James Von Brunn, the accused Washington DC Holocaust Museum shooter has died in a prison hospital before ever going to trial. I’m sure the government is glad. There were too many questions about the shooting that they would rather not have brought up in a show trial.
It’s also convenient for the media. They can now spin this story into the recent ‘terrorist’ events and reaffirm the ‘domestic terrorist’ threat.
In a brief detailing the “serious threat” of armed violence by extremists and extremist groups, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that states retain the right to reasonably regulate the possession of firearms by those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence
“We have placed the problem of armed extremism squarely before the high court,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “Racist and anti-government extremists often have an obsessive fascination with firearms and have shown a willingness to engage in acts of shocking and often deadly violence. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that cities and states retain the latitude they need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists, terrorists, and violent bigots.”
ADL’s “friend of the court” brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago points to the long history of gun violence by anti-government and racist extremists. The brief describes three such examples in detail: the June 2009 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, by avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist James Von Brunn (an incident which left a security guard dead); the April 2000 shooting spree in Pittsburgh by white supremacist Richard Baumhammers (which left five dead); and the deadly standoffs in Waco, Texas in 1993 and Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992.
McDonald v. City of Chicago focuses on whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits most regulation of firearms by cities and states.
ADL has long supported the reasonable regulation of firearms, particularly when it comes to the possession of weapons by extremists. “Extremists and those who commit hate crimes pose a serious threat to the safety of the general public and, more specifically, to the members of the discrete racial, ethnic and religious groups who often become their targets,” reads the ADL brief. “Armed extremism leads to violent extremism with profoundly unsettling frequency and profoundly tragic results.”
Thought crimes and the disarming of those accused of them legitimized by the high court has long been an ADL objective. In their brief they say ‘those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence’ but what they really want is the repression of freedom of speech, especially if that free speech is exposing the crimes of Israel and jewish extremists such as the ADL itself.
The ATF – as expected – has issued a letter in which it disregards the 10th Amendment restrictions on federal power (as seems to be the trend since the late 1930) and has notified Tennessee’s federal firearms dealers that the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is meaningless. Essentially, ATF is saying to the state of Tennessee that the 10th Amendment no longer exists.
We expected such from a tyranny that no longer lives within the bounds of its express authority…
A line was drawn in the sand last week – a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.
Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.
The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”
At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-
“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”
The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.
Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:
“The letter says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’ That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be. As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”
“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”
“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”
The Federal Government has regularly claimed that the commerce clause of the constitution, which gives DC authority to regulate commerce between the states, gives them authority to regulate or add prohibitions on items that never cross state lines.
One notable use of the commerce clause in this manner can be found in the 2005 decision by the Supreme Court in ‘Gonzales vs. Raich’, where the court contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. They used this claim, even though at the same time they made it clear that no legal market for marijuana exists.
One key aspect of the ATF’s letter is that it was only sent out to existing Federal Firearms Licensees, those generally already in compliance with federal regulations – and who likely would not have participated in the TN Firearms Freedom act anyway, according to sources close to Tenth Amendment Center.
Ultimately what the letter represents is another move in the chess match being played out between the states and the Federal Government, the resolution of which may not be seen for quite some time.
The current system has already begun to collapse under the weight of its ecological excesses, and here’s where we can help. Having transferred our loyalty away from our culture’s illegitimate economic and governmental entities and given it to the land, our goal must be to protect, through whatever means possible, the human and nonhuman residents of our homelands. Our goal, like that of a demolition crew on a downtown building, must be to help our culture collapse in place, so that in its fall it takes out as little life as possible.
Discussion presupposes distance, and the fact that we’re talking about whether violence is appropriate tells me we don’t yet care enough. There’s a kind of action that doesn’t emerge from discussion, from theory, but instead from our bodies and from the land. This action is the honeybee stinging to defend her hive; it’s the mother grizzly charging a train to defend her cubs; it’s Zapatista spokesperson Cecelia Rodriguez saying, “I have a question of those men who raped me. Why did you not kill me? It was a mistake to spare my life. I will not shut up. … This has not traumatized me to the point of paralysis.” It’s Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, murdered by the Nigerian government at the urging of Shell, whose last words were, “Lord, take my soul, but the struggle continues!” It’s those who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. It’s Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Geronimo. It’s salmon battering themselves against concrete, using the only thing they have, their flesh, to try to break down that which keeps them from their homes.
I don’t believe the question of whether to use violence is the right one. Instead, the question should be: Do you sufficiently feel the loss? So long as we discuss this in the abstract, we still have much to lose. If we begin to feel in our bodies the immensity and emptiness of what we lose daily – intact natural communities, hours sold for wages, childhoods lost to violence, women’s capacity to walk unafraid – we’ll know precisely what to do.
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
~ Mohandas Gandhi, from An Autobiography
When Mohandas Gandhi can be quoted in favor of an armed citizenry, I’d reckon the issue should be closed, once and for all, but of course, it’s probably not.This essay is my attempt to put another log on that fire.
Starting with the Basics
Now, as a dyed-in-the-wool anarchist, I could really care less about what a specific document declares regarding my rights, but nevertheless, whenever one talks about rights in the United States, the Constitution is bound to come up.At that point, the debate will most often descend into a rabbit-hole, debating the point-of-view of the Founders, what they really meant, what they believed, how they really lived, and probably where they shopped as well.Who cares?
For the record, I think the Constitution is a fine document; however, one absolute fact about the Constitution should preclude any such discussion for our purposes here.That fact is:the portion of the U.S. Constitution referred to as The Bill of Rights is an exposition, not a bestowal. Whatever “well-organized militia” meant to someone in 1776 or to anyone this week is irrelevant since the clause is explaining what exists already, not what the document provides to a lucky citizen.One of two things is true:a human being has the right to protect and defend himself or he does not.
Now, the question might become, “How best can one protect and defend himself without unnecessarily fraying the fragile fabric of society?”Although I might argue that society isn’t that fragile, that’s still a fairly good question.As far as my pedestrian logic takes me, the answer to that question cannot involve disarming every single citizen.History has proven, time and again, that any such action will have exactly the opposite effect.Such an observation was made in the 1700s by legal theorist Cesare Beccaria when he noted, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.”
Continuing with a Few Working Assumptions
I am generally not a person who spends time lamenting the existence of “bad people” in society.Life is too short.I don’t figure there are enough of them about which to worry that much anyway.As for the supposition that we all are bad, that too strikes me as largely irrelevant for this discussion.For our purposes here, let us draw one unassailable conclusion:bad people exist.That is, there exist people who would infringe upon you directly, violently if given the chance, and who won’t experience a blip of conscience larger than a burp while doing so.Let’s call that Assumption One.
Whether there are many or few of these bad people is simply a detail, a statistical anomaly from which no substantive modification to that assumption can be made.Either way, no rule or regulation can be expected to selectively arm a segment of society, while disarming another.As such, attempting to arm only a specific cadre of people—the police for example—cannot generate peace and tranquility.Why not?Those who care little about life and liberty care even less about rules.Ergo, there is no scenario under which the police [or place name for special gun-toting folks here] will be the only armed people in a society.None.Not close to one.Let’s call that Assumption Two.
I’ll Show You Mine
The police—and the army, and the Secret Service, and whomever else—carry arms for one primary reason:personal protection.(One might also argue that they carry arms so that they have a substantial advantage in armament over the governed as well, but that’s probably another essay.)They expect that at some point someone they encounter in the routine administering of their supposed duties will respond with violence.They want to be ready.Guess what?I do too.Sure, if a law-giver happens to be around at the exact moment when someone is infringing upon me, they could help, but seriously, what’s the chance of that?That chance is low, for reasons I’ll examine below.
Carrying a weapon also provides a prophylactic effect on those who might wish to infringe or act out violently.Police know this.When is the last time anyone heard of a madman entering a police station with plans of killing a bunch of people like [place name of psycho here] did at [place name of ostensible gun-free zone here]?People who are known-to-be, or even possibly might be, armed tend to scare psychos away, or at least give them a reason to rethink their lunacy.Let’s call that Assumption Three.
Have you ever met a bully?Almost everyone can remember that kid back in high school who took advantage of the nerds and/or the weaker kids.Generally, he was bigger, but not surprisingly—if you understand his pathology—this guy never accosted the kids who could readily defend themselves.Why?Bullies are cowards.This is a corollary to Assumption Three.Gun-free zones, and any other places where people are known to be less able (or less willing) to defend themselves tend to attract bullies and/or psychos.Let’s call that Assumption Four.
What’s Good for the Goose
Have you ever met a policeman or a soldier?More generally, have you ever met anyone who was authorized to carry a weapon?Did they strike you as unique in terms of their humanness?That is, was there anything objectively true about that person, as a member of the species Homo sapiens, which somehow made them gun-carrying-material?Don’t rack your brain; the answer is no.(The answer is closer to “Hell no.”)
No offense to any policemen in our studio audience, but we all know that policemen are just people doing a specific job.They applied.They were accepted.They got trained.They got strapped.End of story.The likelihood is therefore high, nearing 100% actually, that you and I can be similarly trained and just as deservedly strapped thereafter.In other words, there is nothing about being a citizen or a policeman that means one is destined to be armed and the other is not.Let’s call that Assumption Five.
Now, before anyone strains a ligament jumping to chime in, certainly there exist aptitude differences between people.Division of labor is alive and well too.Everyone isn’t cut out for brain surgery, nor is everyone only a class or two away from expert marksman.The point is that there is ample space between “career choice” and “working knowledge” that lends itself to the typical citizen being trained in a number of fields.Firearms use is absolutely one of them.In fact, it is a relatively recent development that people believe that firearms usage is not a basic life skill, or that massive citizen disarmament, combined with massive police presence will lead to a safe environment.One only need examine Washington, DC to see that such a point-of-view ain’t exactly data-driven.If that examination is unconvincing, one can review what has happened in Great Britain.
I’m not, for one moment, suggesting that society needs to evolve into a citizen army, with every person cocked, locked, and ready to rock.(I’m also not saying that would be a bad thing!)In fact, simply allowing the fog of war to return to most inner cities in the U.S. would quell violence in a relatively short time.Recall that bullies require, almost as a necessity to act, that they have a substantial known advantage over their victims.When I say, “fog of war” I mean that such an advantage, even if it actually exists, is unknown.(This point cannot be overstated, and by the way, applies to governments as well.It might even apply to governments more directly!)
Well, that just about concludes this episode of “Whoop, There It Is.”To review:
Assumption 1:Rights infringers exist.
Assumption 2:There is no realistic way to preclude unauthorized (or psychotic) people from being armed.
Assumption 3:People who are known to be armed tend to discourage rights infringers, even (shockingly!) the supposedly psychotic ones.
Assumption 4:Bullies tend to be cowards and therefore seek to attack people over whom they have a substantial known advantage.
Assumption 5:There is nothing morally different about a person supposedly authorized to carry a gun, e.g., a policeman, and a regular citizen.
Assumption One is a tautology.Assumption Two is obvious, and explains why waiting periods cannot preclude shooting sprees on college campuses.Assumption Three explains why violent and/or property crime is so relatively low in places like Kennesaw, GA, and most police stations.Assumption Four explains why crime is so high in the inner city.(The only people in most inner cities who are armed are the cops and the robbers, and both groups know it.Now, the proximity of people and property leads to an increased benefit for violence in densely-populated areas.That caveat notwithstanding, rights infringers seek both a benefit to immoral action and an advantage over their victims.)Assumption Five is simply a restatement of the Argument from Morality.
Bottom Line:Arm and train the citizens in [place name of violent place here] on Wednesday and I bet violent crime will plummet to unheard of levels by Friday.Disarm every citizen on Wednesday and not only will every psycho within shouting distance be ready to take advantage of him by Friday, but his government will also be much more likely to infringe upon him as well.
I’m not sure which one is worse, but I certainly don’t want to experience both!
Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, here speaking to the Brady Center, which has as its raison d’etre the ban of any civilian firearm ownership, about the need to press for a new Brady Bill.
No wonder firearms sales have increased to historic levels. Emmanuel claims that the first legislative test should be to offer a bill in Congress that states that anyone on the highly flawed, completely arbitrary, government “terrorist no-fly list” should be banned from owning a firearm by federal law.
The list has already been used overtly for political harassment purposesby the Bush Administration, so one can only imagine how the Obama government will expand the definition of terrorist to encompass anyone it wants so as to, shall I say, disincentivise dissent.
The NRA’s Fairfax, Virginia headquarters. Still one of the nation’s bellwether lobbies.
By Adam Winkler
In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state’s right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to own guns for personal self-defense.
So far, the victory hasn’t turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.
As many legal scholars predicted, the Supreme Court’s decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court’s decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.
To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing “straw” purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.
Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.
Before the Supreme Court’s decision, none of the numerous challenges to gun control laws raised in recent months would have had any hope of winning. Now, with a revolutionary ruling recognizing a renewed individual right to keep and bear arms, they still have no hope of winning.
About the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out they lose.
The basis for most of these lower court rulings upholding gun control is a paragraph near the end of the Supreme Court’s decision that, at the time, seemed like a throwaway. The Supreme Court wrote that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.”
What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories.
“I would have preferred that that not have been there,” says Robert Levy about this laundry list of Second Amendment exceptions. Levy, executive director of the CATO Institute, which funded the Heller litigation, believes that paragraph in Scalia’s opinion “created more confusion than light.”
But to a die-hard gun rights advocate, the problem is exactly the opposite: the paragraph shed too much light. It revealed that the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly lawful — a message that hasn’t been lost on the lower courts.
Hardliners in the gun rights community cannot help but be disappointed with their long-awaited triumph.
Santa baby, slip a shotgun under the tree, for me I’ve been an awful good girl Santa baby, and hurry down the chimney tonight
Guns for Christmas! Oops! I think I just said a bad word, but I’m not sure what it was.
But seriously, firearms and firearm accessories are very nice gifts for Christmas or any other occassion. It’s the kind of gift that most people don’t think about largely because the firearm industry does not advertise on television or in the mainstream media. So while everyone is being bombarded with ads from Target and Radio Shack selling mostly useless junk made in China, you can give a gift that will be really appreciated and will last a lifetime.
Giving the gift of guns is more meaningful that most of the commercial schlock that’s being pushed on us. A gun gift tells the receiver that she has value. That you want her to be able to protect herself, her loved ones, and her country. That goes for guys as well, of course.
Firearms are an essential part of American culture. Personal gun ownership was instrumental in settling this country and ensuring liberty for over two hundred years. There is no other country on earth that recognizes its people as citizens, rather than subject, and it’s the firearm that makes such a recognition possible.
Firearms can be instrumental in bringing us closer to our families and friends as we pursue various hobbies including defense training, target shooting, or hunting. It helps us to pass on and share traditions. And it reinforces our roots as Americans.
Personal firearm ownership is under attack as is Christmas. We encourage you to celebrate both.
Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
When 10-year-old Austin Smith heard Barack Obama had been elected president, he had one question: Does this mean I won’t get a new gun for Christmas?
I have my ongoing differences with the National Rifle Association, whose executives have met far too many unconstitutional gun regulations they think are “just right.”
But I appreciated their press release of Sept. 10, responding to a rally in rural Lebanon, Virginia, where “Barack Obama made another one of his empty election-year promises not to take away shotguns, rifles or handguns if elected president.”
Chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox responded: “He has supported bans on handguns and semi-automatic firearms, and he has voted to ban possession of many shotguns and rifles commonly used by hunters and sportsmen across America. And we will remind voters every single time he lies.”
In 2003 while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted in favor of a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver or possess” a so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons,” the NRA researchers learned. “Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be banned. According to definitions in the bill, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28-gauge or larger, and many semi-automatic shotguns of the same size, would be banned as ‘assault weapons.’
“This definition would have banned a large percentage of the shotguns used for hunting, target shooting and self-defense in the United States. The bill also would have banned hundreds of models of rifles and handguns.
“Any Illinois resident who possessed one of these commonly used guns 90 days after the effective date would have had to ‘destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.’ Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence.
“Obama may argue the bill was poorly drafted,” said Cox. “But Barack Obama – who brags about being a constitutional law professor and the former president of the Harvard Law Review – voted for it. That’s pathetic.”
B.R. writes in from Pahrump, Nevada:
“I moved from California eight years ago. … I haven’t researched its current gun laws, but I doubt that they have become more lax since I left. In your column, you refer to prohibited ‘loaded guns in parks’ unless locked in a trunk, etc. I believe that’s an error.
“When I lived there, you couldn’t carry a loaded weapon locked in a car trunk anywhere in the state. Loosely interpreted, the law stated that ammunition had to be stored completely separate from the weapon, with three distinct acts required to combine the two. That basically meant that one component had to be in the glove compartment or other locked container, and the other had to be in the trunk, or locked box if in the back of a truck, etc. The three acts would then be comprised of unlocking the glove box to access the gun or ammo, exiting the vehicle, and unlocking the trunk to get at the other component.
“I know that some cops were relaxed about enforcing such strict laws. I personally had a cop find a loaded 9 mm pistol under my seat during a routine traffic stop. (No, I didn’t prevent him from searching my vehicle. I usually try not to piss cops off.) He asked why I had a loaded weapon hidden from view. I explained that I worked graveyard shift in downtown L.A. and didn’t want to be defenseless. He said he understood, but that he could arrest me. He didn’t, but he advised me that other cops might not be so understanding, so please follow the law.
“Anyway, I love your column. Keep up the great work.”
“During the presidential campaign, voters were fed a line of bull about Obama’s ‘respect’ for the 2nd Amendment – and a lot of well-meaning gun owners swallowed it,” continued Pearson. “Well, that ‘respect’ was apparently very short-lived. Just two days after the election, the Obama transition web site listed a host of gun control objectives including a ban on semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. Interestingly, once this list of controls drew public attention, it was promptly removed from the site with out explanation.”
“The handwriting is on the wall,” said Pearson. “It’s a safe bet that the Obama administration will move swiftly to stifle the 2nd Amendment. Some gun owners take comfort in the assumption that Congress is too shy to pass the Obama gun control agenda. The truth of the matter is, Obama doesn’t need the Congress to do his dirty work. His executive powers grant him a host of administrative options that would be equally effective in making private gun ownership a thing of the past.”
“The best defense against the Obama Gun Grabbing Machine is a solid show of force by law-abiding gun owners,” said Pearson. “The most forceful display of support for gun rights is for citizens to enthusiastically exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. By keeping the gun shop cash registers ringing and the FBI background check computers humming, citizens will send a very clear message that they do not take challenges to their rights lightly.” source
You may ask why American individuals are buying so many firearms per person. Simple. Some will be used, others will be hidden… concealed. If anyone asks about them they will have been lost, stolen, or destroyed in some kind of catastrophe such as a fire, etc.
Americans are scared witless that the democrats, under the Obama leadership, will make a determined effort to seize their guns. The democrats, including Obama, say they are for “Common sense” gun control. The definition of “Common sense” is what scares gun owners. I mean, when a Congress, so devoid of knowledge about firearms, outlaws an entire type of rifle because it LOOKS scary,” that tells you all you ever need to know about their “common sense.”
Remember those scary weapons? No amount of talking or demonstrating could convince the Congress that the weapons they outlawed were simply weapons designed merely to look militaristic, to look scary. Many hunting rifles carry the same ammunition as those “scary” weapons. The only difference is in the appearance of the weapons. But the “girlie” men in the Congress, and some of the “girlie” girls in the Congress were frightened by the appearance of those weapons… thus… they outlawed them. Talk about “common sense.” source
CNN included three propsed laws Obama would like to see concerning guns and gun control. Each proposed law is fatally flawed and senseless in every way from my POV
. A- “Reinstating the so-called “assault weapons ban”–Completely unnecessary in every way. What the first ban did (before it expired) was prohibit the sale and importation of guns based on cosmetic features alone. The way the gun functioned was of no conern to the morons who wrote the ban…it it “looked evil” it was included. Truth be told, assault weapons have been banned from genrealmopen sales for decades. You can’t alk into a gunshop, and walk out with a machine gun or other fully automatic weapon. That requires extensive paperwork, time, background invesitigations, taxes, etc. This ban will not save lives, nor will it make our streets safer. Here are some facts regarding assault weapons, and why such a ban would be utterly pointless.
B-“A nationwide ban on concealed carry”– This is so simple it’s elementary. If people are denied the right to carry firearms legally, only criminals will be armed. Would you think twice about robbing someone if there was a significant chance you may get shot in the process? What if you were armed, and you knew the vast majority of your victims wouldn’t be? Welcome to an Obama Nation, because, should he get his way, those are exactly the types of situations that would be created. Is any explanation really necessary here as to why that is a bad thing that will lead to the victimization of MORE Americans, not LESS?
C- “Local gun Laws”. Is your right to free speech impeded by local law? Is your right to vote restricted by local laws? Is your right to be free from search and seizure dependant on local restrictions? The federal guns laws are sufficient, and localized laws lead to situations like Washington DC, where the concept of self-defense was all but banned previous to the Heller case. Now, however, due to their “local legislations” its still all but impossible to bneissued a pistol permit there, and Heller himself was denied, becasue they classified his semi-auto handgun (far and away the most popular type of firearm for self-defense in the US) was a “machine pistol”. By any knowledgable person’s definition, the weapon he wanted a permit for would NOT qaulify as a machine pistol by ANY stretch of the imagination, but then, knowledgeable people weren’t the ones who wrote that fine piece of “local legislation.” In essence, the DC gun ban still stands, because the local definitions used to define allowable guns are antiqudated and obsolete. Only revolvers holding less than 6 rounds would be accecptable home defense weapons under the local laws, despite the fact a revolver can be fired simply by pulling the trigger (like ANY semi-auto firearm), and have no manuel safety devices like most semi-auto handguns do. Again, guns banned for looks, rather than their overall safety or method of firing.
CNN highlighted each one of these as examples of the kinds of laws Obama wants. Each proposed law is seriously flawed. Why haven’t we heard about restrictions and laws that actually work like…Oh I don’t know….not making our jails into revolving doors, where violent offenders are repeatedly allowed to walk free to recommit violent crimes? Here’s an idea….and one I’ve mentioned a thousand times as being a thousand times more effective solution than any law Obama has proposed–mandatory, heavy-duty sentences for anyone convicted of a crime of violence using a firearm. Of course, Obama wouldn’t go for that…he doesn’t even want gang members eligible for the death penalty for gang-related murders. He’d rather punish the law-abiding masses for the the crimes of the lawless few….instead of taking that approach and flipping it 180…tough on gun crime, easy on the law-abiding gun owners.
I’ll let this initial frenzy pass, but I will be buying a few more guns solely becasue I want to chance to own them and have them “grandfathered in” and exempt from any new bans. Unl;ess its somehow by executive order, Obama can’t immediately enact any sort of new gun laws. I’ll let the panic buyers do their thing, and when sales have slowed and prices capped, I’ll be getting an AR-15, and likely another couple of handguns. I’m also thankful that I’m eligible for my CCW permit(permit to carry a concealed weapon) to be reinstated come January. Hopefully, those of us who have proven ourselves competent will bebable to have that right grandfathered in, too. Its not that i carry a gun 24/7 or anything (though, at times, I do) but dammit, its my right and I should be able to exert such a right whenever I feel the need to do so or have reason to do so, or if I simply WANT to do so. source