Advertisements

[VIDEO] Eugene Volokh for PragerU: Is Gun Ownership a Right? 

What does the Second Amendment say? Is gun ownership a right for all Americans? Or just for a small militia? Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, explains what the Founding Fathers intended.

eugene-volokh-prager-u-680x365

Source: PragerU – Eugene Volokh

Advertisements

GRAPHIC: Anti-Gun Activists Send Grotesque Gun Victim Christmas Cards

betsy-riot-640x479

Conservatives, gun store owners, and Second Amendment activists are receiving ‘Christmas Cards’ from anti-gun advocates that include graphic photos of victims who have received gunshots to the face.

Lana Shadwick writes: The Christmas card includes the Bible verse, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked. And the one who loves violence His soul hates.”

The card also bears the inscription:

The NRA gives the gift of nonfatal gunshot wounds like these to 100,000 Americans per year. Your continued support of ‘guns everywhere’ legislation is directly responsible for this health epidemic. In your heart, do you honestly believe this is what Jesus wants? Shame on you for dishonoring Jesus Christ with your support of gun-pushing legislation.

The Christmas card is signed from “The Betsy Riot” which describes itself on the card as “a decentralized movement that nonviolently opposes gun culture.”

The post on Facebook bears a graphic warning that must be clicked on before the photos can be seen.

[Read the full story here, at Breitbart.com]

The photos can also be found on the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health and the National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery, Official Publication of Maxillofacial Society of India. These sources do not tell how both of these victims sustained their wounds. The male victim can be found under a case report for “self-inflicting gunshot injury.” Read the rest of this entry »


Guns Win Big on Election Day Across the United States

Though Donald Trump’s presidential victory represents the greatest opportunity for policy changes that have widespread impact, there were many unexpected wins at the state and local levels. The National Rifle Association won in nearly every race where it invested money.

[ALSO SEE – Dear Lefties: If You Don’t ‘Feel Safe,’ You Can Always Buy Some Guns]

The NRA spent more than $30.3 million in the presidential race, up from just over $12 million in 2012. $19.7 million of that went to opposing Hillary Clinton and $10.6 million went to supporting Donald Trump, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission documents by the Center for Responsive Politics. The group invested another $20 million in six Senate races and won five of them.

GIRL-GUN

Hillary Clinton’s defeat comes after she staked out the most aggressive gun control positions for a major party candidate in modern memory.

[Read the full story here, at freebeacon.com]

“She has been more forceful on guns/gun lobby than any other person who ever seriously ran for president,” one of Clinton’s advisers wrote in an email posted by WikiLeaks in October. “Certain members of the dem caucus [sic] were freaking out about [her gun positions.]”

Audio first published in October 2015 by the Washington Free Beacon showed Clinton telling donors privately that she believed the Supreme Court was “wrong on the Second Amendment.” When asked about her opposition to the court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision at the final presidential debate, Clinton claimed she was concerned about protecting toddlers from unsecured guns but did not reverse her position.

guns&cigars

Just two weeks after audio of Clinton’s comments on the Supreme Court was published, she endorsed an Australian-style mandatory gun buyback scheme at a public rally. Read the rest of this entry »


Pink Pistols: Displaying Good Judgement and Common Sense After Orlando Shooting, LGBT Group Embraces Armed Self-Defense

la-me-lgbt-guns-pink-pistols-photos-001

Without self-defense, there are no gay rights

Hailey Branson reports: Jonathan Fischer is never sure who’s going to be more surprised when he, as he likes to put it, comes out of the gun closet — the gun aficionados who find out he’s gay or the gay friends who find out he likes shooting guns.

“If someone was to try and break into my home, and especially if someone were armed, I don’t want to fight back with a kitchen knife, and I don’t think that’s extremist or crazy.”

— Jonathan Fischer

When the 38-year-old television editor showed up last month to a defensive handgun class near Piru with a Glock 27 pistol on his hip, he wore a T-shirt sporting a rainbow-colored AK-47. His “gay-K-47,” he said.

In the days after 49 people were fatally shot at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., this summer, Fischer wanted to do something to make his community safer. So he started the West Hollywood chapter of the Pink Pistols — a loosely organized, national LGBT gun group.

“If someone was to try and break into my home, and especially if someone were armed, I don’t want to fight back with a kitchen knife,” Fischer said.  “And I don’t think that’s extremist or crazy.

la-me-lgbt-guns-pink-pistols-photos

“We wish to dispel the misleading and insulting caricature that supporters of Second Amendment rights are either tobacco-chewing, gap-toothed, camouflage-wearing rednecks or militia posers who are morbidly fascinated with firepower.”

It’s a stark contrast to how the overwhelming majority of LGBT activists andemily-gun organizations responded to the Orlando massacre, which has sparked calls within the community for gun control.

[Check out Emily Miller’s book Emily Gets Her Gun” from Amazon]

In the wake of the shooting, some gay bars like the Abbey in West Hollywood beefed up security. The same day as the Orlando mass shooting, L.A.’s annual gay pride parade was rattled after a heavily armed man en route to the event was arrested.

For all the anxiety Orlando has caused, many gay activists say becoming armed is not the answer.

“Some people say you need a gun to protect yourself from the bad guys. We just fundamentally disagree with that,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “We don’t want to live in a world where you have to be packing heat to live your daily life.”

la-me-lgbt-guns-pink-pistols-photos-007

But for a small subset of the community, Orlando has become a call to arms.

[Read the full article here, at the LA Times]

When the firearms instructor at the range near Piru asked each person in the class why he or she was there, Fischer ticked off several reasons and mentioned the Pink Pistols.

concealed-carry-afp-640x480

“What is the Pink Pistols group?” a man asked.

There was a pause.

[Read the full text here, at the LA Times]

“We’re — a gay gun group,” Fischer said hesitantly. He tried quickly to explain.

Gun owner Elizabeth Southern, left, trains with a handgun at a gun range near Piru.

“No, that’s awesome,” the man said, nodding reassuringly.

Interest in the Pink Pistols has increased since the Orlando attack, with new chapters springing up across the country, including the West Hollywood chapter and another one in North Hollywood. There was such an outpouring of support from firearms trainers, many of them straight, that the Pink Pistols’ website now has a map listing LGBT-friendly firearms instructors in every state.

[Read the full story here, at the LA Times]

The week of the attack, signs depicting a rainbow-colored Gadsden flag and the hashtag #ShootBack appeared in West Hollywood, where an estimated 46% of the population identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. City officials were outraged.

la-me-lgbt-guns-pink-pistols-photos-009

“Not all that many gay people would need to carry guns, as long as gay-bashers couldn’t tell which ones did.”

“Even during our heightened days of civil disobedience and protest, we have only advocated peaceful means, never arming ourselves and retaliating with violence,” said City Councilman John Duran, who is gay.

Gwendolyn Patton, the national spokeswoman for the Pink Pistols, has spent the summer trying to keep up with the more-guns-less-crimeall inquiries about the group and how to start new chapters.

[See John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) at Amazon]

“People don’t like to feel helpless,” said Patton, a lesbian who lives outside Philadelphia.

The Pink Pistols has received a mostly negative response from the broader LGBT community, she said. Some LGBT centers, she said, have even specifically banned the Pink Pistols from using their facilities.

The group dates to 2000 when gay author and journalist Jonathan Rauch wrote an article for Salon.com calling for gay people to “set up Pink Pistols task forces,” get licensed to carry guns and arm themselves to protect their community.”

1-katherine-mystik-gunn-122000-from-3-tournaments

“Not all that many gay people would need to carry guns, as long as gay-bashers couldn’t tell which ones did,” Rauch wrote.

Rauch told The Times he wrote the article at a time when the brutal murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard negores-guns-bookwas still fresh in the public consciousness. It woke people up, he said, to what gay people had known all along: “that we were targets of day-to-day terrorism.”

[Order Nicholas Johnson’s book “Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms” at Amazon]

“There is a huge amount of anti-gay stereotype in America that has to do with weakness — people calling us limp-wristed and fairies,” Rauch said. “Over the years, many gay people came to internalize this stereotype and assume that we are weak and defenseless, and of course we are not.”

The first Pink Pistols chapter, taking its name directly from Rauch’s article, was started in Boston just after its publication, Patton said. Today, there are 50 chapters in the U.S. and Canada. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Hilarious: ‘Common Sense Gun Control’ People Know Nothing About Guns

pic_giant_121313_SM_Gun-Control-Dishonesty

Political commentator and actor Steven Crowder decided to set up an experiment to see just how well people that want “common sense” gun control knew about firearms.

He set up a tent for “Citizens Coalition for Common Sense Gun Reform” to ask people that do not own or are interested in guns to see how much they knew about firearms and which ones should be banned based on “common sense.”

gun-range

Crowder quickly finds out that the people who are in favor or “common sense” gun control know very little about guns in the first place and what they are capable of. The people justdecided which guns should be banned based on how it makes them feel.

[See John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) at Amazon]

For example, many people wanted more “tactical looking” firearms banned, but yet other kinds of rifles displayed on the table were fine, such as hunting rifles. Crowder does point out on the side that the AR-15 is actually a popular small game hunting rifle but because it looks tactical, it should be banned.

People were also not well informed on what types of guns were used in crimes and thought that the AR-15 is used in many cases, but as Crowder points out, from 2007 to 2015, 70% of shooting murders are from handguns.

Source: American Military News

common-ignorance

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”.

— H. L. Mencken

Democracy? In Moderation, Please.

editor-commen-desk

Buried somewhere in the above Daily Beast article is probably a perfectly decent, arguable case for a certain kind of small-ball, incremental legislation. Unfortunately, but predictably, its case is comically undermined by hateful, shallow, silly, dishonest writing.

dishonest

Ohh! Those evil Republicans! They should be taken out and horsewhipped! Here, hold my drink. I’ll do it. Get outta my way. I’ve got some GOP ass to beat. Oh, never mind.

Never mind that this advocacy item masquerading as journalism doesn’t even attempt to demonstrate how the measures will have any impact whatsoever, to “avert mass shootings”. Which is understandable. One; averting mass shootings is not, and never was, the goal of activist gun-control legislation. And two; There’s no evidence that “averting mass shootings” can be accomplished by legislation in the first place.

Think the gun debate isn’t polluted with toxic stupidity from the Left? Read on:

“…But with the substantial distortion of our democracy around guns, they are the issue with which this particular method most adheres to the original intentions of the progressives who created it a century ago, at a time when large interests such as timber and railroads blocked popular reforms in legislative bodies around the country.”

wilson

The progressives who created it a century ago. Right.  Wait, you mean the puritan, racist, anti-constitutional Wilsonian reformers of that era, the progressive activists who gave us segregation, prohibition, and Jim Crow laws, those guys?

The early 20th-century progressives’ “original intentions” are in stark contrast to the intentions of our founders. Cautious, deliberative men, keenly aware of the historically destructive effects of “direct democracy“.

Ever notice how our most sacred and treasured rights are intentionally safeguarded, hardwired in the Bill of Rights? Completely out of reach of voters? 

Everett Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), portrait by David Martin, 1767

The founders were no fans of democracy.

“When two wolves and a sheep decide what to have for dinner.”

Benjamin Franklin definition of democracy is as clear now as it was over two centuries ago. Read the rest of this entry »


‘But…the President Cried!’

factx

AWR Hawkins writes: A CNN/ORC poll embargoed for release until the start of Obama’s gun control town hall shows that a majority of Americans oppose the use of executive actions for gun control.

obama-cry

According to CNN, 54 percent of Americans said “no” when asked, “Do you favor or oppose Obama using executive orders to implement [gun controls]?” When asked if they believe Obama’s gun executive gun controls will be effective, 57 percent of Americans said they will not.

[Read the full story here, at Breitbart.com]

This is the same assessment the New York Daily News gave of Obama’s executive gun controls when they observed that the key component of the controls was an expansion of the frequency of background checks. Read the rest of this entry »


Obama’s Legacy? Executive Overreach

obama-podium

Obama can’t do much on guns, but he has mainstreamed a dangerous idea about governing.

David Harsanyi writes:

…The flow of donations to Second Amendment advocacy groups will almost certainly rise, and gun violence — which has fallen considerably over the past 20 years of gun ownership expansion — will not be addressed.

“Perhaps Obama’s most destructive legacy is the mainstreaming of the idea that if Congress ‘fails to act’ it’s okay for the president to make law himself.”

But more consequentially — and this may be the most destructive legacy of the Obama presidency — is the mainstreaming of the idea that if Congress “fails to act” it’s okay for the president to figure out a way to make law himself. Hillary’s already applauded Obama’s actions because, as she put it, “Congress won’t act; we have to do something.” This idea is repeated perpetually by the Left, in effect arguing that we live in direct democracy run by the president (until a Republican is in office, of course). On immigration, on global warming, on Iran, on whatever crusade liberals are on, the president has a moral obligation to act if Congress doesn’t do what he wants.

President Bush speaks during a news conference in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 29, 2008. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

“If President Bush had instituted a series of restrictions on the abortion industry — since it has a loud, well-organized, and well-funded lobby that wants to make abortions ‘effortlessly’ available — without congressional input, would that have been procedurally okay with liberals? You know, for the children? I don’t imagine so.”

Perhaps Obama’s most destructive legacy is the mainstreaming of the idea that if Congress ‘fails to act’ it’s okay for the president to make law himself.

To believe this, you’d have to accept two things: 1) That Congress has a responsibility to pass laws on the issues that the president desires or else they would be abdicating their responsibility, and 2) That Congress has not already acted.

In 2013, the Senate rejected legislation to expand background checks for gun purchases and to ban certain weapons and ammunition, and they would almost certainly oppose nearly every idea Obama has to curb gun ownership today. Congress has acted, just not in the manner Obama desires.

President Barack Obama, holding a football, offers a fist-bump April 8, 2009, to senior staff member Pete Rouse, during a meeting with senior advisors in the Oval Office. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

“Is it really is the work of ‘citizenship’ to cheer on a president who single-handedly constrains Americans from practicing one of their constitutional rights?”

“Change, as always, is going to take all of us,” Obama theorized the other day. “The gun lobby is loud and well organized in its defense of effortlessly available guns for anyone. The rest of us are going to have to be just as passionate and well organized in our defense of our kids. That’s the work of citizenship — to stand up and fight for the change that we seek.”

[Read the full text here, at TheFederalist]

Get it? You can be with the loud and reprehensible gun lobby who supports allowing criminals to obtain guns “effortlessly,” or you can stand with the kids. Your choice!

Well, not exactly your choice. As a reactionary, I wonder is it really the duty of “citizenship” to cheer on a president who single-handedly constrains Americans from practicing one of their constitutional rights? If President Bush had instituted a series of restrictions on the abortion industry — since it has a loud, well-organized, and well-funded lobby that wants to make abortions “effortlessly” available — without congressional input, would that have been procedurally okay with liberals? You know, for the children? I don’t imagine so.

Read the rest of this entry »


Most Important Election 2016 Feature: Deep and Growing Ideological Divide

keep-calm-carry-guns-wsj

Conservative and liberal extremes dominate primaries, but then Republicans and Democrats face a shrinking center.

Gerald F. Seib reports: As the nation heads into what figures to be a dramatic election year, its defining political liberal-huhcharacteristic isn’t love or hate for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Instead, the most important feature of America’s political landscape is a deep and growing ideological divide.

This divide will be especially apparent early in the new year, when the most divided groups in America, the Republican and Democratic voters who show up for primary elections and caucuses, hold the keys to the presidential selection process. These folks disagree, deeply, on an array of social issues, on the nation’s top priorities, and on what kind of leader they are seeking in the next president.

[Read the full story here, at WSJ]

Collectively, these voters are driving Republican candidates to the right and Democratic candidates to the left—and ensuring that the challenge of bringing the country together will be tougher after the election, regardless of who wins.

_80460655_sikh_captain_america

A clear picture of this divide emerges from the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, taken in mid-December. Consider:

— Almost 7 in 10 Republican primary voters describe themselves as strong supporters of the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Among Democratic primary voters, the figure is just 25%.

— Among Democratic primary voters, 62% say they strongly back immediate action to combat climate change. Just 13% of Republican primary voters share that view.

— A new issue splitting the parties at their bases is the Black Lives Matter Movement. Almost half of Democratic primary voters call themselves strong supporters of the movement. Only 6% of Republican primary voters do so.

— The National Rifle Association drives one of the biggest wedges of all. Among Republican primary voters, 59% strongly support the NRA, while just 11% of Democratic primary voters are strong backers.

Republican primary voters put national security and terrorism at the top of their list of priorities for the government. Democratic primary voters put job creation and economic growth at the top of the priority list. About a third of Democrats say health care is a high priority; among Republicans, a comparable share worry about deficits and government spending.

Republicans are more likely to say they worry that the U.S. isn’t projecting a sufficiently tough image abroad; Democrats are more likely to say they think the U.S. should be focused on concerns at home.

Among Democratic primary voters, 62% say they strongly back immediate action to combat climate change. Just 13% of Republican primary voters share that view. Here, a November rally outside the White House in support of the Paris climate talks.

Among Democratic primary voters, 62% say they strongly back immediate action to combat climate change. Just 13% of Republican primary voters share that view. Here, a November rally outside the White House in support of the Paris climate talks. Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press

When pollsters asked what voters are looking for in the next president, Republicans used terms like bold and a strong leader who could restore American strength abroad. Democrats were more likely to say they want a leader who is diplomatic and inclusive and who will preserve recent progressive gains. Read the rest of this entry »


‘California Has the Strictest Gun Control in the Nation, so Obama’s Politicization of San Bernardino Rings Sickeningly Hollow’

obama-frown-white-background

No, Mr. President, the NRA is not to blame

Chris Cox writes: Just when we think that politics can’t sink any lower, President Obama once again proves us wrong by politicizing the tragedy in San Bernardino before the facts were even known. What we do know is that the American people are heartbroken by these horrific crimes — and despite what the president would have us believe — America’s law-abiding gun owners are heartbroken by these horrific crimes as well. At the same time, we are sick and tired of this president suggesting the men and women of the National Rifle Association are somehow to blame.

gun-pistol-knot-wsj

The National Rifle Association is not to blame. Neither is our Second Amendmentfreedom. An act of evil unfolded in California. President Obama used it not as a moment to inform or calm the American people; rather, he exploited it to push his gun control agenda.

[Read the full text here, at USA Today]

Policy discussions should be intellectually honest and based on facts, not politics. And the fact remains that California has already adopted President Obama’s gun control wish list: “universal” background checks, registration, waiting periods, gun bans, magazine bans and an expansion of Hands off my gun - Dana Loeschprohibited gun categories. But those laws did nothing to prevent this horrific crime from taking place. Nothing.

[Order Dana Loesch’s booHands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America” from Amazon.com]

Here’s another fact: the president’s failed foreign policy has made us less safe. And his domestic gun control agenda would jeopardize our safety even further. In California, President Obama had what he wanted — the strictest gun control in the country — and it did not prevent this evil act. Read the rest of this entry »


Candidate Martin O’Malley Rushes to Comfort Victims Score Political Points, Assign Blame

 


Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Is the Gun Lobby Still Invincible? Yeah, Pretty Much

copsatdoor

A Power Derived From Mistrust of Police and Government

Glenn_Reynolds-thumbStandardGlenn Harlan Reynolds writes: Is the gun lobby still invincible? Yeah, pretty much. The reason is trust. And if you want more trust, police and politicians must be more trustworthy.

In 2012, Room for Debate asked ”Is the Gun Lobby Invincible?” Since then, the answer has turned out to be “yeah, pretty much.” And the reason is trust.

cheetum-nyt-cooke-guns

According to a recent Pew poll, more Americans support gun rights than gun control. That represents a significant shift over the situation a few decades ago. And I believe the reason is that people don’t trust the government to protect them anymore, and, in fact, that they don’t trust the government in general….(read more)

Source: NYTimes.com

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is the Beauchamp Brogan distinguished professor of law at the University of Tennessee College of Law in Knoxville.


The Imaginary ‘Gun Show Loophole’: Why Hillary Clinton’s Proposal Is A Joke

Here’s how Slate described Hillary Clinton’s proposal:

What makes Clinton’s plan particularly noteworthy, though, is her suggestion that she’d be able to go it alone on at least one of the proposals if elected president: the gun show loophole.

Photo by: Brennan Linsley

And just how would she do that? According to her campaign, even if Congress were unwilling to act, Clinton would be able to use her executive authority to tweak the existing rules to reclassify anyone who sells a “significant number of guns” as someone “in the business of selling firearms”—a distinction that would make those high-volume private vendors who sell guns at gun shows
and over the Internet subject to the same rules as larger, licensed brick-and-mortar retailers. Clinton doesn’t appear to have settled on an answer to the question of just how many guns constitutes a “significant” number, but even if her chosen definition didn’t close the loophole completely, it would at least shrink it.

[Read the full text here, at TheFederalist.com]

Such an effort could face legal challenges in the courts and, at the very least, a guaranteed NRA-led political freakout in Washington. And, even if the effort survived both, it wouldn’t come close to ending gun violence in the United States. But for gun safety advocates and like-minded voters who are desperate for action on a problem that can feel politically impossible, Clinton’s outside-the-box plan will be a welcome start.

[Also see – Don’t Play the Shooters’ Game by Kevin D. Williamson]

Slate’s Josh Voorhees characterized Clinton’s plan as “clever,” which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that neither Voorhees nor Hillary Clinton is even remotely familiar with existing federal gun laws.

hillary-orange

For starters, the federal government already has the statutory authority to define who does and does not qualify as an individual “in the business of selling firearms.” It derives that authority from 18 U.S. Code § 921. Here’s how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) specifically defines whether an individual is engaged in the business of selling firearms and should therefore be subject to federal firearms licensee (FFL) requirements:

Dealer in firearms — a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business
with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or
for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C));

[Order John R. Lott’s essential book “More Guns, Less Crime” at Amazon]

Here’s the federal statute from which the ATF derives its existing authority to define who is and isn’t engaged in the business of selling guns:

(21) The term “engaged in the business” means—
(A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the
firearms manufactured;
(B) as applied to a manufacturer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as
a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured;
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;
(D) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;
(E) as applied to an importer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms imported;
and
(F) as applied to an importer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing ammunition as a
regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition imported.

hillary-gunz-trippy

Contra Hillary Clinton’s campaign, “high-volume private vendors” cannot legally exist under current law. Under the ATF’s existing definition, it is impossible to sell high volumes of firearms without triggering the definition of a dealer in firearms. The “repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” makes you a dealer, not a private individual. Anything other than “occasional sales” makes you a dealer, not a private individual. Unlicensed dealing is against the law. Refusing to conduct background checks as a dealer (licensed or not) is against the law.
Read the rest of this entry »


Fatal Firearm Accidents vs Private Gun Ownership 1965 – 2013 

Zkdyc2q

Dean Weingarten writes: The number of fatal firearm accidents, or unintentional firearm fatalities, have been falling for more than 50 years.  At the same time, the number of firearms in the United States has been steadily rising.  The cause of fatal firearm accidents is not correlated to the number of firearms in society…

“All of these factors probably contributed, but the total drop is astonishing, a 95% reduction in the rate of fatal firearm accidents since 1904.”

The red line is the number of private firearms in the United States, in units of 100,000. At the end of 2013, the estimate was 363.3 million. The green line is the number of fatal firearm accidents, or unintentional firearm fatalities, in the United States. The number in 2013 was the lowest recorded, 505. The absolute numbers are important, but the rate of unintended firearm fatalities per 100,000 population is a better measure of safety.

“This occurred as the per capital number of firearms has increased from .35 in 1945, to 1.14 in 2013, a tripling of the number of guns per person in the United States. The per capita numbers are not available before 1945.”

Chart courtesy of Extranosalley.com. Since this chart was produced, we have a few more years of data. Here is a blow up of the last 15 years, including the tail end of the above chart.

A large number of factors have been proposed for the falling fatal firearm accident rates. Here are a few of the more prominent ones:

  • Training in basic firearms safety.  The NRA has been pushing firearms safety training for decades.
  • Safer firearms.  Modern firearms, which make up a majority of the private firearms in the United States (half the stock has been manufactured since 1984, three quarters since 1965), have more safety features.  It is almost impossible for pistols manufactured after 1973 to fire when dropped, due to liability concerns.  Safety triggers have become common on rifles in the last decade.
  • Blaze orange hunting gear.  A significant drop in hunting fatalities occurred after many states required hunters to wear blaze orange during crowded hunting seasons, such as deer hunting in Wisconsin.
  • Requirements for hunter safety training to obtain a hunting license.  Most states now require a hunter safety course for new hunters.
  • Better emergency medical response.  People who might have died from a gunshot wound are saved by better emergency medical care.
  • Rise of concealed carry permits.  Most concealed carry permits require some safety training.
  • Rise of private tactical training academies, which teach gun fighting as a martial art, such as Gunsite in Arizona, Rogers Shooting SchoolInSights Training CenterFront Sight Firearms Training Institute, and a host of other private, for profit, firearm training schools.
  • The rise of the gun culture magazines from the 1960’s on, such as Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, Garden and Gun, Special Weapons, Handguns, Guns, and numerous others.  While the print versions are being supplanted by online versions and blogs, all preach gun safety, and have had significant impact on the gun culture for the last 50 years.
  • Substitution of pistols for home defense from shotguns and rifles.  A wound from a pistol is less likely to be fatal than from a high powered rifle or a shotgun at close range.
  • Heightened awareness of gun safety due to the push for more legal restrictions on guns by the media and elite politicians.  As the population has been inundated with “guns are bad” and “guns are dangerous” messages, one consequence may be a heightened concern for following the safety rules.

[More Facts About Guns]

All of these factors probably contributed, but the total drop is astonishing, a 95% reduction in the rate of fatal firearm accidents since 1904. This occurred as the per capital number of firearms has increased from .35 in 1945, to 1.14 in 2013, a tripling of the number of guns per person in the United States. The per capita numbers are not available before 1945. Read the rest of this entry »


NO LONGER A SHOCK: As Americans Bought 170 Million Guns, Violent Crime Fell 51% 

concealed-carry-AFP-640x480

On August 28, the NRA presented ATF and FBI data showing Americans have purchased “170 million new guns” since 1991, and violent crime has fallen “51 percent.”

[Order Emily Miller’s book “Emily Gets Her Gun” from Amazon]

AWR Hawkins reports: The NRA tweeted, “Since ’91, Americans have acquired over 170 million new firearms and violent crimes have declined by 51%.”

“The overarching message is simple—more guns, less crime. Americans have purchased “170 million new guns” since 1991, and violent crime has decreased as gun ownership has increased.”

This information squares with the findings of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) study covering the slightly shorter period of timeMore-guns-less-crime from 1994 to 2009.

[Order John R. Lott’s essential book “More Guns, Less Crime” at Amazon]

For those years, CRS found that Americans purchased approximately 118 million firearms, and the 1993 “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate of 6.6 per 100,000 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 by the year 2000. It eventually fell all the way to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

That is more than a 50 percent reduction in “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide.”

Glamgirls.net - bitchesandbullets.tumblr.com

Then, in 2009—the year the CRS study ended…(read more)

[Order Nicholas Johnson’s book “Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms” at Amazon]

Source: Breitbart

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. 

It’s not like this hasn’t been documented multiple times. Here are just a few examples of our coverage of the gun rights/gun control debate, civil rights, and crime statistics, followed by external links.

GIRL-GUN

More Guns, Less Crime at punditfromanotherplanet.com

Rinse, Repeat: FBI Report Shows Violent Crime Decreased as Gun Sales Increased

Charleston Shooting Prompts Gun-Rights Supporters to Call for More Concealed-Carry at Churches

Want Fewer Guns on California Streets? Open Carry May Be the Answer

Editorial: Americans Seem to Embrace Idea of More Guns, Less Crime

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Guns Do Not Cause Crime

The Helpless, Pro-Death “Gun-Free Zone” Policy in the Spotlight

NYC Stop-and-Frisk Plunges as Crime Climbs

Virginia: Gun Sales Rise, Crime Falls

The list goes on and on….

Read the rest of this entry »


Smoke and Mirrors: Seattle Sales Tax

This week, the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), firearms retailers, and private gun owners filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle, alleging that its new firearms and ammunition sales tax ordinance is illegal and unenforceable.

campus-censorship

“Overdose and non-gun suicide hospitalizations each occurred at a rate more than five times that of those involving a gun; hospitalizations for ‘injuries due to accidents’ had a rate almost seventy-five times greater.  With stats like these, it’s clear that anti-gun sentiment is the only thing driving the new taxes, not any real desire to address public health concerns of city residents.”

Earlier this month, Seattle passed the Firearm Tax and Ammunition Tax ordinance which imposes a new $25 sales tax on the retail sales of firearms, plus a per-round sales tax of two to five cents on ammunition.  The ordinance is slated to go into effect on January 1, 2016. A failure to pay the tax is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to 364 days, or both.

[See John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) at Amazon]

A city report describes this as a “gun violence tax” that is estimated to generate revenues of $300,000 to $500,000 per year. The report adds, “[e]very effort funded by the revenues of this tax that reduces the probability of gun violence from taking place will save lives and money… Efforts funded by the gun violence tax that mitigate the public health, welfare, and safety impacts of gun violence will benefit this population.”

“In 2011, the Court of Appeals of Washington looked no further than the ‘plain language’ of the preemption statute before concluding that Seattle’s attempt to regulate the possession of firearms was unlawful. The complaint in the new lawsuit refers to this decision and states the City of Seattle is ‘not permitted to pass laws that target the sale of firearms and ammunition through any means.’”

The report fails to disclose any clear relationship between expected new tax receipts and a reduction in violence of any kind. The report asserts only that efforts funded by the tax which “reduce[] the probability of gun violence from taking place” will benefit Seattle residents, without identifying the nature of the “research, prevention and youth education and employment programs” or how these programs will work to reduce the “probability” of gun violence. (The report does confirm, though, that the City will be able “to track how much revenue is raised each year and analyze the programs to which that revenue is dedicated.”)

A group of local public school teachers from nearby schools use rubber training guns as they practice proper firearms handling during a teachers-only firearms training class offered for free at the Veritas Training Academy in Sarasota, Florida January 11, 2013. The December 14 tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 first-graders and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, has sparked a national debate about whether to arm teachers, prompting passionate arguments on both sides. REUTERS/Brian Blanco (UNITED STATES - Tags: SOCIETY POLITICS EDUCATION)

“Citizens testifying before the City Council meeting on the new tax included a recent victim of a violent felony who was ‘appalled’ that the City was enacting an illegal tax that would force law-abiding citizens to pay for the impact of gun violence committed by criminals.”

The ordinance itself cites a 2014 study funded by the City of Seattle which reported, among other things, King County hospitalization rates due to a firearm-related injury (“of any intent,” presumably including self-inflicted and accidental injuries in addition to persons who were injured as victims of crime), and hospitalizations for other reasons.

[Order Emily Miller’s book “Emily Gets Her Gun” from Amazon]

Hospitalizations due to overdoses, non-gun suicides, and non-gun assaults were far more prevalent than gun-related hospitalizations. Overdose and non-gun suicide hospitalizations each occurred at a rate more than five times that of those involving a gun; hospitalizations for “injuries due to accidents” had a rate almost seventy-five times greater.  With stats like these, it’s clear that anti-gun sentiment is the only thing driving the new taxes, not any real desire to address public health concerns of city residents. Read the rest of this entry »


Legally Unenforceable: Seattle’s Self-Inflicted ‘Gun Violence Tax’ Draws NRA Lawsuit

selfie-gun

Seattle’s tax, which would take effect in January, would add $25 to the price of each firearm sold in the city.

SEATTLE (AP) — Gene Johnson reports: Three gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, sued the city of Seattle on Monday over its adoption of a so-called “gun violence tax,” a tax on firearms and ammunition designed to help offset
the financial toll of gun violence.

[See John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) at Amazon]

The complaint was filed Monday in King County Superior Court by the NRA, the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, along with two gun owners and two gun shops. It called the tax legally unenforceable because Washington state prohibits local governments from adopting laws related to firearms unless those local ordinances are specifically authorized by the state.

“The ordinance serves only as a piece of propaganda, because the ordinance’s mandates are legally unenforceable. The state of Washington has the exclusive right to regulate the sale of firearms in Washington, and cities may not enact local laws or regulations related to the sale of firearms.”

“The ordinance serves only as a piece of propaganda, because the ordinance’s mandates are legally unenforceable,” the lawsuit said. “The state of Washington has the exclusive right to regulate the sale of firearms in Washington, and cities may not enact local laws or regulations related to the sale of firearms.”

[Order Emily Miller’s book “Emily Gets Her Gun” from Amazon]

The Seattle City Council unanimously approved the tax this month, along with a companion measure requiring gun owners to file reports if their weapons are stolen or lost. The lawsuit does not challenge the reporting requirements. City Attorney Pete Holmes has argued that the gun-violence tax falls squarely under Seattle’s taxing authority. Read the rest of this entry »


Gun Production Has Doubled Under Obama

J-Edgar-Hoover-Seriously?

The number of pistols made has nearly tripled during the Obama administration, which could reflect more people turning to firearms for personal protection.

Tim Devaney writes: Gun production has more than doubled over the course of the Obama administration, according to a new report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“The ATF report confirms what we already know, that Barack Obama deserves the ‘Gun Salesman of the Decade’ award. People have been rushing to buy firearms because they’re afraid that Obama will take away their Second Amendment rights.”

— Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America

The manufacturing boom has come in the face of the president’s push to expand background checks and place new restrictions on guns in the wake of high-profile shootings like the recent mass-killing in Charleston, S.C., and the 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

Gun-Girl-Bra-Crucifix

Pistols are the most popular type of gun, accounting for 4.4 million of the firearms made in 2013, according to the report. Meanwhile, gun manufacturers produced 3.9 million rifles and 1.2 million shotguns.

The numbers paint a picture of gun owners who are concerned about new restrictions on their Second Amendment rights, activists say.

“President Obama has been relentless in his attacks on the Second Amendment, and it’s not shocking people are frightened and want to protect themselves. He’ll stop at nothing to strip people of their constitutional rights to self-protection.”

— National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker

[See John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws at Amazon]

“The ATF report confirms what we already know, that Barack Obama deserves the ‘Gun Salesman of the Decade’ award,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America. “People have been rushing to buy firearms because they’re afraid that Obama will take away their Second Amendment rights.”

pam-grier-with-gun-700x4001

“President Obama has made it very clear he wants to strip away our gun rights, so people are going out and purchasing more firearms and ammunition.”

— Joe Neville, director of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights

The ATF’s annual firearms commerce report tracks the number of guns manufactured in the United State, which provides an indication of gun sales around the country.

“The gun lobby seizes on those fears and uses scare tactics and doomsday rhetoric in order to sell more guns.”

— Mark Prentice, spokesman for Americans for Responsible Solutions, the gun safety group run by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords

[Order Emily Miller’s book “Emily Gets Her Gun” from Amazon]

[Also see – Editorial: Americans Seem to Embrace Idea of More Guns, Less Crime]

The number of guns manufactured increased by 18 percent during the George W. Bush administration, while the Clinton administration actually saw a 9 percent reduction. Read the rest of this entry »


Professor Jessica Smartt Gullion Exposes REAL Agenda of College Gun Rights Activists: ‘Campus Carry Would Force Scholars to Give A Grades So They Don’t Get Shot!’

chron-panic-campus-carry

Jennifer Kabbany writes: Jessica Smartt Gullion, an assistant professor of sociology at Texas Woman’s University, is actually arguing that scholars will be intimidated into giving students with concealed carry permits As so they don’t get shot.

“In nearly every state that has a Right-to-Carry law, as the measure was being debated, gun control advocates frantically predicted scenarios of Wild West-type shootouts in the streets.”

Suggesting students often get emotionally distraught over bad grades, scholars are at risk from gun-toting students…

keepcalmcarryon-girl-gun

“This, of course, has not come to pass. Instead, modern America’s proliferation of firearms and lawful public carry have coincided with historically low rates of violent crime.”

…Gullion writes in a piece republished by Newsweek and the Houston Chronicle:

Texas college professors may soon face a dilemma between upholding professional ethics and protecting their lives. …

With this proposed law, a question coming up for many academics is whether they would be forced to give A grades to undeserving students, just so they can avoid being shot.

This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. In my five years as a college professor, I have had experiences with a number of emotionally distressed students who resort to intimidation when they receive a lesser grade than what they feel they deserve. …

Allowing students to carry weapons to class strips off a layer of safety. Students are often emotional and can be volatile when it comes to their GPAs. Who would want to give a student a low grade and then get shot for it?

But the National Rifle Association quickly fired back, noting “Gullion’s arguments about heated exchanges escalating into gun-fueled carnage are similarly divorced from reality and logic.”

campus-carry-panic

“Gullion’s arguments about heated exchanges escalating into gun-fueled carnage are similarly divorced from reality and logic.”

“In nearly every state that has a Right-to-Carry law, as the measure was being debated, gun control advocates frantically predicted scenarios of Wild West-type shootouts in the streets. Read the rest of this entry »


University Leaders Fail: Measures to Broaden Gun-Carry Rights on College Campuses Falter

virginia-tech-gun-laws-wsj

Bills hampered by university leaders’ resistance, even in gun-friendly states

Ashby Jones reports: A push to expand rights to carry guns on public-college campuses has largely fizzled.

Of the 15 “campus carry” bills introduced earlier this year, none has passed.

“Nathan Scott, a former student at Florida State University who was shot in the leg in the school’s library by a gunman last November, said that having a gun would have helped him defend himself.”

Measures in 11 states have already effectively died, including in Florida, where gun-rights supporters had high hopes before two bills stalled before reaching floor votes.

And on Thursday, the Nevada senate defeated an 11th-hour move to tuck campus carry into a broader gun-range-femalefirearms measure, likely dooming the effort this year. Bills in at least two other states are expected to fail soon as well.

“If I had been armed, I would have shot the killer before he shot me, absolutely. It’s ridiculous that students aren’t able to carry.”

— Nathan Scott

Attention is now focused on lawmakers in Texas, who could vote to expand campus carry soon, in the waning days of the legislative session. A win in Texas, which could come as early as next week, could help keep the effort alive and provide momentum heading into 2016.

A man testifies at a February hearing in Austin, Texas, on gun rights. Photo: Eric Gay/Associated Press

A man testifies at a February hearing in Austin, Texas, on gun rights. Photo: Eric Gay/Associated Press

“Permit holders are more law-abiding than the general public, and there’s just no reason their constitutional rights should stop at the borders of a college or university.”

— Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association

The push to allow those with concealed-carry permits to carry firearms on campus picked up following the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech University, in which 33 people, including the gunman, were killed.

[Read the full text here, at WSJ]

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups say students should have had the ability to defend themselves with firearms.

A group of local public school teachers from nearby schools use rubber training guns as they practice proper firearms handling during a teachers-only firearms training class offered for free at the Veritas Training Academy in Sarasota, Florida January 11, 2013. The December 14 tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 first-graders and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, has sparked a national debate about whether to arm teachers, prompting passionate arguments on both sides. REUTERS/Brian Blanco (UNITED STATES - Tags: SOCIETY POLITICS EDUCATION)

“Advocates of looser laws concerning guns on college campuses say that students trained with a gun would be better positioned to fend off a host of potential crimes, from sexual assaults to a Virginia Tech-style mass shooting.”

The effort also relates to a simmering legal debate over whether and to what degree the Second More-guns-less-crimeAmendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” extends outside the home.

[See John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) at Amazon]

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its seminal 2008 ruling called District of Columbia v. Heller, found that the Second Amendment protects one’s right to possess a gun inside the home for self-defense. But the court didn’t say precisely when that right can be exercised in public. Since then, lower courts have wrestled with how to apply the Heller ruling to gun bans in public places, and legal experts think the Supreme Court will likely take up the question in another case before too long. Read the rest of this entry »


REWIND: #Baltimore Police Chief Calls For More Gun Control, NRA Predicts Citizens Will Need Guns In Crisis

baltim-DC
Mike Piccione writes: In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing for the merits of additional federal gun control on Jan. 30, 2013.

Three advocates for additional gun control, one being Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson, squared off against three proponents for the Second Amendment, including NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.

When asked by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, “We need the firepower and the ability to protect ourselves from our government” — from our government, from the police — “if they knock on our doors and we need to fight back.”

[Read the full text here, at The Daily Caller]

“Do you agree with that point of view?” Senator Durbin asked NRA executive VP Wayne LaPierre.

LaPierre initially responded, “I think without any doubt, if you look at why our founding fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.”

Then the NRA VP continued with a statement that has since been proven to be true in both Ferguson, Mo., and now Baltimore, Md. Read the rest of this entry »


‘Completely False’: New York Times Kicks off NRA Convention Coverage with Massive Lie

The Daily Caller » Possible cyberattack knocks New York Times offline

On location in Nashville, on Twitter this morning, Charles C,W.Cooke begins:

At The CornerCooke continues:

cookeThe NRA Convention starts today, in Nashville, Tennessee. And so, rather predictably, the New York Times has started its day by lying about it. Per the Times’s editorial board:

Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, and not one of them will be allowed to come armed with guns that can actually shoot. After all the N.R.A. propaganda about how “good guys with guns” are needed to be on guard across American life, from elementary schools to workplaces, the weekend’s gathering of disarmed conventioneers seems the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Nick Faddy with CPR Signs places a NRA Convention sign on the doors of Music City Center for this week’s National Rifle Association convetntion, which will bring an estimated 70,000 people. (Photo: Shelley Mays / The Tennessean)

Nick Faddy with CPR Signs places a NRA Convention sign on the doors of Music City Center for this week’s National Rifle Association convetntion, which will bring an estimated 70,000 people. (Photo: Shelley Mays / The Tennessean)

[Read the full text here, at National Review]

There will be plenty of weapons in evidence at the hundreds of display booths, but for convention security the firing pins must be removed…(read more)

Unknown

This is completely and utterly wrong. In fact, anyone with a permit valid in Tennessee can “come armed with guns that actually shoot.” As the Tennesseean confirms:

The National Rifle Association and the Music City Center have confirmed that gun owners with the proper carry permits can bring their guns with them into the center during the association’s convention, which will be held there this weekend….(read more)

…Music City Center spokeswoman Mary Brette Clippard confirmed to The Tennessean on Tuesday afternoon that the NRA had no problem with gun owners with the proper gun permits bringing their weapons inside. Read the rest of this entry »


Governor Christie Pardons Shaneen Allen

At The Corner, Charles C. Cooke writes:

Herewith, a beautiful sight: This is Chris Christie pardoning Shaneen Allen, a single mother from Pennsylvania who had been prosecuted for taking a concealed weapon into New Jersey in violation of the law:

signed 1

Allen has come a long way. At first it looked as if her mistake — she did not realize that her Pennsylvania concealed carry license wasn’t valid in every other state — was going to land her in prison for more than a decade, cost her her job as a medical practitioner, and take her away from her children.

pic_giant_072414_SM_Shaneen-Allen
But then something remarkable happened:  Read the rest of this entry »


PUSHBACK: Republican Proposes Abolishing the ATF Amid Bullet Ban Controversy

Cristina Marcos reports: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) has reintroduced legislation to do away with the 117_2013_b3-halbrook-gun-str8201_s640x1292Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

“The ATF is a scandal-ridden, largely duplicative agency that lacks a clear mission. Its ‘Framework’ is an affront to the Second Amendment and yet another reason why Congress should pass the ATF Elimination Act.”

— Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, House Judiciary Committee

Sensenbrenner, a senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said the policies under ATF’s jurisdiction could be easily incorporated into other agencies. Moreover, he argued, the ATF has become embroiled in too many controversies in recent years, like the botched “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking operation.

“The ATF is a scandal-ridden, largely duplicative agency that lacks a clear mission. Its ‘Framework’ is an affront to the Second Amendment and yet another reason why Congress should pass the ATF Elimination Act,” Sensenbrenner said in a statement.

The ATF has drawn the ire of Republican lawmakers for its proposed ban on an armor-piercing bullet used in AR-15 rifles. Republicans say that hunters frequently use the bullets. The bureau says it initiated the regulation to help protect law enforcement officers from bullets that can pierce armored vests. Read the rest of this entry »


日本での不公平: Japanese 3D-Printed Gun Maker Is Sentenced To Two Years In Jail

guns5

[Also see – Japan Makes First Arrest Over 3-D Printer Guns  – punditfromanotherplanet.com]

Yoshitomo Imura, an employee at the Shonan Institute of Technology in Japan, was arrested last may for printing and firing a 3D-printed gun called the ZigZag. He printed three guns in total and was arrested for running afoul of Japan’s strict gun laws.

[More – [VIDEO] How 3-D Printed Guns Evolved Into Serious Weapons in Just One Year  – punditfromanotherplanet.com]

Read the rest of this entry »


Gun Range Poison Scare Story Conveniently Appears 2 Weeks Before Election Featuring Billionaire-Funded Gun Control Initiative I-594

lead-scare-story

“Drafted under the guise of preventing crime and funded almost solely by elitist billionaires with a proud background of stifling the Second Amendment, I-594 is an 18-page document that does nothing but impose heavy legal burdens on law-abiding gun owners and serious penalties for violations.  These anti-gun billionaires believe that they can buy your rights out from under you, and I-594 is their attempt at doing so.  I-594 will do nothing to make the people of Washington any safer, but will instead create bureaucratic hurdles that could turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals simply for exercising their constitutional rights….” (read more)

THE WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF POLICE & SHERIFFS OPPOSES INITIATIVE 594

The Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs, the state’s oldest and largest law enforcement organization opposes Initiative 594. WACOPS represents more than 4500 active duty police and sheriffs deputies. Click here to read WACOPS position paper on Initiative 594 (read more)

 The National Rifle Association (NRA) has released a one-minute digital video as part of it’s online campaign to defeat Washington State Ballot Initiative 594. The video, titled  I-594 Will Not Make Washington Safer, features Seattle resident Anette Wachter, “The 30 Cal Gal” blogger and U.S. Long Range Rifle Team member.

In the video, Wachter explains, “I-594 wastes scarce law enforcement resources on something that will not make Washington safer.  And it will turn many law-abiding citizens into criminals for simply exercising their constitutional rights.”

vote_no_hero

 Myths vs. Facts

14-nraf-005-a1f-9-14-issue_washington-1

HOW MICHAEL BLOOMBERG IS TWISTING THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE IN THE EVERGREEN STATE WASHING-CON

BY DAVE KOPEL

One way scam artists make money is by peddling mislabeled goods. The label on the can says “Wild Alaskan Salmon,” but what’s really inside is codfish from a filthy breeding pen in China, plus some food coloring.

Selling mislabeled goods is illegal, but there’s nothing illegal about mislabeled laws. Michael Bloomberg knows that difference, and he is exploiting it.

[Also see I-594 UNENFORCEABLE by Scott Brennan]

Right now in the state of Washington, Bloomberg is pushing a November ballot measure that is promoted as being about background checks for private sales. But it is really a law to criminalize most gun owners, including those who never sell guns. If passed, the deceptive Bloomberg ban for Washington state is then going to become the national model, to gradually be imposed on gun owners nationwide.

Bloomberg plans to run a similar ballot measure in Oregon in 2015 and in a dozen or more states in 2016. One of them is Nevada, where the 2016 campaign is already in progress. Bloomberg’s Nevada operation calls itself “Nevadans for Background Checks” and is operated by Melissa Warren, the managing partner at the Faiss Foley Warren Public Relations & Government Affairs lobbying firm.

Bloomberg and his minions claim they are just promoting background checks on private sales. But as usual, they are lying.

One way to tell that Bloomberg is selling a mislabeled law is to read the actual proposal. In this case, it is 18 pages long. It would only take a couple of pages to require background checks on private sales of firearms, if that were all the law did.

Instead, the law is a comprehensive scheme to criminalize the normal use of firearms, thus turning most gun owners into criminals, from whom firearms can be confiscated. Read the rest of this entry »


BREAKING: College Eliminates All Violence On Earth by Renaming its Student Paper

College Newspaper Can’t Be Called ‘The Bullet’ Anymore Because It’s Too Dangerous

newspaper-no-bullet

“The editorial board felt that the paper’s name, which alludes to ammunition for an artillery weapon, propagated violence and did not honor our school’s history in a sensitive manner.”

NRO‘s Katherine Timpf:

A Virginia university has decided to stop calling its newspaper “The Bullet” over concerns that the name was so insensitive and inappropriate that it could even make people violent.

The University of Mary Washington’s 96-year-old newspaper will now be called The Blue and Gray Press. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Bloomberg’s Blooper Reel: Everytown’s Accidental Pro-Gun Rights Ad

…The intended message, presumably, is: “We need to keep guns out of the hands of violent men with restraining orders.”

Does this ad succeed in conveying that message? Charles C. W. Cooke doesn’t think so.

“What the video ends up doing instead is demonstrating a) that people who are willing to abduct children and shoot women in the face are not likely to follow the laws (the victim already has a restraining order out against her assailant, which frankly doesn’t seem to be doing much); b) that the victim would have been better off with a gun in her hand than with a phone connected to the police department; and c) that, firearms being a great equalizer between men and women, any rules that make it difficult for potential victims to get hold of guns (and make no mistake: Everytown supports them all) put vulnerable people in danger…”

Late-night news watchers take note: Charles C. W. Cooke is tonight’s special guest on Red Eye. Make coffee, stay up late. Call in sick tomorrow. Don’t blame us, blame Gutfeld.

National Review Online


Nick Gillespie: Now Let’s Replace All the Other Big-Spending Eric Cantors

cantor-money

Eric Cantor was a noxious, cookie-cutter, U.S. Chamber, GOP hypocrite. We need legislators who don’t just talk limited government but do it.

For The Daily BeastNick Gillespie writes: Will anybody really miss Eric Cantor? Probably not. Despite (or maybe because of) his position in the House Republican leadership and the historic nature of his primary loss, there was virtually nothing remarkable about him as a politician or a policymaker. The Republicans have dozens or hundreds or thousands more just like him. He’s like a Dorito corn chip in those old Jay Leno ads: They’ll make more.

“On spending and economic issues, he was atrocious and hypocritical in all the ways that a Republican can be.”

Cantor exemplifies what Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) just denounced as a “Chamber of Commerce”-style GOP legislator, Gillespie book“the same-old, same-old,” standard-issue Republican who has brought the party to a historically low level of self-identification among voters.

[Order Nick Gillespie‘s bookThe Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America from Amazon.com]

Cantor was what passes for a small-government conservative. Which is to say that Cantor was in favor of shrinking the size and scope of  government…except for the endless list of exceptions that allowed him to help grow federal spending by more than 50 percent in real terms, and regulatory spending by even more, during the Bush years.

You know the drill: As a “conservative,” Cantor wanted the government out of people’s lives because FREEDOM-FOUNDING FATHERS-CONSTITUTION. Yet Cantor was anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (he even wanted to prohibit adults from transporting minors across state lines if they were getting abortions). Because the federal government really should dictate all that, right? He endorsed a constitutional amendment against flag burning because free expression doesn’t mean you can actually express what you mean. He was pro-gun or, more specifically, pro-National Rifle Association. He was pro-drug war. Nothing unique or interesting there. Read the rest of this entry »


Harry Reid Wants to ‘Amend the First Amendment in Much the Same Way as the Iceberg Amended the Titanic’

harry-reid-straight-on-ap

For Breitbart.comKen Klukowski writes: 

On May 15, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on June 3 on amending the U.S. Constitution to limit political speech. If ultimately adopted, it would mark the first time in American history that a constitutional amendment rescinded a freedom listed as among the fundamental rights of the American people.maddogs

[For a more detailed exploration of this topic I recommend listening to NRO’s Charles Cooke and Kevin D. Williamson’s discussion, in their May 15th edition of Mad Dogs & Englishmen. (the ‘Titanic’ headline comes directly from a Cooke comment, about 1:14 minutes in) Also see Charles Cooke’s May 17th NRO article Harry’s Dirty Amendment.]

The proposed amendment was introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-CO) as S.J.R. 19 and if ratified would become the Twenty-Eighth Amendment. It provides in part that “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect [to] the Federal elections … [and] State elections.” Read the rest of this entry »


Bloomberg Krytonite: Georgia Governor Signs Comprehensive Pro-Gun Bill into Law

Georgia-flag-e1398291026732

Today, Governor Nathan Deal (R) signed into law House Bill 60 , the most comprehensive pro-gun legislation in state history.  HB 60 passed in the Georgia Senate by a 37-18 vote on March 18 and in the state House of Representatives by a 112-58 vote on March 20.  HB 60 will take effect on July 1, 2014.

[Amazon is stocked with shooting supplies]

HB 60 enacts the following pro-gun reforms for all law-abiding gun owners in Georgia:

  • Removes fingerprinting for renewal of Weapons Carry Licenses (WCL).
  • Prohibits the state from creating and maintaining a database of WCL holders.
  • Creates an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force in the face of a violent attack.
  • Lowers the age to obtain a concealed WCL for self-defense from 21 to 18 for active duty military, with specific training.
  • Repeals the unnecessary and duplicative state-required license for a firearms dealer, instead requiring only a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
  • Prohibits a ban on firearms in public housing, ensuring that the right to self-defense should not be infringed based on where one calls home.
  • Codifies the ability to legally carry, with a WCL, in sterile/non-secure areas of airports.

Read the rest of this entry »


White House Backs off Anti-Gun Activist Surgeon General Nominee Push Amid Backlash From…Democrats

Dr. Vivek Murthy outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.REUTERS

Anti-gun Activist Dr. Vivek Murthy outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.REUTERS

With the midterm elections looming, vulnerable Democrats may be moving even further from the White House by refusing to support yet another of President Obama’s hand-picked nominees.

The latest nominee facing trouble with Senate confirmation is Dr. Vivek Murthy, a Harvard Medical School physician and a strong political ally, tapped for the post of U.S. surgeon general.

“While the Senate has not yet scheduled a vote on Dr. Murthy, I have already told the White House I will very likely vote no on his nomination if it comes to the floor.”

— Sen. Mark Begich

The White House is still backing its controversial nominee but acknowledges that officials are “recalibrating” their strategy — amid vocal GOP opposition, waning support from Senate Democrats and concern about back-to-back defeats. Earlier this month, the administration failed to win Senate support for its nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division, Debo Adegbile.

Begich has also expressed concerns about the 36-year-old Murthy’s political advocacy and inexperience as a practicing physician.

Like Adegbile, Murthy is facing strong opposition on several fronts. The nominee is being targeted by the National Rifle Association for his support for gun control. Such opposition has created a tough situation for Senate Democrats facing re-election a year after the NRA led efforts to defeat Obama’s push for new firearms restrictions.

As a result, the White House doesn’t want to create more problems for vulnerable Democrats by asking them to take a hard vote now.

Read the rest of this entry »


Democrats Lining Up to Oppose Obamas Anti-Gun Nominee For Surgeon General

anti-gun-candidate

Katie Pavlich writes: President Obama’s anti-gun nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy, could go down in flames on the Senate floor. Murthy, who has a history of calling guns a “healthcare issue,” classifying guns as a “public health threat” and of slamming the National Rifle Association, is being opposed not by just Republicans, but numerous Democrats in an election year.

[See Emily Miller: Obama’s Surgeon General Nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy is a Radical Gun Grabber]

[Don’t miss our Exclusive: Interview with Obama’s Surgeon General Nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy]

Democratic Senate aides estimated on Monday that from eight to 10 Democrats may oppose Murthy’s nomination if the vote were to be held soon, mostly because of his left-leaning views on gun policy, which have attracted opposition from the National Rifle Association.

Read the rest of this entry »


Failed Anti-Gun Activists Retreat, Turn to New Campaign Effort: Corporate America

I-LOVE-Guns-and-Coffee-logo-021For The HillBen Goad reports:  The American gun control movement is going corporate.

Still reeling from the stinging legislative defeats of 2013, proponents of tougher firearm regulations are increasingly turning their focus to private sector campaigns.

Gun control groups have claimed victories in recent months, successfully pushing Starbucks to declare guns unwelcome in stores and persuading Facebook to crack down on unregulated firearm solicitations.

“Whenever the anti-gun groups get stymied in Congress they resort to boycotts and other private measures.”

With no end in sight to the congressional gridlock that has thwarted more stringent federal gun laws, groups say they will continue to apply pressure on major companies.

Read the rest of this entry »


Black History and the Second Amendment

RobertWilliamsCover

John Bender writes:  Several people have done a splendid job of documenting the racist history of gun control laws. But there is little being written about the role guns played in securing the victories Blacks achieved in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. This month we will examine some of the cases where Blacks used their Second Amendment right to own and carry guns to advance the cause of securing their other civil rights.

In Monroe, North Carolina, in 1958, Mr. Robert Williams reopened a local chapter of the NAACP. He enlisted the help of Dr. Albert Perry, a physician and leader in the Black community. These two men created an active and robust local chapter of the NAACP and worked for equal rights for the Black population.

However, Monroe was KKK country. The Klan included in its membership the sheriff, most police officers, several judges and every elected official in the county. As the Black population grew more organized the Klan became more brutal.

Mr. Williams was a former U.S. Marine who understood that force must be met with force, so in 1960 he turned to the nation’s oldest civil rights organization for help. He applied to the National Rifle Association for a local charter. The NRA issued him the charter and supplied firearms training material.

Robert-Williams-Maxine-Smith

Officially sanctioned as the Monroe NRA Rifle Club Mr. Williams recruited other Black veterans. The group armed themselves and started training with their guns. This further infuriated the Klan but it also inflamed the white liberals who had previously supported Mr. Williams and Dr. Perry.

The liberals were no more interested in seeing Black men exercising their Second Amendment rights than the Klan was. The White liberals were only interested in the Black population attaining some rights, not in securing the full rights afforded all free men by their creator.

The Klan was quick to recognize that the Blacks no longer enjoyed the support of the White liberals and increased their harassment of the Black community. Armed Klansmen regularly drove through the Black section of town shooting into homes and shooting at anyone unfortunate enough to be out after dark. Frequently, these drive-by shootings were preceded by a police patrol car that scouted targets for the Klan.

Unable to disband either the local NAACP branch or the local NRA branch, the Klan decided to mount a full, armed assault on Dr. Perry’s home. They thought they could bring down the groups by eliminating their most influential leader.

Read the rest of this entry »


Emily Miller: Obama’s Surgeon General Nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy is a Radical Gun Grabber

emily-miller-bookEmily Miller writes:  President Obama is using every executive power in his arsenal to infringe on Second Amendment rights.

His latest maneuver is to nominate a rabidly anti-gun doctor to be the next U.S. surgeon general. Dr. Vivek Murthy is facing Senate approval in upcoming weeks.

[Emily Miller is the author of Emily Gets Her Gun” order it from Amazon]

Dr. Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that advocates for Obamacare and gun control laws.

The group calls gun violence “a public health crisis.” It pushes for Congress to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines and calls for spending tax dollars for more gun-control research.

“Dr. Murthy sidestepped the questions about his gun-control agenda from committee members throughout the hearing…However, Mr. Murthy’s Twitter timeline is chock full of his anti-firearm screed.”

Murthy

The organization also lobbies for doctors to be allowed to ask patients, including minors, whether they have legal guns in the home. If the patient admits to having guns, Dr. Murthy wants doctors to “counsel them appropriately about safety measures.”

[See also EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Controversial Surgeon General Nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy]

Gun rights advocates and many families view this policy as a violation of privacy.

Read the rest of this entry »


Do We See a Pattern Here? New York Passes Gun Control, NRA Membership Skyrockets

NY-gun-grabber

Katie McHugh  reports:  Membership in a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association nearly doubled in a year after Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo passed harsh gun control measures in the wake of last year’s Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

New York now boasts 41,000 NRA members, up from the 22,000 members in January 2013, making it the largest NRA affiliate chapter in the countrysurpassing even Texas.

Read the rest of this entry »


Weinstein: “I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area…”

weinsteinWeinstein Update: Over at HotAirEd Morrissey has comments:

Congratulations, genius. You’re setting out to make a movie that will annoy more than 60 million Americans who responsibly own firearms.  What a great marketing strategy that will be! Why, this new project will take … the same oh-so-courageous-and-tediously-didactic path as the anti-war films Lions for Lambs and Rendition, two films which bombed at the box office in 2007, both of which also starred … Meryl Streep.

 “I’m making a movie that the NRA will hate…”

— Weinstein

Let’s muse on the irony, though, of Harvey Weinstein making this declaration. How much gunfire went into Pulp Fiction, which he exec-produced? The 2008 Rambo sequel? Jackie Brown?

Read the rest of this entry »


End of the line for the lead bullet? Regulations, bans force switch to ‘green’ ammo

army M855A1 new ammo

Perry Chiaramonte writes:  When the last bullet-producing lead smelter closes its doors on Dec. 31, it will mark  a major victory for those who say lead-based ammunition pollutes the environment, but others warn ‘green’ bullets will cost more, drive up copper prices and do little to help conservation.

The bid to ban lead bullets, seen by some as harmful to the environment, started slowly more than a decade ago. But with two dozen states, including California, banning bullets made of the soft, heavy metal, the lead bullet’s epitaph was already being written when the federal government finished it off.

First, the military announced plans to phase out lead bullets by 2018.

“Whatever the EPA’s motivation when creating the new lead air quality standard, increasingly restrictive regulation of lead is likely to affect the production and cost of traditional ammunition.”

National Rifle Association

Then the federal Environmental Protection Agency, citing emissions, ordered the shutdown of the Doe Run company‘s lead smelter in Herculaneum, Mo., by year’s end.

Whether by state or federal regulation, or by market forces, lead bullets will be all but phased out within a few years in favor of so-called green bullets, experts say. While many believe that this will help the environment by keeping lead from contaminating groundwater, others say switching to copper-based bullets will cost hunters and sportsmen more and have little effect on the environment.

Read the rest of this entry »


‘Women are the Holy Grail of the Gun Rights Movement’

Annie2

Raquel Okyay  writes:  Women seeking to arm themselves and their daughters are figuring out that guns are not ‘taboo’ but a powerful means of protection.

“Women are the holy grail of the Second Amendment movement,” said Skip Coryell nationally recognized firearm expert and author of the newly released The Shadow Militia.

The Second Amendment will stand or fall depending on the way women vote, he said. “Women make-up about 52% of the population and they vote with a mind of their own.”

runWomen and particularly women with children have been raised with an idea that guns are dangerous. Yet once women get over their initial fear of the firearm, they feel empowered by it, he said. “Women want to be armed and capable.”

It has been his experience that women who receive instruction quickly become comfortable with using firearms, he said. “They come into my class afraid of the gun, but 4 or 5 hours later they are on the line like a kid in a candy shop, blazing away, having a ball.”

If women are not encouraged to support firearms and instead rely on the stigma that guns are bad, they will vote against the Second Amendment and they will not be protected, said Coryell who is the owner and president of White Feather Press.

Read the rest of this entry »