Advertisements
Home

A Question For Gabby

2 Comments

This is from Bearing Arms.

Gabby will never answer any questions about carrying a weapon honestly.

 

Gabby Giffords, the former congresswoman turned gun control advocate, is currently conducting a campaign that she calls the “Protect All Women” tour.

Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords sat down with state and national leaders Saturday for a roundtable discussion on solutions to protect women from gun violence.

Giffords’ organization that she created earlier this year, the Protect All Women Leadership Network, hosted the fifth day of her Protect All Women tour in Tempe at the O’Connor House.

Giffords is in the midst of traveling to nine states in nine days, also visiting Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.

“We can lead the way,” said Giffords in her speech before opening up the discussion. “We stand for common sense. … We stand for responsibility. We can change our laws. We can win elections. Please join your voice with mine.”

Giffords says that she wants to focus on “gun violence” that affects women.

Only “gun violence.” How oddly specific.

She doesn’t seem nearly as concerned about the far more common verbal abuse of women, or the far more common physical violence committed against women committed using hands and feet.

She isn’t campaigning against knife violence against women, or blunt object violence against women, and doesn’t seem concerned at all about the 830,000 cases of domestic violence committed by women against men every year. Guys and girls, if you’re being abused but aren’t being shot at, you aren’t on Gabby’s radar.

No, Giffords has a laser-like focus on citizen disarmament.

Of course, we can somewhat understand her position of wanting to disarm as many people as possible. Giffords was nearly killed by a young man with severe mental illness who got his hands on a firearm and attempted to assassinate her. The shot fired into her head nearly killed her, did destroy a promising political career, and has diminished her physically and emotionally, leaving her with permanent brain damage and significant physical impairments.  Perhaps, under those conditions, many of us would chose to scapegoat the object used against us instead of the pathetic person responsible for our torment.

But let’s make no mistake: Gabby Giffords isn’t about saving lives.

“Gun violence” is just a fabricated term. Gun violence against women is just a marketing angle, designed to prey upon emotion.

If Giffords actually wanted to save lives, she’d advocate for more women to receive firearms training, for more women to own guns, and for more women to get carry concealed carry permits to defend their lives and the lives of their children.

There are seven dead women in northwestern Indiana who likely would have loved the opportunity to defend themselves against a recently-apprehended and as-yet-unnamed serial killer who strangled them to death.

The harsh reality is that the average man is taller, heavier, stronger, and has much more muscle mass than the average woman. In a fair fight, the average woman is going to lose to the average man far more times than she will be able to win. When a violent man arms himself—with any weapon—the odds of an average, unarmed woman prevailing becomes almost insurmountable.

A responsible woman will make the choice to arm herself with a firearm for the defense of herself or her children, avail herself of training, and develop the mental attitude that she will not be a victim.

I don’t begrudge Gabby Giffords her newfound love of gun control. I hear it pays well.

But be honest, Gabby, and answer me a simple question: Isn’t a trained and armed woman in much better control of her destiny, and much more likely to survive a violent confrontation with any aggressor than one who simply holds up empty hands and screams in fear?

You know the answer, Gabby.

You just don’t want to admit it.

Advertisements

Obama Praises Australia’s Gun Confiscation

Leave a comment

This is from The Corner.

Many Patriots have been sounding the alarm about Obama’s radical agenda concerning firearms.

Nobody took us seriously and called us paranoid.

This reminds me of the following.

 

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

 

Speaking to users of the blogging platform Tumblr, President Obama today praised Australia’s confiscation of firearms. Obama said:

Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.

Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.

In other words, the president of the United States just praised a government for forcefully removing all semi-automatic firearms (i.e. a remarkable number of the guns in America and the majority of those sold today) from its citizenry.

Let me be clear, as Obama likes to say: You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

Worryingly, Obama appears not to understand how the American background check system works. He would like to see an arrangement, he said, in which anybody who wishes to buy a weapon has to “go through a fairly rigorous process so we know who you are, so that you can’t just walk up to a store and buy a semi-automatic weapon.” This is already the case. Under federal law, nobody in the United States can buy a gun from a store without a background check. The question at hand is whether one should have to undergo a background check when one sells a gun privately. Some states require residents to do so; others don’t. It is beyond astonishing that a president who considers his failure to reform the background-check system to be the defining low-point of his presidency has not yet bothered to acquaint himself with how that system actually operates.

Obama gave the impression that gun-violence is on the increase. This is false. As both Pew and the Department of Justice recorded last year, the majority of Americans believe that gun violence is proliferating when it is in fact dropping. This year marked a 20-year low. More than anything, America has a copycat problem in its schools.

 

 

Another Proposal to “Improve” the Second Amendment, by Rendering it Toothless

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

The Second Amendment is not broken so it does not need fixed.

The Second Amendment is the guardian of the other nine amendments. 

 

 

By Kurt Hofmann, May 7th 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.

 

A few weeks ago we talked about retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ wish to “fix” the Second Amendment, by amending it to guarantee the people’s right to keep and bear arms only when serving in “the militia.” Now, “progressive” writer Sanjay Sanghoee is proposing his own “update” to the Second Amendment.

Sanjay Sanghoee

He justifies this, of course, with pious hand-wringing about “gun violence,” and for that, he knows that there is no better source of innocent blood to exploit than the murdered children of Sandy Hook Elementary. But the Second Amendment is also to be disparaged, heargues in his Huffington Post op-ed, because its purpose of protecting the people’s means of effective resistance against a tyrannical government is no longer relevant, because no number of civilians with small arms can resist the mightiest military superpower on Earth:

So does the Second Amendment really serve a useful purpose in modern society and should it be modified to suit our times?

The answer to the former depends on whether you imagine that the Second Amendment somehow protects Americans from a tyrannical government. It does not. No matter how many weapons private citizens stockpile or even what type of guns they own, a private militia can never match the firepower of the U.S. government. Simply put, if our government ever decides to suppress the citizenry by force, privately held guns won’t be the factor that makes a difference.

We’ve heard that many times before, of course, and now we’re hearing it again, just weeks after determined militia men and women faced down that same government and sent them packing.

A major part of the “problem,” according to Sanghoee, is Americans’ “blind adherence to the Constitution.” That, evidently, is a favorite theme of Sanghoee’s, who once commented (in response to pushback against yet another of his “gun control” screeds) that, “People need to get off their literal following of the constitution [sic] for every single thing,” apparently believing that we should treat the guarantees of our fundamental human rights, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as figures of speech.

JPFO contributor David Codrea notes that Sanghoee’s disdain for Americans’ reverence for the Constitution is a rather curious position for him, as a naturalized American citizen, to espouse, given his oath to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . . .”

So what, exactly, would this “update” to the Second Amendment entail? He doesn’t say, although he provides a hint, when he implies tolerance for (emphasis added) “private citizens keeping a handgun at home for personal protection or hunters owning a rifle, but those exceptions can be covered without the overarching sweep of the Second Amendment.” If allowing citizens to keep a single handgun, or a single hunting rifle, is to be characterized as “exceptions,” then the general rule sounds very much like a comprehensive gun ban.

We also know that he evidently believes that Justice Stevens’ proposed “fix” to the Second Amendment lets gun owners off too easily:

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently suggested adding the words “when serving in [the militia]” to update the Second Amendment but that won’t necessarily work either since the definition of ‘militia’ itself is debatable.

It appears, then, that he is concerned that if Stevens’ proposal were to become reality, we pesky gun owners might go ahead and actually form militias, and thereby regain the protections embodied in the Second Amendment that he wants to deny us. Sanghoee would probably refer to this as the “militia loophole.”

No statist claptrap about the need to “update” the Constitutional guarantee of our fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms would be complete without an Orwellian “Opposite Day” utter inversion of reality, and Sanghoee does not disappoint:

Ironically, the problem with the Second Amendment is that by being so broad, it actually makes it vulnerable to interpretation and sets up the conflict between the right to bear arms (reasonable) and the ability to pose a serious threat to civilized society (unreasonable). Limiting its scope, therefore, could strengthen the spirit of the Amendment by removing its undesirable consequences.

Yep–he is kindly offering to “strengthen the spirit” of the Second Amendment, by limiting it to the point of irrelevance. Thanks, but no thanks, Sanjay.

I once wrote some commentary responding to Sanghoee’s piteous inquiry, “Where is Gun Control?” As it happens, JPFO can provide him with a comprehensive history of preciselywhere it has been for most of the last century. That’s probably far more truth than he wants to hear, though.

Dear Gun Controllers: Pharmaceutical Drugs Kill More People than Bullets

2 Comments

This is from Joe For America.

I did not know this.

 

The hype has it that gun violence is so epidemic, it has left a trail of death so vast, only broad restrictions on legal gun ownership and limits on magazine rounds could possibly end it.

Forget the fact that the crime stats in this country don’t support this assertion. Also forget the fact that crimes are perpetrated by criminals, and it follows that criminals are such because they do not follow laws…no matter how many new ones are passed each year.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 31,672 people died from firearm injuries in America in 2010. While that sounds like a lot, it should be noted that the majority — 61.2% — were suicides, not mass shootings or individual murders.

A group of cyclists calling themselves “Team 26″ in honor of the Sandy Hook victims just finished riding from Newtown, Connecticut to Capitol Hill to “send a message to Congress to strengthen gun-control laws to prevent more tragedies like the one in Sandy Hook from happening again,” according to the Washington Post. A big deal was made about this in the press. But who is riding around in honor of all the people dying from accidental prescription drug overdoses or adverse reactions to legal medications?

A lot more than 26 people need to get on a bike, because although 11,078 people were murdered with guns in 2010, the CDC has also reported that drug overdoses were actually the leading cause of injury death that year.

In fact, of the 38,329 drug overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2010, 30,006 — a whopping 78% — were unintentional. Accidental. Not on purpose.

Those figures are a lot nicer than the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA). The agency estimates that adverse reactions to legal prescription medications kill approximately 100,000 people each and every year.

A study released just last year shows that the majority of the country is taking one prescription or another; some 70% of the country is now legally medicated, and 13% of Americans are on antidepressants.

So if anything needs more regulation in this country, it would appear to be doctors handing out prescriptions to people like candy without sufficient education and warning, not lawful gun owners.

Where are all the pharmaceutical control advocates? The mainstream media never seems to talk about them…

Maybe it’s because there isn’t a constitutional amendment to attack.

 

The Daily Sheeple
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/03/dear-gun-controllers-pharmaceutical-drugs-kill-people-bullets/#ZObxlmjXztz2Jbuj.99

Old School Gun Control…

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Old NFO.

This LINK goes to Life Magazine and a photo series from 1956 on guns in schools…

This note attached really sets my teeth on edge…

[NOTE: LIFE.com is aware that encountering images of guns and children in a classroom might be distressing to some readers — even if those images were made decades ago and depict an adult instructing schoolkids in a rural community in the proper and safe use of firearms. Our intention is not to incite, but to add context and nuance to the national dialog around guns, gun violence and gun safety in the United States.]

Personally I believe we need MORE of this not less.  Eddie Eagle from the NRA is a classic example of a GOOD training program.  By demonizing guns, rather than the shooters, we are creating an entire set of generational prejudices that will come back to haunt us.

Guns are tools, NOT demons… And as long as these generations refuse to realize that, gun control WILL happen, and that will be the end of the USA as we know it.  There will be no way to defend ourselves…

But the criminals will continue to get guns the same way they always have…

Sigh…

Giffords: ‘Too dangerous to wait’ on gun control

3 Comments

This is from Yahoo News.

Gabby The Media Whore Giffords is trying to reclaim the spotlight once more.

BOSTON (AP) — On the eve of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords is challenging Washington leaders not to ignore gun violence.

The former Democratic congresswoman is featured in a new television ad set to air immediately before and after the president’s speech. In the ad, Giffords faces the camera and says, “Congress is afraid of the gun lobby.”

“Tell Washington it’s too dangerous to wait,” she says in a slightly slurred voice.

Giffords, 43, is still recovering from a brain injury suffered in 2011 when a mentally ill man shot her in the head as she met with constituents outside an Arizona shopping center. Six people were killed in the attack.

Obama is not expected to make any new gun control push in this year’s speech after making it the emotional highlight of last year’s address.

Giffords was first lady Michelle Obama’s guest last year, when the president repeatedly declared that victims of gun violence — Giffords and Newtown, Conn., school children among them — deserved a congressional vote on legislation expanding background checks for gun sales. Such a proposal was subsequently voted down in the Democratic-led Senate and never brought to a vote in the Republican-controlled House.

View gallery

Gun control debate

Demonstrators yell and hold up signs during a rally at the Capitol in Hartford, Conn., Thursday, Feb …

In the new ad, Giffords says that 9 out 10 Americans support background checks.

“They make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns,” she says.

The ad is part of a national cable advertising campaign set to run nationwide on CNN and MSNBC. It’s being paid for by Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group Giffords founded with her husband, retired NASA space shuttle commander Mark Kelly.

A spokesperson said the group is targeting the commercial breaks immediately before and after Obama’s speech. Targeted television advertising is sometimes more expensive.

The organization has raised millions of dollars to help influence the gun control debate ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.

As part of a larger effort to work around Congress, Giffords and Kelly are scheduled to appear before the Washington State legislature on Tuesday, hours before Obama’s speech. They plan to testify in favor of a state initiative to expand background checks — just the second time Giffords has testified before a legislative panel since her shooting.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday declined to comment on whether the president would address gun control in his speech, but said, “The president’s commitment to taking common sense steps to reduce gun violence remains very strong.”

Carney said Obama “is very disappointed by Congress’ failure to heed the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people in blue states and red states and purple states to expand background checks. But he committed then and he remains committed now to taking action where he can to reducing gun violence.”

Kelly called the inaction on Capitol Hill “remarkable.”

“Congress has done nothing because many politicians are listening to the gun lobby when they should be listening to their constituents,” he said.

Gun Control Ad Released as Tragic Sandy Hook Anniversary Approaches

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Mom’s Demanding Action For Gun Violence, Nanny Bloomberg

 are dancing on the graves of the Sandy Hook‘s victim’s grave.

They are shameless media whores bent on destroying

our freedom to keep and bear arms.

 

Moms Demand Action for Gun Violence in America is using the Sandy Hook tragedy to promote its “No More Silence” campaign. Monday marks the first day in the group’s “week of action” leading up to the anniversary:

“On Saturday, December 14, Moms will gather in more than 35 states to honor the victims of the tragedy in Newtown, and the thousands of Americans lost to gun violence every year. All events will include a communal bell-ringing to remember the victims, and to show our resolve to never be silent again about gun violence.“

The gun law advocacy group released, what HuffPo described as, a “searing new commercial, timed to the one-year anniversary of the Newton school shooting

As noted by HuffPo:

 

 “The ad, which was co-produced with the Michael Bloomberg-backed group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, shows a ticking clock and images of children in a classroom, and a presumed shooter entering a school building. A voice intones, ‘On December 14th, we’ll have a moment of silence for Newtown. But with 26 more school shootings since that day, ask yourself — is silence what America needs right now?’” 

Obama’s Organizing for Action is already using the day to promote its training and information to make each community’s remembrance day a “success.”

 

Build Gun Shops as Sanctuaries Against Gun Violence

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This idea could not make Chicago any worse crime wise.

 

Imagine you are speaking to a friend. He claims his kids are straight ‘A’ students. The reason they are is that he has developed a system that guarantees better grades. No matter what the situation, he can better anyone’s grades.

 

Your logical reaction to such a claim is, “show me the proof.” Don’t just throw out these wild claims. Show me what your children’s grades were prior and what they are now. Then show me that it was your system that caused the positive change.

It seems reasonable for him to have to prove his system is a success, is it not? You wouldn’t just sign your children on without some proof, would you?

So why is it that we don’t view gun control in the same way? There is not a shred of evidence that disarming citizens makes us safer, yet the left has been clamoring to do just that.

There are organizations like Demand Action.org, whose slogan is Demand Action to End Gun Violence.”

They want us all to “Join more than 1,000 mayors and over 1.5 million grassroots supporters to demand that Congress take action to end gun violence.”

There are self-righteous actors and actresses who cry and plead for us to “Demand a Plan” to end gun violence, many starring in action movies that kill more in the span of the movie than have been killed in all American mass shootings nationwide.  Many also have their own armed security.

Yet interestingly, none of these nimrods is “Demanding a Plan” for a city like Chicago where 80% of those murdered are black and 83% of all murders are committed with a gun.

According to new crime statistics released by the Federal Bureau of InvestigationChicago has become America’s murder capital. There were 500 murders in Chicago last year (2012), the FBI said, surpassing New York City, which had 419. However, the Chicago Police have disputed that figure of 500. They claim it was more like between 506 and 532. Stupid FBI. The Feds can’t get anything right.

Yet Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel signed the petition Mayors Against Illegal Guns. How is it possible that Chicago has become murder-central? Didn’t the murderers get the memo that the mayor signed the petition? You mean that wasn’t good enough?

In September IBD reported that “Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, an avid gun-control advocate and opponent of Illinois’ concealed carry law, held another of what has become a series of press conferences displaying guns seized by Chicago cops — some 5,095 in the first 37 weeks of 2013 — along with a lecture on crime and gun control. But he inadvertently found common ground with Second Amendment defenders when he noted that while guns are being seized, the gun criminals are often allowed to go free.”

“We seize nine guns for everyone that the NYPD seizes,” McCarthy said. “That’s not success that we’re talking about,” he added. “We’re talking about the fact that they shouldn’t be here in the first place and when we arrest those people — they don’t go to jail.”

Yet, to these leftist idiots, the guns are the problem.

Not a single gun shop or gun range can be found in Chicago because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the city had gone too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.

A gun shop has more firepower per square foot than anywhere, short of a military armory. Ever wonder why we never here of anyone robbing a gun store? Me either. Therefore logic would dictate that a gun shop is one of the safest places in America, yet the left would have people believe more guns automatically equals more violence and more killing. And we gun owners are all a bunch of lunatic would-be killers.

So, as a gun-toting lunatic, I say we “Demand a Plan” to place a gun shop on every street corner in the city of Chicago. There is certainly more empirical data that my idea is more legitimate than banning guns. As an added benefit, anyone being threatened by a gun-toting lunatic can simply duck into the nearest gun shop and claim sanctuary.

Problem solved.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13509/build-gun-shops-sanctuaries-gun-violence/#cMhPjFMfmu1IkWzQ.99

 

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.

Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2013/11/hey-ladies-take-one-team/#q9c7QKzYdl27bdXJ.99

 

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

2 Comments

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 AkronNewsNow.com 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.

Why?

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.

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: