Advertisements
Home

Less-strict gun rules start in Ohio today

1 Comment

This is from The Columbus Dispatch.

Ohio has made a giant leap toward freedom.

Now I can travel to Ohio and take my firearms with me not taking them is the main reason I stayed away from Ohio.

 

A new state law effective today will allow hunters to use suppressors on guns; permit Ohioans to buy rifles, shotguns and ammunition from any state; and implement a more-rigorous background check for concealed-carry permits.

It also reduces the training required to get one of those permits from 12 hours to eight, including some of it online for the first time; changes the definition of an “automatic” weapon; and makes concealed-carry permits issued from other states valid in Ohio, even without a reciprocity agreement.

“This is a very comprehensive bill,” said Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association. “Over time, people will look back and see this as a watershed law that fixed a lot of little things.”

Jennifer Thorne, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, sees things differently. “There are a number of troubling provisions in the bill,” she said. “There’s nothing for us to celebrate in this bill.”

Thorne said “elected officials could have done better for Ohio. It reduces training and there is an expansion of reciprocity.”

“Everyone who is carrying a gun is a good guy up until the moment they aren’t,” she said.

What the former House Bill 234 does not include is a controversial “stand your ground” provision, which was debated but removed before the legislation was voted on by the General Assembly last fall and signed by Gov. John Kasich. The “stand your ground” provision would have changed current wording in state law, which says an individual must first back away instead of using violent force in a self-defense situation.

Irvine said while gun-rights supporters wanted “stand your ground” in the law, many “other issues that are addressed in the bill will benefit more people. Stand your ground doesn’t affect that many people’s lives.”

He said the new background check procedures are a big improvement.

“For the first time, Ohio is going to do real background checks,” he said. The new law empowers county sheriffs to check three national databases directly, instead of just one maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Investigation of the Ohio attorney general’s office. The federal databases contain voluminous criminal-history records, including warrants, protection orders and lists of people who don’t qualify for a permit because of a prior arrest or dishonorable military discharge.

Irvine got push back from his members who feared the law will empower the federal government to decide who does and does not get a concealed-carry permit. “This has nothing to do with ceding power over firearms rights to the federal government,” he said.

The law also changes the old definition of an automatic weapon as one capable of firing 31 cartridges without reloading. The change entirely deleted reference to a specific number of shots in a magazine.

Another small change removes the penalty for a gun owner who brings a weapon onto the parking lot or parking garage of a business that has a posted sign prohibiting firearms. The old law made that a fourth-degree misdemeanor.

Ohio has not received good ratings from the national Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the new law won’t help, said Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney for the San Francisco-based organization.

“Our main concern is with the reciprocity part of it. That is exposing everyone in Ohio to a dangerous situation,” she said.

Advertisements

Video] Sandy Hook Teachers Claim Good Guy With a Gun Wouldn’t Have Stopped Shooting

1 Comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

I want to say to School librarian Mary Ann Jacobs the approach of good guys with guns stopped Adam Lanza.

Because he knows they could and would shoot him so he took the coward’s way out killing himself.

Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole her guns so how would a background check stopped him.

 

 

One group of people firmly believe that an armed presence at Sandy Hook elementary school would not have stopped Adam Lanza – the teachers and employees who were there that day.

Several school employees were on CBS Sunday Morning this week and were asked if they thought an armed presence at the school would have stopped the massacre.

One of the ladies actually laughs at the question.

School librarian Mary Ann Jacobs

And you know what? If there had been someone at the entrance to our school with a gun, they would have been dead too. There’s a reason they call them “assault weapons.” It’s an impossible barrage to survive from. We survived because we were lucky and because he was stopped, for whatever reason, before he could do more damage.

This is like, when, cigarettes got so much pressure and all the laws were made against all the tobacco companies, and the same thing with seat belts and car safety. And you know, not everyone wears their seatbelt, but that doesn’t mean we say, “Well, forget it then. Let’s not have a law about buckling up.”

It was ultimately law enforcement officials (guys with guns) closing in on Lanza that caused him to take his own life.

The following is a list of stories we’ve found in which good guys with guns have stopped school shootings:

On Scene, Armed Resource Officers Stopped Oregon High School Shooting
Armed Individual at Colorado School May Have Prevented Mass Shooting
Officers Stopped Rifle Carrying Killer in Oregon High School
MS School Principal Captures Mass Murderer With His .45
Armed Resource Officer Shoots & Kills School Gunman

Houston Mayor Says She Supports Gun Rights, But Opposes “Assault Rifles and High Capacity Magazines”

1 Comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

This is a classic example of a two faced politician.

Houston Mayor Annise D. Parker(D) needs to listen to the words of Abraham Lincoln, but Lincoln is a Republican.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Abraham Lincoln

 

A reader sent us the below image. We will be reaching out to the mayor’s office to confirm its authenticity, but have no reason to doubt that it’s the real deal.

It appears that the mayor of Houston, Annise D. Parker, tries to have her cake and eat it too in regards to gun rights. The mayor, responding to what appears to be a letter from a constituent on gun rights raises some red flags.

Parker is a Democrat and Houston, TX is listed as being a member city on the Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns website.

In the letter Parker says,

I support eliminating loopholes in background check requirements and banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. In fact, I led a U.S. Conference of Mayors sessions with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on this issue last year. And, yes, I have also joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns. While I do not agree with all of the coalition’s concerns, I do agree with its basic mission, which is to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while fighting to keep criminals from possessing guns illegally.

Joining MAIG to protect the rights of Americans to own guns? What a joke. Just last week a former member of the organization stated he left the organization because its ultimate goal was gun confiscation.

I thought the mayor of a major city in Texas would be better on gun rights than this. Even ultra liberal Texas governor candidate Wendy Davis came out in support of an open carry initiative for Texas earlier this month.

Here is the letter in question. Click it to enlarge.

houston

Anti-Gun Colorado Governor Admits Gun Control Laws Did Nothing to Stop Recent High School Shooting

Leave a comment

This is from Guns Saves Lives.

I am shocked that as anti-gun as John Hickenlooper

would be making this statement.

 

Surprise, surprise. Gun control doesn’t work.

The following is from the NRA-ILA,

Back in March, we reported on Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (D) signing into law the most sweeping anti-gun legislation in the history of the Centennial State, despite overwhelming opposition to the legislation. The new law, among other things, bans magazines with a capacity of greater than 15 rounds, imposes a “gun tax” for a background check when purchasing a firearm, and criminalizes the private transfer of a firearm. The anti-gunners claimed these measures would keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.

On December 13th, a tragic shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado, resulted in the death of an innocent victim and the suicide of the perpetrator.

Media reports indicate that the perpetrator was planning a much larger attack and was armed with a shotgun, about 125 rounds of ammunition, three Molotov cocktails, and a machete.

According to a CNN story, Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said of the shooter, “His intent was evil, and his evil intent was to harm multiple individuals.”

On his arm, the perpetrator had written in indelible ink five classroom numbers and a phrase in Latin that translates to “the die has been cast,” according to the sheriff’s office.

But as reported in the Washington Times, the attacker’s rampage was stopped short by the quick response of an armed deputy sheriff who was working as a resource officer at the school. Upon learning of the threat, the deputy ran from the cafeteria to the library, yelling for people to get down and identifying himself as a deputy sheriff. The horrific incident lasted only a total of 80 seconds and ended with the shooter turning his gun on himself in the library as the deputy was closing in on him.

“We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life,” Sheriff Robinson said. Robinson said the deputy’s response was “a critical element to the shooter’s decision” to kill himself.

During a December 15 appearance on Face the Nation, Gov. Hickenlooper, was forced to admit that the very gun control bills he signed into law–and which resulted in the historic recalls of two state senators and the resignation of a third to avoid the same fate–did not make “a difference at all” in the school shooting.

“So things like universal background checks, I think they are going to make us safer, but in this specific case aren’t going to make a difference at all. And that’s the challenge,” Hickenlooper said.

What does make a difference is an armed response; but it only works in a situation where properly secured firearms are available onsite to be used by responsible, proficient, courageous people–in other words, the good guys.

A Cleveland.com story concludes that school shooters aren’t interested in a fight; they’re interested in soft targets that will leave them in control of the situation long enough to accomplish their evil deed.

In this case, the perpetrators was met instead with a hard target–an armed, qualified security presence that was ready and willing to stop him–and did so in just 80 seconds.

Gun-control laws didn’t stop a possible massacre at Arapahoe High School. A good guy with a gun stopped the rampage and in doing so almost certainly prevented much greater harm. For that, at least, we all cab be thankful.

 

 

Americans Don’t Think ‘Universal Background Checks’ Extension for Gun Shows Are Needed, National Poll Finds

1 Comment

This is from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

It seems the crap sandwich touted Sen. Joe Manchin (D.W.V.).

and Sen. Pat Toomey (RINO, Pa) is not popular.

It seems only 40% of Americans approve of it.

Yet Sen. Joe Manchin (D.W.V.).  wants us to think it is a 

popular crap sandwich.

Only four out of ten Americans support so-called “universal background checks” at gun shows after being informed that the vast majority of firearms sales at these shows are transacted by licensed retailers that already conduct such checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as required by federal law. The poll results stand in contrast to the vague claim often reported in the media and attributed to gun control proponents without important contextual detail that 90 percent of Americans surveyed support “universal background checks.”

 links to hi-res JPG 

These findings were the among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in November by McKeon & Associates and released today by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. The McKeon poll found that only 40 percent of respondents said that extension of “universal background checks” to private transactions at gun shows are necessary, while 53 percent said they are not necessary and 7% said they did not know.

links to hi-res JPGThe Americans polled also said by a combined 74 percent margin that conducting background checks against an incomplete database was not effective at all or not very effective while 54 percent said that requiring background checks for transferring guns between friends and family members was not at effective at all or not very effective in reducing violent crime.

The poll also discovered that 92 percent of Americans agree that the states should submit all records of persons federally prohibited from owning a firearm to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems (NICS), passing legislation if needed.

“We commissioned this poll to help determine where Americans stood on the various aspects of how the NICS system actually works today,” said Larry G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “When properly informed of relevant details, it turns out that only four out of ten, not nine out of ten Americans support so-called ‘universal background checks’ at gun shows or for firearms transfers. The poll also found that Americans want a National Instant Criminal Background Check System with a dependable and accurate database, which supports the goal of the FixNICS initiative we launched in 2013 and will continue in 2014.”

links to hi-res JPGThe poll conducted Nov. 6-7 has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 33 percent Democrat, 26 percent Republican and 41 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 62 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 18 percent African-American, 11 percent Hispanic; and 9 percent, other. As to age, 20 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 36 percent, 31-45; 23 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older.

Manchin sees gun control passage still ‘difficult’ in 2014

Leave a comment

This is from The Politico.

The voters of West Viriginia need to fire this ass hat.

But are they too happily sucking on the handout teat of big 

government?

Look  at how long sheets Byrd was a Senator.

To the good people of West Virginia I am sorry if my above

 comment offends you.

I know your blameless you have not been on the big

government handout teat.

 

 

Sen. Joe Manchin says rounding up the votes to pass a bill creating background checks for gun purchases next year is going to be “difficult.”

While saying he’s “hopeful” that some would change their minds, the West Virginia Democrat acknowledged there are Democrats who opposed the bill creating background checks for gun purchases.

“Hopefully, they would maybe reconsider,” Manchin said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s going to be difficult to get the extra votes that we need. I’m going to be honest with you.”

Manchin, a gun owner who had a top rating from the National Rifle Association, negotiated a background check bill with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut. But the measure stalled in the Senate in April when it failed to get the needed 60 votes to advance.

Manchin said gun owners didn’t oppose background checks in theory but were concerned that government wouldn’t stop with checks.

“What we found out is that people couldn’t trust government that they would stop there,” he said.

DC Police to Law Abiding, Re-Register Your Guns or Pay Fines, Go to Jail

2 Comments

This is from AmmoLand.

This will be happening across America if Obama gets his way.

This why we must  make the RINO‘s in both houses extinct.

Then replace them with true Conservatives also replace

several DemocRats in both with Conservatives.

You noticed I said Conservatives not just Republicans.

I will not register my guns

I will not register my guns

Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)-  Beginning January 1 2014, all Washington, D.C. gun owners are being required to re-register any guns that were registered “between 1976 and 2010.”

According to NBC Washington, this re-registration will take place every three years from this point forward.

Every three years, the Washington Metro Police Department (MPD) will send out forms requiring gun owners to verify that they “still live in the District and… still have your firearm.” The penalties for not complying with re-registration range from “a $13 fee to a $1,000 fine and one year in jail.” 

When Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) pushed universal background checks earlier in the year, Breitbart News warned that the federal government would have to create a gun registry to make Manchin’s plan work. The government would have to know where every gun is and who owns it in order to know whether people are submitting to background checks or selling privately.

Similarly, the D.C. universal background check policy has led to a gun registration program for just this purpose. 

Dick Heller–the D.C. resident behind the famous District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) case which struck down the handgun ban in the district–says he will sue over this re-registration requirement as well. He said this requirement punishes law abiding gun owners because “you don’t see criminals registering guns.
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/dc-police-to-law-abiding-register-your-guns-go-to-jail/#ixzz2nybtSKOd
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

PENNSYLVANIA TOWN GIVES ANTI-GUN MAYOR THE BOOT

1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Bravo Chambersberg for tossing anti gun DemocRat

Mayor.

We need to stand strong against Obama and his

stooge Micheal Loonberg. 

 

Chambersburg, PA residents voted Mayor Pete Lagiovane (D) out of office on November 5th after he signed up to be part of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG).

According to Salena Zito on RealClearPolitics.com, the anti-gun influence of Bloomberg made Chambersburg hunters and gun owners feel like they were under attack. And the combination of Bloomberg and “Washington [trying to regulate] gun ownership with more background checks” caused Chambersburg residents “to react in the only respectful way they know: [by voting] out of office those who are infringing on their way of life.”

Mayor-elect Darren Brown (R) says that once he is sworn into office in January 2014, “the very, very first thing [he’d] like to do is get Chambersburg off the [MAIG] list.”

According to Brown, “a mayor should focus on such issues as curbing crime and drugs, or keeping the sidewalks clean—not on the issues of outside groups that don’t understand a town’s way of life.”

 

GABBY GIFFORDS, MARK KELLY LAUNCH VETERANS GROUP FOR GUN CONTROL

Leave a comment

This is fro the Breitbarts Big Government.

The lefts poster children of fraud are trying to get

Fifteen more minutes of fame.

A universal background check is defacto firearms registration. 

I am sorry that Gabby got shot but her efforts are

Dangerous and fraudulent.

 

The gun control PAC of Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, is launching a new initiative, “Veterans for Responsible Solutions.”

According to CNN, the new initiative “will support Giffords and Kelly’s wider efforts by bringing to bear the experience of military veterans who’ve sworn to defend the Second Amendment.”

Kelly, a veteran himself, said he shares the views of the veterans in the new initiative. He also spoke of all the guns he and his wife keep in their home for self-defense and target shooting.

Along with Kelly, Veterans for Responsible Solutions say they are not seeking “to repeal or limit the Second Amendment.” They just want “universal background checks.”

Neither Giffords, Kelly, nor Veterans for Responsible Solutions addressed the fact that universal background checks will require gun registration in order to be effective. Nor did they address Breitbart News’ reports that universal background checks would not have stopped the heinous crimes of the Sandy Hook Elementary, D.C. Navy Yard, or LAX shootings.

CNN did report that the couple’s push for universal background checks has proven “politically unpalatable.”

 

The next gun grab: ATF 41P targets NFA Trusts … The comment period is open.

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

If you know anyone with a NFA trust tell them about this.

This Chicago thug thinks he is unstoppable.

Sadly the gutless nutless Establishment Republicans will

not fight Obama.

That has been proven time after time.

 

INTRODUCTION: The proposals outlined in ATF 41P (that the Obama Administration wants implemented by the end of the year) will require anyone using an NFA Trust to submit fingerprints, be photographed, proof of citizenship, and obtain their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO)’s approval for EVERY NFA item they purchase or transfer. For many, the CLEO requirement will be a defacto ban on NFA items in their jurisdiction, because many CLEOs simply refuse to sign off on any NFA transfers.

It is understood that the NFA community represents a minority of gun owners, but we should all be opposed to this. It’s just another attempt to keep chipping away at our rights. They may be coming for us today, but they will be coming for you tomorrow. No one should have an “It’s not MY problem” attitude toward this. As a citizen, you have until December 9, 2013 to officially voice your opposition. After that, no further comments will be allowed. Completing the following steps is the best way for an individual to make an impact:

1. Go to regulations.gov
2. Search “ATF 41P”
3. Click on the comment box and leave your opinion

The best way to make a positive impact is to make intelligent, well informed comments, as these will be considered when the ATF decides how/if they will implement the policy. Talk about how this will cost jobs of thousands in the silencer industry or how the CLEO requirement takes away valuable resources from local law enforcement. We can stop this if enough people throw their weight into it.
(Please read all of David Goldman’s article below)

 

Gun Trust Lawyer®, By David M. Goldman, Comments to ATF 41P, October 18th, 2013
Article Source

 

While many people will be waiting to the last-minute to file their comments to 41P, we felt that it was important to file something sooner to provide our clients and readers some guidance on preparing comments. We have created a webpage which contains our comments, exhibits, as well as a copy of 41P as published in the registry. As the comments and exhibits are over 140 pages we have included an index to the comments to help you find the information in which you have the most interst.

While we are very familiar with the NFA and ATF, administrative rule making is not something that we deal with. It is for this reason and to make sure we preserve the right to appeal any outcome that we have hired Tom Odom at the Firearms Industry Consulting Group. They are one of the fine lawyers that we work with around the country. If you are looking to have a professionally written response tailored to your involvement or objectives, I would highly recommend contacting us or them and we would be happy to help with the process.

With the exception of ATF’s proposal to add new section 479.90 with respect to decedents’ estates, David M. Goldman opposes the remainder of the proposed rule making for the reasons set forth below and in the Exhibits to these Comments incorporated herein by reference.

  • Part I, below, demonstrates that ATF failed to identify any problem for its proposed rule to correct. ATF neither quantified any benefits from its proposed rule (pages 2-5), likely because the proposal predominantly addresses conduct that is already criminalized, nor identified a single example that illustrates the problem that it speculates may exist (pages 5-13). Indeed, there is scant evidence of misuse of registered NFA firearms (pages 13-14).
  • Part II illustrates that trusts serve many legitimate purposes (pages 14-21), establish distinct roles with very different powers with respect to trust assets (pages 21-26), and arise in varied contexts, some of which should ameliorate concerns regarding potential misuse (pages 26-29), but that ATF has not considered these distinctions in formulating its proposed rule. Some trusts specifically designed to hold NFA firearms have numerous safeguards against improper transfer of trust assets that may be more effective than anything ATF proposes yet ATF failed to acknowledge such provisions or explain why some combination of them would be inadequate (pages 29-32).
  • Part III explains how the CLEO certification requirement renders the proposed rule unworkable and demonstrates the need to abandon the certification for individuals as well as legal entities (pages 33-41).
  • Part IV documents ATF’s underestimate of the cost of its proposed rule due to understated costs (pages 42-45) as well as omitting altogether lost tax revenue (pages 45-46) and the cost of hearing loss attributable to the greater unavailability of silencers (pages 46-48).
  • Part V details the many less-intrusive alternatives that ATF failed to consider in formulating its proposed rule (pages 48-54), including a more-limited concept of responsible persons and use of modern methods of conducting background checks.

In addition, there are 90 pages of exhibits. If you are looking to review the materials or provide them to others to review, I would ask that you link to this article or the 41P page which is located at – http://www.GunTrustLawyer.com/41p.html – on our website so that the latest version will be available to those who look. As ATF is not doing anything with comments because of the shutdown, we may hold off on filing our response, but wanted to let others review, comment and use it to help in their responses.

 

Gun Trust Lawyer®, David Goldman’s Comments to 41P

Below are links to the draft versions of our comments and exhibits that are going to be filed in response to ATF’s 41P. These are being made available to help others prepare their own comments and serve as a guide. In addition, I have included a copy of the proposed rule change.

Guntrustlawyer 41P comments.pdf:
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/Guntrustlawyer%2041P%20comments2.pdf

GuntrustLawyer Exhibits to 41P.pdf:
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/GuntrustLawyer%20Exhibits%20to%2041P.pdf

ATF 41P Proposed Rule Change.pdf:
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/ATF%2041P%20Proposed%20Rule%20Change.pdf

 

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: