Advertisements
Home

Boston Police Commissioner: I Say Who Needs a Gun!

1 Comment

This is from The NRA/ILA.

Who does Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans think he is?

Maybe  Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans needs to read the Second Amendment.

Commissioner Evans needs to note the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Writing for a majority of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms for self-defense, Justice Scalia observed:The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right isreally worth insisting upon.”

Nevertheless, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans expressed his support this week for a provision in the House version of a Massachusetts gun control bill that would give local law enforcement officials discretionary power to decide who may acquire licenses to own shotguns and rifles. This provision was stripped from the State Senate version of the bill. Under current law, local law enforcement officials already have discretion over who is issued a license to own a handgun.

In an interview Boston Public Radio, Evans stated:

For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, and I don’t know a lot of people who are into hunting who, being lifelong residents, would actually want that who lives in the city, but, especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.

Unfortunately, Evans is not alone in his failure to comprehend that constitutional rights limit, rather than depend upon, the discretion of government functionaries. On Tuesday, several Massachusetts police chiefs gathered at the statehouse to protest the discretion provision having been stripped from the senate’s bill. Among those participating were Evans, Chief Terrence Cunningham of Wellesley, Chief Erik Blake of Oaks Bluff, and former Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis. The Boston Globe additionally reported that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick supports the House bill.

Executive Director Jim Wallace of NRA’s Massachusetts state affiliate, Gun Owner’s Action League, explained toFox News that the discretion the chiefs have to issue handgun permits is already being misused.

Massachusetts police chiefs have had discretionary ability [to issue handgun permits] for decades here and the system has been pretty widely abused as far as suitability goes because it’s left up to the chief to decide… Some chiefs say they just don’t hand out those licenses, or some are granted for target and hunting purposes only.

Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that a California regulatory scheme that effectively granted local sheriffs the discretion to decide who had “good cause” to carry firearms in public was unconstitutional. That case, like nearly all successful Second Amendment litigation, was made possible by local officials who, though having sworn an oath to the Constitution, insisted they had a better grasp of human nature and public welfare than the framers of the Bill of Rights.

We therefore suggest some remedial reading and a dose of humility for Commissioner Davis and his likeminded colleagues. Some of the rights these officials now find so inconvenient arose from the overreaching of their predecessors in authority.

 

Advertisements

Fact: More guns, less murder, Liberal Democrats still want control

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

This is the problems with liberals they want answers and

They say they want the truth.

I want to borrow a line from Col. Jessep. 

Liberals: We want the truth!

Col. Jessep: You can’t handle the truth!

Dog bites man: Armed citizens deter crimes against themselves. Man bites dog: Fat cat-liberal Democrats in big northeastern and California cities already protected by bodyguards and community gates prefer control over average Joes than that more of us survive their gun-control experiments. Man also continues to bite dog as their Obamacare, affordable-energy-killing-climate change and other non-compatible-with-the-natural-world-experiments wreak havoc on American society.

But before a citizen of the United States can shop for health care, even on an insecure HealthCare.gov website or shop for gasoline in markets that exclude petro derived from frozen Arctic tundra fields, they must be secure in their homes and neighborhoods. Thus:

According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, while gun ownership climbed from 192 million firearms in 1994 to 310 million firearms in 2009, crime fell – and fell sharply. [T]he “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993. Following the exponential growth in the number of guns, that rate fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000.

This rate rose from 2004 to 2005 and got as high as 3.9 in 2006 and 2007, but it then resumed falling in 2008, the year the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that individual firearm possession is Constitutionally protected—particularly for self-defense. This figure fell to 3.2 per 100,000 by 2011.

In other words, as the number of firearms almost doubled over a nearly 20-year period, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was more than halved.

Republicans oppose voting by non-citizens based partly upon the rule of law, but also because studies show that high percentages of the kind of low-wage, government-dependent new citizens brought to America since the late 1960s by the Ted Kennedy-immigration-reform bill, vote Democrat. Hence our support for photo/voter-ID laws to prevent fraudulent votes by illegal immigrants from being added to the already large number of felons and dead Democrats that regularly vote.

One has to wonder of Democrats favor gun control partially because they think more government-dependent voters would survive long enough to make it to the ballot box so they can re-hire Dems to take care of them in perpetuity?

In any event, their gun control measures in Chicago, Illinois, New York and D.C., increasingly suspect given landmark pro-Second Amendment rulings by the Supreme Court in recent years, actually contribute to the demise of thousands of likely Democrat voters via black-on-black crime.

The feel of safety is the handle of a Colt .45., but liberal Democrats safely ensconced in bullet-proof limos and behind gated estates and other community fences still prefer the feel of their thumbs on average Joes’ and Jermaines’ backs.
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2013/12/fact-guns-less-murder-liberal-democrats-still-want-control/#Cw0f2a7gk0yZPebs.99

 

 

 

Military officer calls for nationwide gun-grab

3 Comments

This is from The Examiner.

I guess Lt. Col.Robert Bateman has forgotten his oath.

How many more military officers think this way?

 

A firestorm has been started on Esquire’s The Politics Blog with a Tuesday opinion piece by Lt. Col. Robert Bateman titled “It’s time to talk about guns and the Supreme Court.” He not only takes SCOTUS and Justice Antonin Scalia to task for their Heller decision interpretation of the Second Amendment, but goes on to propose citizen disarmament edicts that dispense with false assurances given by some in the gun ban camp that nobody wants to take our guns away.

Bateman does, big time, and makes no bones about it. In a way, he’s done us a service by giving a glimpse of the end game less candid incrementalists are inching toward.

Per his profile at Small Wars Journal, he “is an infantryman, historian and prolific writer. Bateman was a Military Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and has taught Military History at the U.S. Military Academy.”

That he can boast these achievements brings an assumed gravitas to the discussion he wants to start simply with his credentials. When such a man speaks out, there is a natural presumption of authority.

The problem is, his arguments don’t live up to that expectation, and rather quickly fall apart with just a superficial analysis.

The Second Amendment only protects a well regulated militia, he argues. “As of 1903,” he maintains, “the ‘militia’ has been known as the National Guard.”

Actually, the resulting United States Code also recognized the “unorganized militia” to include “members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” but Bateman dismisses that responding to a comment poster that “they are not ‘well regulated’ [and] are therefore not the body considered in the 2nd Amendment as protected.”

There are two problems with Bateman’s assertions in addition to the obvious one that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about: First, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congressdocumented, “Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.”

As for who is protected by the Second Amendment, it’s the people, just like it says. Alexander Hamilton addressed “well regulated” in The Federalist No. 29, conceding “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss…Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

Hamilton recognized that soldiering is a profession, and knew that people had farms to work, shops to tend, trades to ply. But the value of them being “properly armed and equipped” was nonetheless recognized, even if they weren’t “well regulated” as a body — what regulation they would be subjected to would come if and when mustered, but there was no precondition on arms ownership imposed on what they could possess outside of militia duty.

As wrong as he is on chastising SCOTUS for “flunk[ing] basic high school history,” that’s not where Bateman has generated the most applause from his “progressive” followers and the most contempt from gun rights advocates. That comes when he tells us about laws he’d like to see enacted.

He wants to end the practice of police being able to auction seized weapons. He wants to do a nationwide “buyback.” He wants to nationalize arms manufacturers. He wants draconian and escalating ammunition taxes.

But wait, as late TV pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there’s more.

He wants to limit private gun ownership to “Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets … Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns [and] Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds.”

“We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers,” Bateman threatens. So much for the illusion of civilian control of the military, although it does drive home the fear the Founders had of a standing army.

“That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes,” he explains.

“Hopefully,” but not necessarily, Colonel? Will you also wait for my heirs?

“When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them,” he dictates. “Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.”

While he doesn’t flesh out how all this will be enforced, he does offer some chilling clues.

“My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence,” he explains. “There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.

“I am really good at my job,” he self-assesses.

Ah, that monopoly of violence the “progressives” are so intent on crushing the Republic under…

Still, since he started the conversation in this direction, it would be helpful if Oberstleutnant Bateman would provide some specifics.

What happens if some of us say “No”? What happens if some of us resist? Creatively? Give us some scenarios here. I mean, after all, you guys have jets and tanks and nukes and everything.

Flesh your jackbooted terror campaign of national conquest out for us. Tell us about that violence you will organize, you ridiculous and contemptible totalitarian.

Jeez, Bob, we’re not scared of you and we are everywhere. What now?

Well, it might be the time to remind ourselves that before he proved what he was really made of, one of our greatest military heroes was Benedict Arnold.

 

 

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not

1 Comment

This is from Guns.com.

How long before Mayor Loonberg tries to discredit this

study from The CDC?

 

Do fewer guns mean fewer deaths? Not necessarily, according to a study by the CDC. (Photo credit: ABC)

Parents are upset over gun violence. Kids are upset over having to hold up signs all day. (Photo credit: ABC News)

The Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, under the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently published a study of findings related to violence and guns. Some of the results may come as a shock – to those on both sides of the gun control argument.

The study was conducted as part of the 23 Executive Actions signed by President Obamain January in an effort to reduce gun violence. The order specifically called to “issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

Some have posed the logical question as to why the CDC would become involved in such a study which focuses on gun violence when the priority of the agency lies in the preventing and control of diseases. The academic community chose to study gun violence as a public health problem, partly because, according to the study, “Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious.” Therefore, gun violence is being studied in the same manner of a contagious disease.

The study did, however, recognize the right to bear arms as a basic human right acknowledged by the United States Constitution.

“An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.”

The initial summary of the study reiterated the need for sound evidence from a scientific standpoint to produce public policies that will best support the rights of the people while still doing whatever possible to protect the public from potential threats of violence.

“The evidence generated by implementing a public health research agenda can enable the development of sound policies that support both the rights and the responsibilities central to gun ownership in the United States. In the absence of this research, policy makers will be left to debate controversial policies without scientifically sound evidence about their potential effects.”

While the problem of gun violence is multi-faceted with no one single solution, the study resulted in a whole plethora of useful information (the entire study can be read here).

There were five primary areas of interest on which the study focused: The characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, gun safety technology, and the influence of video games and other media.

It was found that there are vast differences in who is more likely to become a victim of gun violence, with primary factors lying in socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Homicide rates were shown to be significantly higher in African Americans, while suicide rates were higher in Caucasians.

Additionally, the study concluded that high rates of poverty, illicit drug trafficking and substance use all increase the risk of becoming involved in gun violence. In addition, “criminals often engage in violence as a means to acquire money, goods or other rewards.”

However, the study also inadvertently explored some of the myths surrounding what seems like a recent epidemic of gun violence, including accidental deaths and mass shootings.

According to the study, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century.” Accidental deaths resulting from firearms accounted for less than one percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.

“Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. … It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.”

The study also explored an often overlooked statistic regarding suicide, especially among veterans. “Firearm-related suicides — though receiving far less public attention — significantly outnumber homicides for all age groups, with suicides accounting for approximately 60 percent of all firearm injury fatalities in the United States in 2009. In 2010, suicide was the 10th leading cause of death among individuals in the United States over the age of 10.”

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. …  According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

In reference to gun safety technology, the study claims that “research from the injury prevention field indicates that changing products to make them safer is frequently more effective at reducing injury and death than trying to change personal behavior.”

Is it the guns that are violent or the people behind them? (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)

Judging by what they’re wearing, it was both cold and wet that day. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)

With the latest gun debate, there has been more emphasis placed on violent video games, movies and other media. However, the study’s findings on the influence of these things were inconclusive.

“The vast majority of research on the effects of violence in media has focused on violence portrayed in television and the movies, although more recent research has been expanded to include music, video games, social media, and the Internet. Interest in media effects is fueled by the fact that youth are spending more time engaging with media that portrays increasing amounts of violence. Although research on the effects of media violence on real-life violence has been carried out for more than 50 years, none of this research has focused on firearm violence in particular as an outcome. As a result, a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and additional research is necessary.”

The results of this study were surprisingly unbiased for the most part and closely resemble the findings from a similar study conducted following the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, in which the CDC concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

 

Gun Ban by Default

2 Comments

This is from Joe for America.

I know I am on break but I still surf doing research.

I wonder when the patriots in Kalifornia will say no more?

To borrow a line from Fred Sanford ‘You better wake up

you Big Dummies.

Your Second Amendment rights are slipping away.

 

14546427-doodle-style-handgun-ban-or-gun-control-illustration-in-vector-format-includes-automatic-pistol-surr

 

As of today, May 17, 2013, no new semi-auto handguns will be added, or renewed, to the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale unless they incorporate microstamping technology. Just what is that you ask? Here is what that means according to the California Department of Justice:

“Therefore, to be listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale in California, a semiautomatic pistol must be equipped with microstamping technology-i.e., a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting
on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.”

Read the whole announcement HERE

Ok you say, no big deal, there are a ton of great guns already on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale in California, I’ll just buy one of them. Not so fast! Take a look see at that roster. Notice the certification expiration dates?

Firearms-Micro-StampingThat’s right, certification expires and must be renewed every three years, you know, because the same make/model gun with no design changes suddenly will not pass the same stupid tests it passed three years ago.

I kind of think the lawmakers saw this as a long term way of eliminating guns, because as the years have gone by, they have continued to add requirements for the guns to be on the roster of approved guns.

The most recent added requirement is the inclusion of a magazine disconnect device (gun will not fire without a magazine inserted). Most manufacturers have refused to comply with this asinine requirement in order to sell guns in just one state, and rightfully so.

The few guns that do meet that requirement are now going to be forced to include microstamping if they want to make back on the list the next time around. To the best of my knowledge, no manufacturer is currently producing any firearms that include microstamping.

As a resident of California, it saddens me that many of the new handguns on the market are not available to us, but from a business standpoint, it makes complete sense. If I were a gun maker, I also would tell California to pound sand.

As a practitioner of law (from a cop standpoint, not a lawyer by any means), I think the residents of California may have a legitimate lawsuit against the state for essentially banning handgun sales. They may not have specifically banned them, but the net effect of their legislation is the same.

It is making handguns, a type in very common use, impossible to purchase which according to the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, is a violation of the Second Amendment.

Looks like it is time for the California gun rights organizations to rally together and file a suit. Maybe we can get them to include assault weapons since those also fall under the “type in common use” verbiage in Heller.

 

Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Examiner.

I agree with Justice Scalia there will be several case before the high court.

Justice Scalia has been softening Justice Kagan up by taking her hunting.

If that fails send her hunting with Dick Cheney.

 

 

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America‘s demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned.

Scalia, whose legacy decision in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller ended the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., suggested that the Constitution allows limits on what Americans can own, but the only example he offered was a shoulder-launched rocket that would bring down jets.

And the wily judge suggested to an audience of Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium Tuesday night that he is not just preparing for a new gun control challenge, but that he’s softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns.

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he’s taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. “She dropped that doe with one shot,” he said during an event that featured questions from NPR’s court reporter Nina Totenberg.

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy’s rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

Back then, he said, Americans didn’t go nuts when they saw a gun. “It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal,” he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. “It’s very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime.”

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn’t discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. “There are doubtless cases on the way up,” he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. “There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see.”

 

 

Feinstein’s New Gun-Ban Bill Likely to be Introduced January 22

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Dianne Feinstein is almost orgasmic about her gun bill.

She will make Hitler look like a piker in the gun grabbing department.

Remember gun control work for Hitler,Stalin,Fidel and Chairman Mao.

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)–author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004–has said for weeks that she will soon introduce an even more restrictive bill.  Leaders in the U.S. Senate have stated that January 22 will be the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed, so that is the most likely date for the new, sweeping legislation to be introduced.

On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, ”I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.”  Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners.  Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

  • Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms.  The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law.  Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
  • Adopts new lists of prohibited external features.  For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”  Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.”  Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle.  At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
  •  Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles.  Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban.  Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
  • Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:–Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.–Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.–Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
  • Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA).  The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
  • Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.”  Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs.  However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
  • Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.  The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect.  Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection.  The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
  • Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.”  Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds.  Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
  • Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns.  But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.

The Department of Justice study:  On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders.  To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.  Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban.  Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends:  From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, available here.  From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s–all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”–rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

Traces:  Feinstein makes several claims premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (already infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime.  However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime.  As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced.  Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.

Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative:  As noted, Feinstein will most likely introduce her bill on January 22nd.  President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.  And yesterday, a story from The Blaze noted that Obama’s point man on gun control–Vice President Biden–has promised that Obama will pass a gun control bill by the end of the month.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban.  Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal.  You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our “Write Your Representatives” tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

SUPPORT THE NRA!

Click here to join https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=XR024743

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/05/feinsteins-new-gun-ban-bill-likely-to-be-introduced-january-22/#ixzz2H9kQJbOs

 

 

 

 

Election 2012: Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance

7 Comments

This is by Chuck Norris in Town Hall.

Think about the votes on the Second Amendment they were 5-4.

That is a razor thin win by one vote.

If Obama gets reelected he will get to nominate 2or 3 justices.

Obama has already picked two rabid anti Second Amendment justices

Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor both are radical leftists.

Mitt Romney would pick more Conservative Justices.

Think about your rights being lost if you vote Obama or someone else.

Your only choice to stay free is Mitt Romney and a Conservative Congress.

I believe freedom is worth fighting for. I am committed to protecting the freedoms our forefathers guaranteed to us in our Constitution. There are many politicians who disagree with me, although they are loath to admit it, but their true colors show in voting records on critical legislation. And part of what makes America great is that every two years, we, too, cast our votes, rendering judgment on whether lawmakers have fulfilled their promises. And every four years, as in 2012, our opportunity extends to the highest office in the land.

Less than 60 days remains before Election Day. I don’t need to tell you how important this election is to the future of our country. The stakes are high, and that’s why I proudly serve as honorary chairman of Trigger The Vote, the National Rifle Association‘s nonpartisan campaign to register voters who support the Second Amendment. As a proud gun owner and defender of our Constitution, I am working within the system to make sure my voice is heard in Washington.

In the past several years, we have achieved great victories. In two rulings, the Heller decision and the McDonald decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that all American citizens, in every state and municipality, have the right to legally possess a firearm. Those decisions were a tremendous accomplishment, and they finally ratified what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they drafted the Second Amendment.

So those who wish to deny our freedoms have been vanquished, and all is settled, right?

Wrong. There’s a storm brewing on the horizon. Those who want to restrict our freedom have not surrendered. In truth, they are counting on this election to make their move. They are playing the long game, looking down the road to a day when one or more vacancies on the Supreme Court could upset the current balance.

The Heller and McDonald decisions were decided by razor-thin 5-4 votes in the Supreme Court. Those who want to overturn these decisions are betting on at least one of the nine Supreme Court justices to retire or otherwise leave service during the next four years. Some pundits have suggested that the number of Supreme Court vacancies filled by the next president could be as many as three.

Like all Supreme Court decisions, Heller and McDonald are not set in stone. If the balance on the court is shifted, a new challenge quickly can be mounted in the lower federal courts, eventually making it to the Supreme Court. Our freedoms hang in the balance by the thin gossamer thread of a single vote. If that vote turns, the victories we worked so hard to solidify could be reversed.

The threat is present not only at the Supreme Court but also throughout our federal judiciary. Right now, dozens of cases already are winding their way through federal courts to implement the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald. Those rulings were somewhat general in tone, and now their specific impact on existing gun laws is being defined through these cases.

The president also nominates judges for all levels of the federal bench. That is why we need to make sure we have a president whose nominees for any court — including the Supreme Court — will support the original meaning of our Constitution.

Every plan needs a backup, and this one is no different. We also need to make sure we have a U.S. Senate that is supportive of our fundamental freedoms, because the Senate votes to confirm new judges and justices. Several of the key Senate races are in highly competitive “battleground” states, and they may tip the balance of power in this country. If you live in these states, it’s important to make your voice heard.

And that’s why I am urging Second Amendment supporters nationwide to register to vote. If you’re already registered, you probably know someone who isn’t. Share the stakes of this election with that person, and urge him or her to join the rolls of informed voters. We’ve made it easy on our website; all the tools to register are at http://www.TriggerTheVote.org . After all, when it comes to defending yourself and your family, can we really afford to gamble here?

I’ve spent my entire life standing up for what is right and seeking justice. I sleep better at night knowing that I have registered and exercised my right to vote. I urge everyone who is eligible to vote to do so. Let’s make sure that the future of our country is in the hands of those who cherish freedom.

(Don’t forget: “Last Ounce of Courage,” the first theatrical motion picture to be awarded with my “Chuck Norris Seal of Approval,” opens nationwide Sept. 14, coinciding with the 9/11 commemoration of Patriot Day. Visit http://www.LastOunceTheMovie.com for more information, including where it is showing in your area.)

%d bloggers like this: