Proposed Law Would Force Parents to Disclose Gun Ownership to School District

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

How many more laws will be passed to strip Americas

Gun owners’ rights?

Wake up gun owners before you have no rights left.


[An egregious violation of personal privacy]


By Michael Schaus. December 20th, 2013
Article Source



Apparently, liberals have a plan to bring an end to school shootings: Make disclosure of firearm ownership mandatory for all families enrolled in public education. According to the Missouri Torch:

A pre-filed bill in the Missouri Senate would require parents of public school students to report to the school if they own a gun.

Why don’t we just cut right to the chase, and write a law instructing would-be mass-shooters to report their intentions well ahead of time? Or, heck, we could just outlaw the act of killing innocent school children. And I’m sure criminals, owners of illegal weapons, and potentially dangerous sociopaths will be more than happy to follow along with such equally ridiculous legislation. Right?

More than being an egregious violation of personal privacy, the bill highlights the impotence of progressive “solutions” to violence conducted with firearms. Compulsory disclosure of gun ownership provides the authorities with such little actionable or useful information it is almost not worth mentioning.

Of course, in in places like New York, such disclosure of firearm ownership is actually aiding authorities. Without a public registry of firearm licenses, authorities in NYC would have a far more difficult time confiscating weapons from law-abiding gun owners who have accidently run afoul of newly enacted gun laws.

The Missouri proposal, however, does not call on parents to disclose the specific firearms they own… See, according to Liberals, all guns are evil – and all gun owners merit increased scrutiny and surveillance by authorities. (Wow… And you wonder why people with guns don’t like more gun laws… Weird.)

The Missouri Torch reported:

This act requires a parent or guardian to notify a school district, or the governing body of a private or charter school, that he or she owns a weapon within 30 days of enrolling the child in school or becoming the owner of a weapon. The written notification only needs to include the names of the parent and any child attending the school and the fact that the parent owns a weapon.

Naturally, the question arises: What the heck is this proposal actually supposed to accomplish? Aside from giving schools (read: government) a list of the county’s child-bearing gun owners, actionable intelligence (and almost any other kind of intelligence as well) is non-existent.



Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control


This is from The New York Times.

It is refreshing to see these Sheriffs standing up to these

Unconstitutional gun laws.

Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs.  This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States.  Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.

Michael Ciaglo/The Colorado Springs Gazette, via Associated Press

John Cooke is among the Colorado sheriffs who are resisting enforcement of new state gun laws.


GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.

 He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.

Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” The sheriffs’ refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police.

In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man’s Second Amendment rights.

And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).

“Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or Washington, D.C.,” said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County, Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.

This year, the new gun laws in Colorado have become political flash points. Two state senators who supported the legislation were recalled in elections in September; a third resigned last month rather than face a recall. Efforts to repeal the statutes are already in the works.

Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.

Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, “Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.

A Federal District Court judge last month ruled against a claim in the sheriffs’ lawsuit that one part of the magazine law was unconstitutionally vague. The judge also ruled that while the sheriffs could sue as individuals, they had no standing to sue in their official capacity.

Still, the state’s top law enforcement officials acknowledged that sheriffs had wide discretion in enforcing state laws.

“We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”

Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.

“A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they’re not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment,” Sheriff Pelle said. “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.”

Even Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws, said he was unlikely to aggressively enforce them. He said enforcement poses “huge practical difficulties,” and besides, he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.

“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” he said.

At their extreme, the views of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws echo the stand of Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and the author of “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” Mr. Mack has argued that county sheriffs are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, founded by Mr. Mack, is an organization of sheriffs and other officers who support his views.

“The Supreme Court does not run my office,” Mr. Mack said in an interview. “Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it.” He said that 250 sheriffs from around the country attended the association’s recent convention.

Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.

But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state law would have to come from voters.

Sheriff Cooke, for his part, said that he was entitled to use discretion in enforcement, especially when he believed the laws were wrong or unenforceable.

“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”


Stricter Gun Control Laws Won’t Prevent Criminals From Getting Guns, Say 63% of Americans

Leave a comment

This is from

Yet Little Chuckie Schumer, DiFi, Babs Boxer as well as

Little Dickless Durbin says more gun control is needed.

We can not forget Nanny Bloomberg along with his

magpies saying gun control is needed.


When it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, 63 percent of Americans remain unconvinced that tighter restrictions on buying and owning guns will be effective, according to the latest  Reason-Rupe poll. About a third (32 percent), said stricter regulations would be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

Seven in ten Republicans say stricter gun regulations would not be effective while just 26 percent say they would be effective.  Democrats are more divided on the issue. While typically supportive of increased gun control, more than half (53 percent) say tighter restrictions on buying and owning guns would not prevent criminals from obtaining the weapons while 44 percent say they would prevent criminals from getting guns. Two-thirds of independents don’t expect tighter restrictions to be effective while 30 percent think they will.

As education increases, so do expectations that tighter gun regulations will effectively keep guns from criminals. For instance, 29% of those with high school degrees or less believe such policies would be effect compared to 41 percent of those with post-graduate degrees. Nevertheless, majorities of all educational groups don’t expect tougher gun laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns.

Women are slightly more likely than men to believe tighter gun regulations would be effective (35 to 29 percent). However, considering race and gender finds that white women are no different than white and nonwhite men. However, half of nonwhite women think tighter gun rules would be effective compared to 44 would think they would not.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed 1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.



|Dec. 12, 2013 9:15 am


Chicago Clerk Shoots, Kills Recently Paroled Armed Robber Who Served 20 Months of 13 Year Sentence

Leave a comment

This is from Guns Saves Lives.

This store clerk puts an end to the criminal career of a

Son of Obama.

How long before an over zealous prosecutor tries to

prosecute the clerk for having a gun?


                           Demarcus Brandon (Credit: Illinois Department of Corrections)

A Chicago store clerk refused to be a victim yesterday evening.

According to a Chicago Tribune article, 25-year-old Demarcus Brandon tried to rob a cell phone shop using a firearm sometime after 6pm yesterday.

The clerk, also armed, got into a gunfight with the suspect, which resulted in the suspect being shot and killed.

A bystander broke his ankle trying to escape the store. It is unclear if the clerk was injured.

Brandon had a criminal record for violent crime and was just recently paroled after serving only 20 months of a 13 year sentence.

According to the Tribune,

The 13-year sentence stemmed from an incident in Chicago in which Brandon was charged with armed robbery with a firearm, armed violence, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, gun possession, aggravated fleeing from police, and having either a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches or shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches.

That case, and the one that ended with a 3-year sentence, both ended in plea deals, according to court records. He was credited for about 20 months time served and admitted to IDOC custody in September 2008.


Brady Campaign: Hey ladies, take one for the TEAM!

1 Comment

This is from The Black Sphere.

The Brady Campaign is stupider than I thought.

Shooting a scumbag raping or attempting to rape

a woman is not a crime.


In what has to be one of the most offensive ad campaigns for gun control, the Brady Campaign people have lost it!

If you are attacked, and there is threat of sexual assault, what should you do ladies? Grin and bear it.

These people call us the misogynists. Talk about Barbarians.

The Brady Campaign site states:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence works to pass, enforce, and protect sensible laws and public policy that address gun violence at the federal and state level.  We do this by engaging and activating the American public, electing officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence.

Through our advocacy campaigns and Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate people about the risks of gun ownership, honor victims of gun violence, and pass sensible gun laws.

Sensible? Is it sensible to leave women defenseless? Is it sensible to equate the shooting of an innocent and the shooting of a violent sexual predator?

Murder lasts forever,” but sexual assault doesn’t. I don’t know much about sexual assault, but I can’t believe women don’t live with that scenario forever. For me, that falls under the category, “There are some things worse than death.”

This ad demonstrates the lengths to which the Left will go to get guns. What if a woman were to STAB her assailant to death? Or what if that frail, helpless little man-needing creature were to just kick the crap out of her assailant, and kill him with her bare fist? Are any of those scenarios the answer?

The ACT of rape may last 30 seconds; the effects of rape can haunt for a lifetime.

On the other hand, shooting a rapist in self-defense is not murder, but a justified shooting.



Akron police chief: Focusing on gun ownership will never curb gun violence


This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association.

It is good to see that LEO’s understand the gun grabs

can not and do not work.

How many more LEO’s nation wide get it also?


Last month, Akron Police Chief James Nice made waves when he told that mandatory background checks won’t work to stop criminals, and that “gun buybacks are a farce.”

This month, Nice is speaking more words of truth on the subject of the impotence of gun control, in an interview with Cleveland’s fox affiliate, WJW:

Simply put, Akron Police Chief Jim Nice believes almost every proposal to curb gun violence that he has heard won’t work.


Because Chief Nice, who used to head undercover operations for the FBI, says the proposals don’t address the main problems that lead to gun deaths.

“It makes me so mad I can’t see straight,” Chief Nice tells the I-Team.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut where 20 children and six adults were killed, many proposals focused on banning assault weapons and increasing security at schools.

The article quotes Chief Nice as saying he doesn’t doesn’t think they will help much to curb crime in his city, since most people aren’t shot in schools and most people aren’t shot with expensive assault rifles.

The legislative focus, Chief Nice believes, should not be on gun ownership, but rather on illegal gun possession and use.

State Senator Frank LaRose agrees.

“Less than one percent of the bad guys are committing 57 percent of the violent crimes,” he says.

Senator LaRose, a Republican from Akron, is working with other lawmakers to try and write a new state law that would stiffen penalties for illegal gun possession and use. The challenge is to write a law that is both tough and narrow – one that targets career criminals without throwing away the lives of some people who have committed crimes.

“Prisons are for people who are a real danger to society,” Sen. LaRose says, “and not just people we’re unhappy with, but people that we’re legitimately afraid of.”

Sen. LaRose told Fox 8 says the goal of the state legislators is to draft a law that will “find the folks who are the worst of the worse and make sure they’re in prison.”

Chief Nice agreed, noting that there are not many people in society who are willing to illegally carry a gun and shoot people, but that “if you can’t incarcerate those people, you will never be safe.”

Earlier this year, Attorney General Mike DeWine proposed the Violent Career Criminal Act, which would change current gun specification sentencing laws and increase some penalties for offenders with two or more violent felony convictions.

The Violent Career Criminal Act calls for a mandatory 11-year prison sentence for those convicted of illegally possessing a gun, if they have previously been convicted of two or more violent felonies. Today, a felon convicted of illegally possessing a firearm faces only one to five years imprisonment.

The act would also double gun specification penalties if the offender has previously been convicted of a crime involving a firearm. Current gun specification sentences range from one to seven years in prison, depending on the underlying gun crime.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, and BFA PAC Vice Chairman.


Gun Control Hurts People

1 Comment

This is from JPFO.

This report will make the Brady Bunch and their ilk

piss their pants rage.

They may even have a stroke.


The Knox report by Jeff Knox, October 30th, 2013


We often hear gun control advocates say something like, “If it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?” Well of course it is – if it doesn’t cost many more in the process. The reality is that gun control costs lives, while guns save lives. That’s why cops carry them.

Let’s do a little reality check:

1. Crime – including violent crime, and “gun crime” – is not going up, it has been going down pretty consistently across the country for at least 20 years.

2. Mass Murders and Rampage Killings are not happening with more frequency, nor are such events resulting in more deaths. The number of such events and the average deaths resulting from them has remained relatively level for decades.

3. There has been no rise in firearm accidents or unintentional injuries – among adults or children. Firearm-related accidents, deaths, and injuries have been steadily declining for decades thanks to increased safety awareness initiatives from the firearms and hunting communities.

4. All of these reductions in “gun crime,” reductions in firearm accidents, and statistical stability in mass murder events have been achieved while the number of firearms in public hands has more than doubled, and the number of individuals with firearms has gone up dramatically. Also during this time, firearm quality, reliability, durability, and capacity have been going up, as have the number of people able to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense.

The most conservative studies suggest that, at a minimum, for every crime with a gun, someone uses a gun to defend themselves or others from violent assault. Other reputable studies place defensive firearm use much higher, more than five times more frequent than offensive use – up to 2.5 million defensive uses per year. Usually defenders don’t have to shoot; just showing the gun is enough to stop the attack. These events often go unreported.

At a minimum, the best that even the most draconian of gun laws could hope to accomplish would be about a 50% INCREASE in violent crime, but possibly as much as a 250% Increase, and no decrease in mass murders or suicides. Those are conservative estimates on my part, but regardless of the actual numbers, the reality is that if guns were more strictly controlled, perhaps some individuals might be saved, but overall, many more people would die.

The other seriously detrimental result of gun control laws is that they inevitably result in prosecutions of people who are not harming anyone. Innocents whose only crimes are violation of some arcane aspect of a gun control law. These prosecutions are often devastating, costing jobs, marriages, families, and sometimes lives.

It is impossible to say exactly what would have happened had gun control laws not been in place, but there are some pretty startling examples of what did happen thanks to gun control.

In 2009, 69-year old Mary Shepard was working in a church office in Anna, Illinois when a 6’4″ 240 pound convicted felon came in and violently assaulted her and an 83-year old coworker, Leona Mount. Shepard is an experienced shooter, trained in defensive firearm carry, and was licensed to carry a concealed firearm in over 30 states. Unfortunately her licenses and training were not recognized in her home state of Illinois and Shepard was not able to be legally armed on the day that she and her coworker were attacked, beaten, and left for dead.

Gun Control Laws Disarmed Church Treasurer Mary Shepard
She was trained and licensed to carry a gun in over 30 states,
but not Illinois. It was a miracle that she and her 83-year old
coworker survived the attack of an “unarmed” 6’4″ 240lb felon.

In 1991, Knox family friend Suzanna Hupp was having lunch with her parents when a deranged security guard drove his truck through the front of the restaurant and began shooting people. Suzanna’s father turned over the table to provide some cover and Suzanna, seeing the murderer’s back was toward them for the moment, reached for her purse to retrieve the gun she normally carried. She was sure she could effectively stop the assault before more people were hurt. Then she remembered that her gun wasn’t in her purse. Concealed carry was illegal at that time in Texas, and Suzanna had decided that the risk of breaking the law was greater than the risk of not having the gun. She was wrong. Twenty three people, including both of Suzanna’s parents, were killed. Suzanna went on to spend a decade in the Texas legislature fighting for legal defensive carry, which she eventually won. That victory was small consolation for not having the gun when she needed it.

(JPFO addition – you can see two video’s of Suzanna Hupp testifying to Congress on this JPFO page)

There are numerous stories like these, and just as many of people who have been injured by zealous enforcement of gun laws: The nurse who was arrested at Albany airport when she presented her unloaded, locked-up handgun for legal transport in her checked baggage. The fellow who pulled into a parking lot to catch some sleep in the wee hours of the morning while moving from Maine to Texas and was arrested on felony charges because he had stopped in New Jersey rather than driving for another 20 minutes to stop in Pennsylvania.

In an outrageous recent example, a financial consultant was arrested for possessing a dud shotgun shell and a fired shell from a rifle in his DC home. A SWAT team raided his home, drug his 16-year old son naked from the shower, and held his family at gunpoint while they searched for the “dangerous contraband.” The man is now facing felony charges with the possibility of several years in prison, based solely on his possession of “ammunition or ammunition components,” even though he had no guns in the city.

Gun control laws are expensive, ineffective, and they cost lives. Even seemingly harmless, “common sense” laws can ensnare the innocent and destroy their lives. On the other hand, guns in the hands of responsible citizens save lives and make criminals think twice before going after someone who seems vulnerable.

Next time you hear someone say, “If it saves only one life,” remember that gun control doesn’t save lives, it costs lives. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens save lives.


Are Guns the Problem?

Leave a comment

This is by Dr. Walter E.Williams in Town Hall.

As Dr.Williams points out guns are not the problem.

It is the lack of absolutes of right, wrong and moral and immoral.

Many of today’s youth do not fear legal penalties because they know liberals

have perverted the justice system.

Once upon a time guns were everywhere and our youths knew the responsibility

of handling a firearm and penalties for improper handling of said firearm.

They also knew if they misused a firearms someone could be seriously injured or

than death could and would result.


Every time there’s a shooting tragedy, there are more calls for gun control. Let’s examine a few historical facts. By 1910, the National Rifle Association had succeeded in establishing 73 NRA-affiliated high-school rifle clubs. The 1911 second edition of the Boy Scout Handbook made qualification in NRA’s junior marksmanship program a prerequisite for obtaining a BSA merit badge in marksmanship. In 1918, the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. established its own Winchester Junior Rifle Corps. The program grew to 135,000 members by 1925. In New York City, gun clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. With so many guns in the hands of youngsters, did we see today’s level of youth violence?

What about gun availability? Catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s were full of gun advertisements directed to children and parents. For example, “What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun” was published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The 1902 Sears mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. For most of our history, a person could simply walk into a hardware store, virtually anywhere in our country, and buy a gun. Few states bothered to have even age restrictions on buying guns.

Those and other historical facts should force us to ask ourselves: Why — at a time in our history when guns were readily available, when a person could just walk into a store or order a gun through the mail, when there were no FBI background checks, no waiting periods, no licensing requirements — was there not the frequency and kind of gun violence that we sometimes see today, when access to guns is more restricted? Guns are guns. If they were capable of behavior, as some people seem to suggest, they should have been doing then what they’re doing now.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects. These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The benefit of having customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching. In other words, it’s morality that is society’s first line of defense against uncivilized behavior.

Moral standards of conduct, as well as strict and swift punishment for criminal behaviors, have been under siege in our country for more than a half-century. Moral absolutes have been abandoned as a guiding principle. We’ve been taught not to be judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another. More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws are needed to regulate behavior.

What’s worse is that instead of trying to return to what worked, progressives want to replace what worked with what sounds good or what seems plausible, such as more gun locks, longer waiting periods and stricter gun possession laws. Then there’s progressive mindlessness “cures,” such as “zero tolerance” for schoolyard recess games such as cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians, shouting “bang bang,” drawing a picture of a pistol, making a gun out of Lego pieces, and biting the shape of a gun out of a Pop-Tart. This kind of unadulterated lunacy — which focuses on an inanimate object such as a gun instead of on morality, self-discipline and character — will continue to produce disappointing results.




1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Stupid and panic gun control in the dead of night has come back to

bite Governor John Hickenlooper and the state of Colorado in their arses.

Now possible future taxes from these firearm manufacturing companies

will not got else where because of the gun laws that was passed.

Actions have consequences that cost millions of dollars from tax revenue.. 


Gun control laws passed by Democrat state legislators and signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March have missed an opportunity for Colorado to gain millions economically from any expansion of the Freedom Group Family of Companies (FGI).

FGI includes Remington, Marlin, Bushmaster, DPMS, Barnes Bullets, Para, and AAC among others.

An anonymous source familiar with FGI told Breitbart News that this year’s “passage of anti-gun legislation in Colorado has taken the Centennial State out of contention for expansion opportunities.”

There are many reasons for this, one of which is the foolishness of building or expanding manufacturing plants in Colorado for rifles and pistols that hold magazines that became illegal when Colorado’s strict new gun control laws went into effect on July 1.

For example, rifle or pistol magazines with a capacity beyond 15 rounds are now banned in Colorado. But Bushmaster and DPMS are among the companies owned by FGI, and these companies manufacture AR-15s and pistols for which they sell 26 and 30 round magazines and beyond. Selling these magazines would be illegal within Colorado.

Moreover, another gun control measure that did not pass but was pushed by Democratswould have made “assault rifle” manufacturers, sellers, and owners liable for the misuse of their weapons. Even if the gun were sold to a legitimate, law-abiding gun owner, the manufacturer, seller, and owner would have been open to liability had the gun been stolen and misused.

Why would a company that owns AR-15 manufacturers want to spend tens of millions to expand in a state where lawmakers are looking for ways to make their products a liability?

Make no mistake–tens of millions of dollars are what is at stake. Just weeks ago, FGI announced a $32 million expansion in Arkansas. Who knows how many jobs that will create within the state?

FGI has 20 properties across 12 different states, and they will focus on states that are friendly to them and their products, as any reputable business would do.

Looks like gun control is proving costly to Colorado.


Bill would hugely expand tax burden on gun owners, to finance their oppressors

1 Comment

This is from The Examiner.

Congressman Danny Davis has ties to the Communist party.

It does not surprise me he wants to tax gun owners to fund oppression

by the militarized police departments.

Use this link to contact your Representative and tell them to oppose  

HR-3018 Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013.


Writing for Ammoland, Max McGuire, of Sanity Politics,informs us that early this month, Congressman Danny K. Davis (D-IL), along with co-sponsor Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ), introduced H.R. 3018, the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013.”This bill, according to the text, would impose a whopping new 20% tax on all firearms purchases, and a 50% tax on ammunition. National Firearms Act (machine guns, suppressors, sawed-off shotguns and rifles, etc.) transfer fees would also go way up, as would licensing fees for gun dealers, manufacturers and importers–and these taxes and fees will automatically rise with inflation.

Furthermore, these new taxes would not be applied, as per current practice under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, to wildlife conservation, which at least provides some benefit to hunters (and perhaps, some day, to shooters in general). Instead, this new tax revenue would go to the police (themilitarization of law enforcement, after all, ain’t cheap), and to fund anti-gunagenda-driven “research.”

Even a cursory look at Rep. Davis’ “gun control” history makes it abundantly clear that in his view, one of the most important roles of the police is as hired muscle, to enforce citizen disarmament laws, and Rep. Pascrell is no different. And, in fact,Davis’ own press release makes very clear that what he intends for these funds to pay for is the effort to make private gun ownership more difficult:

Rep. Davis stated, “Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions and we cannot, as a nation, any longer tolerate the on-going social and economic costs of inaction. Gun violence is a daily reality for America and, in particular, for urban cities like Chicago. The crisis should outrage us all. This legislation is a pro-active approach to reducing gun violence by using proven preventive programs which have been starved for funds until now. As part of a comprehensive, multidimensional strategy to reduce gun violence, this legislation closes major loopholes in tax law and lays out an equitable, long term, sustainable strategy to provide the requisite resources.”

Pascrell is also quoted, and perhaps goes even further, with a reference to what he calls “the long-term societal costs of gun and ammunition purchases in our country.” This sounds an awful lot like the anti-gun “culture war” Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman has been covering lately (as has this column in the past). Rabidly anti-private gun ownership NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly is also trying to position himself as a general in that culture war, claiming on rabidly anti-gun Piers Morgan’s “news” show that “[t]here’s [sic] way too many guns abroad [sic] in America.”

The idea here is to punish the hundreds of millions of peaceable and law-abiding gun owners, by making us pay for the harmful behavior of the criminal few. Furthermore, the money thus collected is to be used to make our exercise of the right that shall not be infringed more difficult–more easily infringed.

Oh–there’s another provision in H.R. 3018, buried at the very end, almost as if the idea is to hide it:

(c) Certain Semiautomatic Pistols Chambered for Cartridges Treated as Firearms- The first sentence of section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended–

(1) by striking `and’ before `(8)’,

(2) by striking `device.’ and inserting `device, and’, and

(3) by adding at the end the following: `(9) a semiautomatic pistol chambered for cartridges commonly considered rifle rounds, configured with receivers commonly associated with rifles and capable of accepting detachable magazines.’

That would seem to mean that pistols like those based on AR-15 and Kalashnikov rifle designs are to come under NFA regulatory power, as if they were machine guns.

H.R. 3018’s likelihood of passage is miniscule, at least absent some atrocity so horrible that the “blood dancing” opportunists successfully exploit it as justification for every forcible citizen disarmament law that comes to the twisted minds of oath-breaking politicians. Still, every look into the minds of those who would disarm us if they could is valuable, if chilling.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: