know where he got his training. My best guess is either Chechen or Iranian instructors, but that is just a guess.”

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-sniper-insurgent.html

While on the subject of snipers and sniper insurgents,along with America’s 20 million deer hunters…

Do you know where your deer rifle hits the target beyond 300 yards?

At any distance greater than a 50 yard indoor range?

Now would be a good time to find out-and make any adjustments necessary,

Then practice,practice,practice-then practice some more.

Read.

Learn Train.

Do more PT !

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/better-laws-are-the-key-to-keeping-guns-away-from-dangerous-people/2014/09/02/29ebaa36-2f9f-11e4-be9e-60cc44c01e7f_story.html

 

You would think that after being called out by multiple groups,orgs and citizens,these idiots would stop with the lies…

Dan Gross,the Brady bunch prez,repeats the same old bullshit as he’s been repeating for years.

Maybe it’s an attempt to brainwash the libtards who read WaPo’s slanted heavily left drivel daily?

Lie #1-

“The Brady Law has blocked about 2.1 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers, including more than 1 million to convicted felons, 291,000 to domestic abusers and 118,000 to fugitives, according to the Brady Campaign’s calcalutions. That amounts to hundreds of purchases blocked every day over 16 years.”

 

Mr. Gross knowns damn well that the majority of NICS denails/delays are simply not due to convicted felons,thugs,dope dealers,and other assorted riff-raff attempting to purchase a firearm legally.

The delay/denial is most often due to the purchaser having the same last name or a similar name as a criminal,even the same first and last name,or that the purchaser’s SSN is 1 number off from that of a criminal.

Then there’s the .gov employees who enter the data in the first place,and the .gov employees who enter the purchasers name and SSN-they make a plethora of errors-daily.

As far as I can tell,there’s never been a year in which more than 100 cases were prosecuted as a result of a NICS denial-maybe that’s due to the fact that most denials are in fact false positive hits? That the person is really not a prohibited person,and the sale is allowed to proceed a few days later?

Mr. Gross does not present all the data-or any of the facts-he’s trying to push an agenda,not pen a factual op-ed piece.

 

Lie #2

“Federal law requires only federally licensed gun stores to conduct background checks on purchasers, leaving a loophole the size of Texas”

 

An outright lie,as the same FFL who has a brick and mortar gun shop,when selling guns at a gun show-must,by law-that’s current law by the way-conduct the exact same NICS background check before any sale is allowed to proceed.

 

Lie number 3 (really an addition/continuation of lie #2)-

“Federal law requires only federally licensed gun stores to conduct background checks on purchasers, leaving a loophole the size of Texas that allows virtually anyone in most states to buy a gun, no questions asked, by going online or to a gun show.”

 

Under current federal gun laws,any gun purchased online must be shipped to a FFL.

Mr Gross’ assertion that anyone can just order a gun online through e-bay,etc,and have it shipped directly to their home,with no NICS check is a bald faced lie…

He uses said lie to promote an agenda-and all the anti-gun sheeple bleat in unison -guns are baaaad,guns are baaaad.

Lie #4-or the final piece of propaganda in his op-ed piece-

 

“It’s simple; we need both to both get more records into NICS and expand background checks to all gun sales to ensure that prohibited people, including those who are a danger to themselves or others, don’t have easy access to guns.”

 

No,Mr Gross-we do not need either one of those things,as neither one would do a damn thing to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from gaining access to a firearm.

The only thing your proposals would do is create a federal database of gun owners,so that if,and it’s a huge if-you and the rest of your anti-gun,anti-civil rights cabal succeeds in getting private ownership of guns banned-.gov agencies will already have the names and addresses of many gun owners.

There is very,very little support for more gun control laws-despite the braying and bleating of people like you,and Bloomberg and his minions Moms demand whatever it is they are demanding-their message keeps changing-all we know for sure is that the group’s actual name should be Moms  against civil rights-it’s a much more fitting name.

The Brady bunch should change their name to “we want to ban all civilian ownership of guns in America” as that is their goal,as evidenced by the minutes from a meeting long ago,in which they stated that a ban on “assault weapons” was just the first step.

Then there’s Mr Gross’ long history of holding high positions in anti-gun orgs-

President of The Brady Center for Gun Safety 
Formerly Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence 
Formerly Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 
Formerly Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence 
Formerly Center to Prevent Handgun Violence 
Formerly Handgun Control, Inc. 
Formerly National Council to Ban Handguns 

 

Seems that how he earns his salary-by braying and bleating about how we must enact more gun control-well Mr. Gross-way back when-you and your ilk claimed all you wanted was background checks-you got the NICS system-why don’t you just sit down and shut up now?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the most misguided,uninformed pieces of anti-gun tripe I’ve read in years…

Using the VPC as a credible source-that’s laughable.

Benjamin Studebaker

The recent clashes between demonstrators and police forces in Ferguson, Missouri over the death of Michael Brown at the hands of police forces has many calling into question the slow, steady rate at which police forces in the United States have become militarized. If we want to stop and potentially reverse this trend, we need to understand its underlying cause–the simultaneous militarization of the civilian population.

View original post 1,075 more words

Someone brought up the idea of creating a pamphlet,or leaflet type thing that we in the III%/preppper/survivalist/patriot community could hand out to people to let them know we are not a bunch of crazies,and that training and prepping are just common sense.

Anyone who has any ideas for a pamphlet/leaflet please either comment here,or e-mail me at gamegetterII@yahoo.com

Someone brought up the idea of creating a pamphlet,or leaflet type thing that we in the III%/preppper/survivalist/patriot community could hand out to people to let them know we are not a bunch of crazies,and that training and prepping are just common sense.

Anyone who has any ideas for a pamphlet/leaflet please either comment here,or e-mail me at gamegetterII@yahoo.com

This guy is totally clueless about not only the second amendment,but firearms as well.
he believes that A-R’s are the same weapons our guys use in combat-where do they find these uneducated dolts?

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/opinion/parini-guns-uzi-second-amendment/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29