Advertisements
Home

How Do We Know Guns Save Lives?

2 Comments

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

By Rob Morse, December 22nd 2013
Article Source


Picture: Oleg Volk

I know it is the Holidays, but put on your detective hat for a second. How do we know guns save lives? We know a gun was used when the criminal was shot by the victim. Evidence is pretty obvious in that case. There is even evidence if the victim shoots and misses. Ideally, the criminal sees that the victim is armed and stops before shots are fired. Obviously there is no physical evidence of the psychological decision to break off the attack. That explains why the self-defense statistics are inconsistent from report to report. We can’t even define what we mean by using a gun in self-defense. It doesn’t leave evidence at the crime scene. Do guns stop crime or not? Well, Sherlock, what do you think? Here are some recent examples to test you.

♦ In one case, a contractor was working on an empty house. A criminal walked in, picked up a crowbar, and threatened the contractor. The contractor presented his licensed handgun and the criminal fled. The police called it an attempted robbery. The contractor thinks it is a defensive gun use (DGU), even though he didn’t pull the trigger. The criminal knows exactly why he changed his mind and ran. What do you deduce?

♦ In another case, a store owner was struck over the head and threatened with a handgun during a robbery. The store owner pushed the thieves out of his store and locked the doors. A Good Samaritan walked by the store and saw the armed thieves beating on the store windows and doors. The Samaritan drew his own weapon and the thieves ran. Both the Samaritan and the store owner think the Good Samaritan’s firearm made the thieves break off their attack.

♦ A man was sitting in his car when a thief jumped in and attempted to carjack him. The driver had his legally carried gun against the carjackers head before the car moved. The police arrested the thief and charged him with attempted theft of the automobile. I call this a defensive gun use. Would you still call it a DGU if the thief had run away and not been captured? Maybe the police will ask him.

Each week I report on cases where guns are successfully used in self-defense. Sometimes shots are fired, but often the intended victims defend themselves without pulling the trigger. Stopping the attack without firing a shot is the best possible outcome, yet somehow we ignore this outcome in our crime statistics. I guess we should pass a law requiring criminals to stick around and answer research questions.

The National Research Council surveyed many crime reports that use very different definitions of defensive gun use. The results show that guns are used in self-defense between two times and ten times more often than they are used in crime. Take their data with a grain of salt. Scholars will argue about how much and how often, but the good news is law abiding gun owners continue to save lives.

What do you think?

~_~_

Rob

Advertisements

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.

 

Laws…

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Old NFO.

 

Laws we live under, like it or not…

LAW OF MECHANICAL REPAIR – After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch and you’ll have to pee.

LAW OF GRAVITY – Any tool, nut, bolt, screw, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.

LAW OF PROBABILITY – The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act.

LAW OF RANDOM NUMBERS – If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy signal and someone always answers.

LAW OF THE ALIBI – If you tell the boss you were late for work because you had a flat tire, the very next morning you will have a flat tire.

VARIATION LAW – If you change lanes, the one you were in will always move faster than the one you are in now (works every time).

LAW OF THE BATH – When the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings.

LAW OF CLOSE ENCOUNTERS – The probability of meeting someone you know increases dramatically when you are with someone you don’t want to be seen with.

LAW OF THE RESULT – When you try to prove to someone that a machine won’t work, it will.

LAW OF BIOMECHANICS – The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.

LAW OF THE THEATER AND FOOTBALL STADIUM – At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle always arrive last. They are the ones who will leave their seats several times to go for food, beer, or the toilet and who leave early before the end of the performance or the game is over. The folks in the aisle seats come early, never move once, have long gangly legs or big bellies and stay to the bitter end of the performance.

THE COFFEE LAW – As soon as you sit down to a cup of hot coffee, your boss will ask you to do something which will last until the coffee is cold.

MURPHY’S LAW OF LOCKERS – If there are only 2 people in a locker room, they will have adjacent lockers.

LAW OF PHYSICAL SURFACES – The chances of an open-faced jelly sandwich landing face down on a floor, are directly correlated to the newness and cost of the carpet or rug.

LAW OF LOGICAL ARGUMENT – Anything is possible if you don’t know what you are talking about.

LAW OF PHYSICAL APPEARANCE – If the clothes fit, they’re ugly.

LAW OF PUBLIC SPEAKING – A closed mouth gathers no feet.

LAW OF COMMERCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – As soon as you find a product that you really like, they will stop making it.

DOCTORS’ LAW – If you don’t feel well, make an appointment to go to the doctor, by the time you get there you’ll feel better. But don’t make an appointment, and you’ll stay sick.

 

Proposed Law Would Fine Ohio Cities Into Obeying Firearms Laws

2 Comments

This is from Ammo Land.

I say Bravo to the State of Ohio for standing up to

the regimes in the anti gun cities.

I am glad to see the loophole in the law being closed.

These anti gun regimes have been abusing the law.

 

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- As with most states, Ohio pre-empts  local governments from enacting gun ordinances that are stricter than state law.

To allow such laws would make the exercise of second amendment rights a legal minefield, as it would be practically impossible to keep up with hundreds of variations in the law that could make a perfectly legal act on one side of the street a serious crime on the other side.

Cleveland challenged the law in 2010, claiming that “home rule” prevented the state from restraining the cities power.   The Ohio supreme court upheld earlier  rulings in favor of state authority to protect second amendment and state constitutional rights.

Many local governments continued to keep laws that infringed on second amendment rights on the books, producing a chilling effect on the exercise of those rights.   A provision in the statute provided for the recovery of costs and attorney’s fees when cities were sued, to provide incentive for them to follow the law.

Several cities changed their local ordinances as a result.   But some cities learned to exercise a loophole in the law in order to discourage further lawsuits.  They refused to change the law, fighting the effort in court until the last minute, wasting city resources and costing those challenging their illegal practices as much money as possible.  Then, before a court ruling was made, they would repeal the statute, preventing the plaintiff from recouping any costs or attorney’s fees.

As part of a number of reforms Ohio gun laws proposed in House Bill 203, the bill would change to law to close this loophole.

Once sued, cities would be subject to a $100 a day fee if they lost the lawsuit or repealed the ordinance.

While $100 a day is only a fraction of the cost of one city worker per day,  it provides some reimbursement of the costs of funding the lawsuit and provides and incentive to prevent the city from delaying the action as long as possible.

Other reforms included in House Bill 203 include reform of Ohio self defense law to bring it into concurrence with most other states (Stand Your Ground provision),  and reforms of the Ohio Concealed Carry permit law.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973.  He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/proposed-law-would-fine-ohio-cities-into-obeying-firearms-laws/#ixzz2mkrl4FWw
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

 

Secret Vechicle Compartments – Felony?

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

This law is one of the laws for our own protection.

This law should not stand up to Constitutional Challenge

However as screwed up as the courts are who knows.

WKYC is reporting that the first arrest has been made “To enact section 2923.241 of the [Ohio] Revised Code to pro

article-0-150C44DC000005DC-819_634x399hibit designing, building, constructing, fabricating, modifying, or altering a vehicle to create or add a hidden compartment with the intent to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance” (Senate Bill 305). Fortunately, for now, “[t]his section does not apply to a box, safe, container, or other item added to a vehicle for the purpose of securing valuables, electronics, or firearms provided that at the time of discovery the box, safe, container, or other item added to the vehicle does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance” (Senate Bill 305). Many may decry the non-violent action of drug trafficking, but there is a larger issue here.

There is an ongoing criminalization of nonviolent action in this country. First, they will ban compartments in cars for ‘unseemly purposes’, then they will ban them outright, and then these laws will start to apply to your home. This is a continuation of the assault on the people’s civil liberties that has the potential to criminalize victimless actions.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_SB_305
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2013/11/secret-vechicle-compartments-felony/#stODpwJdg8zCh2Yv.99

Jesse Jackson Sues Georgia Over State’s “Stand Your Ground” Law, Claims It Is Racist Against Blacks…

4 Comments

This is from Weasel Zippers.

Jessie The Race Baiter Jackson is looking for 15 more

minutes of fame.

I hope he gets embarrassed and counter sued.

Sadly many politicians are afraid of Jackson and

will bend over backwards appease him.

 

Even though SYG laws disproportionally benefit blacks.

(Reuters) – A national coalition led by the Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. is seeking to have Georgia’s “Stand Your Ground” statute ruled unconstitutional, arguing in a federal lawsuit filed late Monday that the law discriminates against minorities.

The 2006 law, which allows citizens to use deadly force in self-defense if they feel threatened, harms black people because they are often perceived by society as more dangerous than other racial groups, Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition said in the suit filed in Atlanta.

“All Georgians, and particularly those of color, will be compelled to at all times prove that they are not taking part in any action which may lead an individual to form a ‘reasonable belief’ that they are posing a threat to them,” the suit said.

Robert Patillo, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said he believed the coalition’s legal challenge was the only pending federal lawsuit in the country against a state “Stand Your Ground” law.

The laws came under new scrutiny after the 2012 death of Florida teenager, Trayvon Martin. Police in the central Florida town of Sanford initially declined to arrest shooter George Zimmerman, citing that state’s Stand Your Ground law and evidence that the unarmed Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman in a struggle when Zimmerman drew his gun and fired.

Martin was black, and Zimmerman is white and Hispanic. Zimmerman was later charged in the shooting death of the unarmed Martin but was acquitted by a jury of second-degree murder.

 

Federal Judge Rules Lawfully Exercising Right = Nullification of 4th Amendment

Leave a comment

This is from Bullets First.

This judge is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I am fortunate to live a state that open carry is legal.

The Indiana Law does not spell out how to carry your handgun

so open carry or concealed is accepted as legal.  

I have  not had a problem with open carry.

 

While taking a walk one day,  legally open carrying a firearm, Christopher Proescher was stopped by police, questioned and arrested.  The local prosecutor, seeing the Mr. Proeshcer committed no crime dropped all charges.  In response to the false arrest Proescher reasonably filed a lawsuit against the officers.

Fast forward to Federal judge William S. Duffey Jr. who made the inane decision that while the arresting officers were wrong in arresting Proescher (you know, because he didn’t break any laws) that carrying a pistol openly constitutes reasonable suspicion of a crime, which authorizes officers to detain the person who is carrying and as such the officers acted properly.

 

Allow me to rephrase: By exercising your legal right, you have forfeited your 4th Amendment Rights and as such will be subject to detention and false arrest with no recourse.

That is what Judge Duffey has ruled.

I  think of other Rights that this could impact, such as having a conversation with someone and the police assuming that you are talking about committing a crime and demanding you tell them what you are talking about or just recording you without a warrant.

But then, what is the NSA been doing these past years?

Or the Fifth Amendment where invoking your right to silence will somehow be taken as a confession of guilt.  Judge Duffey all but came out and said so in his ruling:

Carrying a gun out in the open,” near a playground, combined with a refusal to answer questions and produce identification, “provided more than a sufficient basis constitutionally to detain plaintiff.”

In Georgia, the only way he could come up with that ruling is by bastardizing Georgia code 16-11-36 dealing with loitering and prowling which states:

   (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

While the judge might focus on the “concern for the safety of persons” he applies it falsely since Mr. Proescher was not in a place or at a time unusual for law-abiding individuals to be.  It’s a park, in the daytime where Mr. Proescher was taking a walk.  If we must fear over zealous jack-booted thugs arresting us for legally taking a walk this country has more shades of 1938 Germany than I feared.

Once again a Judge fails liberty.  How much longer before “show me your papers” is an everyday occurrence just to leave the house?
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/11/03/federal-judge-rules-lawfully-exercising-right-nullification-4th-amendment/#VJujK8VKUdAQPbVs.99

 

Here is why Sharia Law has no place in Britain or elsewhere

1 Comment

This is from The National Secular Society.

This young woman speaks from experience.

We cannot let these goat humping savages spread this

vile crap known as Sharia Law.

There are many reasons why this needs to be said, starting with a personal trigger. I was recently interviewed by Channel 4’s 4thought.tv programmewhich was broadcast two weeks ago about my opinions on ‘What does Sharia Law have to offer Britain’. I realised that I was the only one out of seven people interviewed that was clearly against Sharia and for a secular state. Activist and gay Muslim Omar Kuddus who was also interviewed regarding the same topic, agreed that ‘Sharia’ discriminates against homosexuals and would threaten his safety and civil rights.

My interview has triggered a debate in the Sudanese media, both at home and in the diaspora, from which campaigns have emerged inciting people against me calling me a ‘Kafira’ (infidel) and ‘Murtadda’ (left Islam) . I guess Sudanese government officials have time to watch Channel 4 because the Sudanese Armed Forces’ Facebook page posted my picture declaring me an infidel and apostate. Who knew that my private beliefs could denigrate a country’s government, religion, and armed forces?!

Focusing on Islam and Sharia as such here is mainly because of my experience living under an Islamic regime. However, I strongly oppose Sharia law as well as any other religious based laws because I deeply believe in secular, humanist values which put each human being on an equal basis with every other individual. International human rights are a testament to that principle and stand directly opposed to the discriminatory practices enshrined in and justified by Sharia law.

It is important that we secularists demand not only a secular Britain, but also a secular Middle East, North Africa, and world. Sharia as such is a law of a religion with state power in many regions around the world. We have also witnessed in the last two years a grand hijacking by Islamists of the achievements of civil society in the Middle East. Not only that, but here in Britain there are now 85 Sharia councils implementing Sharia law on the streets of London, Birmingham, Bradford and elsewhere.

It is important for me to clarify what I mean by Sharia. To be precise, I am discussing the laws and legislation which are already in practice in the UK and abroad, not theoretical or utopian ideas that only exist in the minds of those who defend and are usually in favour of Sharia. The examples below include Islamic laws in countries around the world that claim to be implementing Sharia — the right Sharia — and are legislated based on the main sources in Islam, the Quran and Hadith, and sometimes in Fatwas. What is clear from an anthropological perspective is that these interpretations are performed by those in power and as a result the application and punishments associated with Sharia vary dramatically around the world.

One: Women
Sharia discriminates against women (and Muslim women specifically): compared to feminist victories elsewhere, women are still not considered equal in most Islamic settings. A woman’s testimony is worthy half a man’s in Islam. She gets half the inheritance of her male siblings; a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation using the word “Talig”, whereas a woman must give specific reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a pre-set age, even if the father is abusive. Women who remarry lose custody of their children.

These are real issues of inequality and discrimination that Muslim women face every day. I have personally experienced some because according to the Sharia constitution in Sudan, I am only eligible for half of my brothers’ share of our inheritance and I need at least two women to one man to testify in court cases. Other brutal examples end in punishment by stoning crimes such as Iranian Sakineh Ashtiani who was accused of having a relationship outside of an ‘Islamic contract marriage’, or the public flogging of Sudanese Lubna Husseinfor her un-Islamic dress.

Another issue is marital rape, honour killings and domestic violence: in Pakistan, there are 300 cases of acid burnt women with no charges pressed against their husbands. Here in the UK, a study reported by the One Law for All campaign shows that 4 out of 10 women in Sharia court cases were party to civil injunctions against their husbands. The One Law for All campaign as well as other groups like Secularism Is a Women’s Issue are among the frontline defenders campaigning against Sharia courts, fighting for women’s rights and demanding gender equality.

Two: Children
Sharia discriminates against children. Not only does it affect children when they are young, but the implications will last their entire life. Top of the list is child marriage. Under Sharia law, a girl is eligible for marriage as soon as a girl begins her first period. This makes it difficult to maintain a minimum age for girls to be married. Considering there were at least five cases recorded in the London Borough of Islington (including girls of only 9 years old), I wouldn’t bother to count the number of child marriages in Islamic states where it is legal.

Other discrimination against children that must be considered is the lack of exposure to different ideas and thoughts. Children from an Islamic background are often taught to close their minds to new ideas and some are brought up to hate their Jewish, Christian and Hindu classmates, as well as any gay students in their class.

In addition to my own experiences at school in Sudan, one can grab any school curriculum from an Islamic state see how it restricts critical thinking and any questioning of religious doctrine. Evolutionary theory is banned from most educational systems in Islamic states, as it contradicts the creationist story in the Quran. Sudanese professor, Faroque Ahmed Ibrahim, stated in his open letter that teaching evolution at University of Khartoum was among the main reasons he was tortured and imprisoned by the Sudanese government. Moreover, little girls are often taught from birth that they are ‘lesser’ human beings, which results in lower self-esteem and lack of confidence later in life. It is however, the case with most other faith-based schools and education including Christianity and Judaism which, sadly, have the same ‘holy-centralised‘ ideology.

Three: Homosexuals
Sharia discriminates against homosexuals. On this particular issue, Islam, as well as Christianity and Judaism, hold the same intolerant view. Homosexuality is forbidden in most Islamic states with punishments ranging from a fine or public flogging to life imprisonment. Ten Islamic states impose a death penalty for homosexuals, including Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen and some states in Malaysia. In 2011, governmental driven gangs have been killing gays across Iraq.

Four: Non-Muslims
Sharia discriminates against non-Muslims, including other sects within Islam such as Bahia’s, Ahmadia’s, and Shia if under Sunni ruling government or the reverse. Under Sharia law, no one is allowed to force someone to convert to Islam, however, someone who is born into an Islamic family will grow up with extreme social pressure from their family. If this person wishes to convert to another religion or be an atheist, they are often considered an apostate, which can be punishable by death. Non-Muslims are subjected to extra taxes (‘Jezya’) and are afforded fewer rights in civic and family matters. For example, non-Muslim men (except Jewish and Christians) cannot marry Muslim women, while children of non-Muslim women cannot adopt their religion. Serious violence has occurred targeted at non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries, such as the bombing of Coptic in Egypt or the attack of eight churches in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 2011.Although some of these groups operate as separate fundamental extremists who don’t necessary represent mainstream Islam or the ruling Islamic governments, these same groups operate in their territory and are protected by the local governments.

Five: Non-Believers and Atheists
Sharia discriminates against non-believers, atheists and apostates. It truly disgusts me that apostasy and blasphemy laws are still in practice in some regions of the world. Did you know that free thinking and freedom of speech are a crime punishable by death, public flogging and imprisonment in the 21st century? I have seared in my memory the brutal persecutions and executions of many atheists and scientists for the simple crime of critical thinking.

Cases such as Iranian Ali Ghorabat for apostasyJafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haji Aghaee for enmity against GodSudanese theologian Mahmoud M. Taha for his progressive Islamic views and Egyptian Nasr H. Abu Zaid for his critical views on the Qur’an show the widespread persecution of people who dare to question blind belief.

This is not a thing of the past: just this month Kuwait jailed Abdel Aziz Mohamed Albaz for criticizing Islam, Saudi Arabia jailed Raif Badawi for his liberal views, Tunisian artist Nadia Jelassi is facing prison for her ‘un-Islamic’ artistic pieces. Countries like Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen implement the death penalty for those who renounce or criticize Islam, but they also punish anyone who is progressive, liberal or wishes to think freely and live a modern, 21st century life.

Being an atheist and an ex-Muslim should have been a private matter for me under a secular state. However, under an ‘Islamic Inquisition’ as fellow secular campaigner Maryam Namazi describes, it became necessary for dissenters, especially those who are persecuted, to publicly air our views and call for equal treatment because this persecution will not end until we stand together and speak out. I chose to speak out on Channel 4 and in many other venues in the UK because I cannot stand by and watch others suffer the same discrimination and persecution that I faced. The current persecution of the five groups I discussed above, both here in the UK and around the world, provide a duty for everyone to stand up for the simple principle: all humans are equal.

For me, my atheism holds this broader meaning because I am taking a political stand to oppose mythology and advocate for evidence-based science and critical thinking. My stand is a way of supporting freedom of expression, freedom of religion or no-religion. I stand, indeed, for human rights in order to support equal rights for all citizens despite our gender, age, sexuality, religion or ethnicity.

I believe this is everyone’s battle, including progressive, secular and liberal Muslims. The right to live, think and express freely your opinions is one of the great achievements of human civilization. These values belong to all of us regardless of our background or geographical regions. We cannot limit these achievements to ‘western values’ or ‘cultural sensitivity’.

We must each strongly and unequivocally demand one equal law for everyone – both in the UK and abroad. Let’s make sure the next generation of freethinkers does not have to suffer condemnation online or offline, face jailing, public flogging or death.

 

Brian Aitken possessed firearms legally did not break any laws but was sent to prison

1 Comment

Hat tip to Teresamerica.

This should chill every gun owner down to their soul.

 

First of all the judge is a stupid imbecile who needs to be stripped of his position as judge.  A massive injustice was committed and it wasn’t about falling through the cracks but it looks like the judge did this intentionally and ignored laws. Second, let’s help Brian have his case heard in front of the Supreme Court by buying his book. Third, this case should alarm any gun owner, especially those moving across state lines.  This whole situation is F*cked up (sorry about the language but this pisses me off, the fact that a moron judge abused his power). He screwed with someone’s life and now Brian is unable to see his son. We need to make sure this type of malevolent injustice NEVER happens again. Thank goodness that Governor Christie commuted his sentence after Brian having served 4 months.

From LibertyGlobe: 

Brian Aitken is a normal, law abiding citizen; at the time of his arrest he still had student loans, a wife and a young child.

Everything changed when he was arrested and sent to serve time for something which was actually legal.

While he was moving from Colorado to New Jersey, Brian was pulled over and had his vehicle searched despite not being suspected of a crime. In the car he had two locked, unloaded and legally purchased firearms. The law specifically outlines an exemption clause which allows the transportation of legally owned firearms while in the process of moving. During the trial, the jury even asked the judge 3 times if they could rule based on this law but the requests were denied!

Brian was sentenced to 7 years for doing something that was legal, he was not breaking the law, he fell victim to a judge applying the rules how he saw fit. Thankfully, the governor of New Jersey released Brian early, but the NJ supreme court refuses to hear his case and his status as a convicted felon means he cannot see his son.

He is now raising money for a book through Indiegogo which he well then use the proceeds of to take his case to the US Supreme CourtNo matter what side you are on in the gun control debate, this is a case of severe injustice.

 

Florida Beware: What Can Happen Under So-Called “Universal” Background Checks

2 Comments

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

This proves that when liberals say they are helping there are always unintended

consequences and innocent people are hurt or destroyed.

The people of Florida need to be aware of the consequences of expanded background checks.

 

 If you know anyone who is misinformed enough to support so-called “universal background checks”, please show them this article.  Thankfully, this District Attorney in Colorado understands the folly of prosecuting law-abiding people.

However, if you simply assume that Florida’s State Attorneys would follow Colorado’s lead under a similar scheme, you might want to reconsider.  While some would refuse to prosecute in these situations, unfortunately many Florida State Attorneys are anti-gun and far too quick to go after honest citizens instead of violent criminals.

Please take a moment to read the below  article:

Colorado DA Refuses to Prosecute Flood Victims for Private Firearm Transfers
Posted on October 4, 2013

Back in February and March, NRA-ILA warned that Colorado’s House Bill 1229, criminalizing the private transfer of firearms, was overbroad, and would unduly burden and ensnare law-abiding citizens. Lo and behold, less than seven months after Gov. Hickenlooper signed HB 1229, some victims of September’s devastating floods are fearful of being prosecuted under the new law.

According to an article published in the Greeley Tribune of Greeley, Colo., residents of Weld County, Colo. contacted Weld District Attorney Ken Buck with concerns that if they were to store their firearms with family or friends while cleaning or rebuilding their flood ravaged homes they could face prosecution for an illegal firearms transfer. While the new statute contains very limited exceptions for things like “bona fide gift[s] between immediate family members,” it does not exempt the temporary transfer of a firearm for safekeeping at someone else’s property.

To assuage the fears of his constituents, in a September 30th press release, Buck announced that he will not prosecute anyone experiencing such hardship. Buck is quoted in the press release as stating, “It would be unconscionable to require those affected by the floodwaters to obtain a background check… And it would be equally unconscionable to prosecute them under these circumstances. This is an example of the consequences of laws that are overbroad and not well thought out and illustrates how such laws can harm residents’ rights.”

On the same date, Buck sent a letter to the police chiefs of Weld County and Weld Sheriff John Cooke, alerting them to his position. The letter makes clear to the law enforcement agencies, “the District Attorney’s Office will not accept for prosecution any allegation that an individual failed to obtain a background check prior to…

READ MORE HERE


Read more at http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/10/florida-beware-can-happen-called-universal-background-checks/#0Om7B7mYiKLdcPfj.99

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: