Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

USA Today:

A coalition of retired admirals and generals, including former CIA director and retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, are protesting “irresponsible and dangerous” legislation they say would put mentally ill veterans in harm’s way by giving them easy access to firearms.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act would prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from reporting veterans’ records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System after they’ve been deemed incapable of managing their financial affairs because of a disabling mental disorder. The bill would prohibit the VA from considering such veterans “mentally defective” without a magistrate or judicial authority ruling that the beneficiary is a danger to himself or herself or others.

In a Tuesday letter, members of the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense urged House and Senate leaders to oppose the bill. The House is expected to take it up on Thursday.

“The bill you are debating comes at a time when an average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of whom do so by using a firearm. We know that non-deployed veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk of suicide compared to the American civilian population, and deployed veterans are at a 41 percent higher risk,” they wrote. “When vulnerable veterans have access to firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies is felt in communities across our nation.”

Petraeus, who is an adulterer, and McChrystal who is a murderer of the men at Ganjgal, along with losers Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli and others, want to report veterans to the NICS.  To link this up to causation, they use having someone else do finances as a trigger.  Just like the elderly who want someone to assist with finances, veterans cannot have their mother or wife assist with finances while they attend college classes for fear of loss of gun ownership rights.

Forget repairing the dysfunctional Veterans Administration, giving better health care, or any one of a myriad of things that would seriously help veterans.  No, take their guns away from them.  This is a disgusting and un-American display of total abandonment for the purpose of driving a political agenda.  This gun control agenda has been pressed by both Petraeus and McChrystal in form, fit and function completely different than the context here with veterans.  Veterans are being used by McChrystal and this group.  So much for their love of country or men with whom they served.

It’s sad, and if you’re a veteran, you need to (a) dissociate yourself from such terrible men, and (b) be very careful what you say to the VA or anyone else for that matter.  The very men who the country should be honoring are on the chopping block for loss of rights.

Prior:

David Petraeus And Stanley McChrystal Lead The Charge On Gun Control

Stanley McChrystal On Gun Control

David Codrea:

“New York Attorney General files response in Taser case, and no, it’s not a joke,” attorney Stephen Stamboulieh notes in response to the state’s position in the matter of Avitabile v. Cuomo. “I guess before I argue these motions on March 24, 2017, I have to figure out if the Supreme Court’s Heller opinion is binding law in New York. “

I have a better question.  Is God’s opinion relevant in New York?  If you say yes, then you must admit that His requirement to defend your life because it’s made in His image means that the very weapons the New York AG thinks aren’t covered by Heller are the least of the things you should be able to own.  If you say no, well then, the future doesn’t look bright for you, if you know what I mean.  Your body doesn’t just cool to ambient temperature when you die, and that’s the end.  There’s something more.  Much more.  In fact, this life is but a vapor, but what we do and how we believe matters above all else.  Forget Heller.  What about the sovereign of the universe?

Hey, take a look at the picture.  I love it how these controllers always try to line up the blue costumed hacks behind them, as if their opinion means anything.  And look at the sad, unlikable, bitchy and asshole faces in that gaggle.  Would you want to be around them for any reason under the sun?  Say one of the boys asked you to drop by for a pit fire, a bit of Maker’s Mark and some cigars with them.  Would you even want to go?  It would be like spending quality time with that creepy, weird guy who shouts a lot, looks at you strange, smells bad and pushes the buggy with all his stuff in it.  At least, that’s how I think of it.

Don’t be like them, boys and girls.  Don’t be like gun controllers.  They’re a sad, unsociable lot.

This one is a real zinger, folks.

A proposed bill in the Arkansas State Legislature with the potential to allow the concealed and open carry of a handgun without a permit is a more divisive issue for gun owners than most might think. The bill is scheduled for discussion during the senate judiciary committee on Tuesday, March 7.

El Dorado native and freshman State Senator Trent Garner (R-27th District) spearheaded Senate Bill 444 supporting what people know as constitutional carry, a movement sweeping the nation for non-permit open and concealed carry of a handgun as suggested by the second amendment: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In addition to the discrepancy mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, proponents of non-permit carry argued that there are too many confusing laws and registration paperwork for gun-carrying citizens, and if criminals and reckless people are already in possession of a handgun in public, then law-abiding citizens should be able to as well, Garner said.

Some argue that Arkansas is already somewhat of a constitutional carry state.

In 2015, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge interpreted Act 746, passed in 2013, to allow people in Arkansas to openly carry a handgun with a few caveats: law officers can ask the user’s intent of the weapon, carrying a weapon is not allowed in restricted areas — government building, public university, etc., private property owners have authority over whether people can openly carry a weapon and the law doesn’t affect concealed carry statutes.

Arkansas isn’t the only state considering the move for constitutional carry. Other similar bills are being considered in 14 other states including: Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, to name a few.

As of late, Garner’s proposal is empty, but the idea of what it could lead to has been polarizing for gun-owning citizens of El Dorado spanning from law-enforcement and gun shop employees to average gun-owners and the rest of the state. But, each stance agreed that a knowledge of gun safety and the state law is required for every gun-owner, even if it’s not mandatory.

“I have a real problem with people carrying guns without proper training,” said Larry Combs, local gun instructor and former mayor of El Dorado. “There’s enough gun accidents already.”

Combs teaches classes for people interested in obtaining a concealed carry license, and has seen some local gun-owners who have carried a handgun without a license or permit.

“This is the state of Arkansas, I’ve seen people who carry a gun concealed and say ‘I don’t need a permit, I’ve handled a gun my whole life’ and they can — unless they get stopped by the police, then they’re in trouble,” Combs said.

Danny Farley, lead court security officer for the El Dorado Federal Court building, is also a concealed carry instructor and does not favor non-permit concealed or open carry.

“It’s a bad idea,” Farley said. “The major problem is people need to know when it’s not okay to carry a weapon. I have no problem with people carrying a weapon, but they need to be educated, which a license guarantees.”

For concealed-carry certification in the state of Arkansas a person is required to take a 5-hour class where the instructor must stress liability and safety, show how to load and discharge a gun, read the state and federal gun laws in a coherent manner, and make sure the person is competent in handling a gun through a “live-fire” test.

Once training is completed, a questionnaire covering a person’s mental health, drug, alcohol, and criminal history is filled and submitted to the Arkansas State Police, at which point officials can grant or repeal a person from obtaining a license to carry a concealed handgun.

Open carry has no strings attached.

“To me, I don’t like open carry because there’s no regulations or class required,” said Ricky Roberts, Union County Sheriff. “With concealed carry, dispatch can run your name through the system and know whether you have a license to be carrying a weapon or not.”

Also, law enforcement officers are restricted to a certain extent when confronting people who openly carry a handgun, for instance: the officer can ask for that person’s intent and if the officer believes it’s for self-defense and hasn’t seen any suspicious activity, the officers move on. This can be a slippery slope, Farley said.

“If you carry openly, an officer has the right to ask if it’s for self defense use, and once that’s done he walks away, that’s all that police can do,” he said.

A large concern for gun-owners is that laws aren’t strict enough on criminals or mentally-ill persons, and until those laws are enforced law-abiding citizens should have easier access to owning a gun for self-defense, said Linda Newbury, mayor of Felsenthal.

So gun owners are split, or something like that, on the question of constitutional carry in Arkansas, but in order to prove the pretext of the article, the author cites Larry Combs, local gun instructor and former mayor of El Dorado, Danny Farley, lead court security officer for the El Dorado Federal Court building, who is also a concealed carry instructor, and Ricky Roberts, Union County Sheriff.  Two of them stand to lose the class fees for permitting if constitutional carry passes, and one of them is a LEO, and LEOs almost always hate constitutional carry.  Just because.  Shut up.  They’re in charge.

Of course, they are all huge supporters of the second amendment, but there’s that little nit early in the article on the “discrepancy mentioned in the U.S. Constitution,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.  Discrepancy.  It must be that the founders didn’t really mean what they wrote, or something.  But remember, folks who want a government permitting fee are always “big supporters of the second amendment.”

As for open carry, can you imagine a sillier Kabuki dance than a LEO stopping to ask why a person is openly carrying a gun?  “Why no officer, it isn’t for self defense, it’s for shooting up the local elementary school.”  How absolutely ridiculous.  As if the person couldn’t also carry concealed if he intended nefarious things with his weapon.

And don’t even mention that Arkansas crime hasn’t skyrocketed with blood running in the streets since the Arkansas AG interpretation that the law allows open carry with caveats.  It’s the caveats that are absurd, along with the notion that being able to surmise that a person openly carrying has a permit.  Oh, that’s right, the progressives want LEOs to be able to stop and identify you if you’re openly carrying and ask for proof of permitting, a schema that doesn’t acquiesce to the notion that all stops have to be so-called “Terry Stops” in order to be constitutional.

Oh dear, people just cannot learn to keep from looking like imbeciles when they speak of these things.  They really should look to the other open carry states, where things work just fine, LEOs aren’t running scared of open carriers, blood isn’t running in the streets, and where constitutional carry (in the states that honor it) hasn’t caused wild west shootouts because people don’t know the law.

Just take a deep breath, people.  Look around you.  Think.  Ponder in the quiet for a period of time.  Learn from history.  Quit being hysterical.  And make sure to reject lawmaking for the purpose of permitting and class fees and coffers of those who benefit from that revenue.  There is a fairer way to raise revenue than penalizing gun owners.

Perhaps some reader in Arkansas can give us an update on the state of things in your beloved state.

Hartford Courant:

If a police officer stops and asks a person to show their pistol permit, most gun owners comply.

But that is not the law in Connecticut, where police must have suspicion of a crime in order to force the gun owner to display the permit. If the gun owner refuses, police say there is nothing they can do.

That’s why more than 35 police chiefs joined key legislators Tuesday in Hartford to call for changing the law.

The issue has prompted controversy in West Haven and Bridgeport, where gun owners refused to show their permits when requested. The issue arose in June 2013 when two men were walking on the boardwalk in West Haven with their guns obvious to public view in hip holsters.

When stopped by police, one of them agreed to show his permit. The other did not and was charged with interfering with police. A judge dismissed the case, and a prosecutor said the arrested man, Scott Lazurek of Derby, had a permit but simply did not want to show it to police. Lazurek told police that he did not need to display the permit under the law – and the prosecutor and the judge agreed.

Rep. William Tong, a Stamford Democrat and co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said the bill is “a very simple, but important, initiative” that is necessary at a time of increased concern about gun violence and mass killings in Connecticut and beyond.

“It’s because of Newtown,” Tong said. “It’s because of Aurora and Columbine and other places across the country. We know that reality far better than other states and other communities. We feel that acutely.”

Tong rejected arguments that the issue was a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

“It’s not an infringement on your liberty,” said Tong, an attorney who has studied constitutional law. “It is not even considered a Fourth Amendment stop.”

Tong said he is concerned about Second Amendment activists “staging confrontations with police officers … to make a point.”

Uh huh.  To make a point.  Except in the case cited, the carriers were doing nothing whatsoever to justify being detained, much less arrested.  It’s the LEOs who staged the confrontation.

Let’s finish this thing about Newtown and Sandy Hook once and for all.  From the comments in this article, one commenter linked this video.  Watch it in its entirety.

Thankfully, the House, Senate and President Trump undid the Obama treachery against the elderly recently.  Trump’s new interior secretary just undid the Obama treachery towards shooters, hunters, fishermen and those who want to defend themselves.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke signed an order Thursday overturning a ban on using lead ammunition on wildlife refuges.

Zinke signed the order on his first day in office, overturning a policy implemented by former Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Director Dan Ashe on Jan. 19, the Obama administration’s last full day in office.

Ashe’s policy banned the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on all FWS wildlife refuges that allow hunting or fishing, as well as in all other hunting or fishing regulated by the agency elsewhere.

It was meant to help prevent plants and animals from being poisoned by lead left on the ground or in the water.

“After reviewing the order and the process by which it was promulgated, I have determined that the order is not mandated by any existing statutory or regulatory requirement and was issued without significant communication, consultation or coordination with affected stakeholders,” Zinke wrote in his order.

No it wasn’t.  That’s a lie.  It had nothing to do with protection of the environment.  It was simply an anti-gun measure, one of many the Obama administration wanted to take.

And no it wasn’t.  It wasn’t mandated by any existing statutory or regulatory requirement.  And no they didn’t – the Obama administration didn’t go through any rule making prior to this silly waste of time.

Go to hell, Obama.  Now, there is much more treachery to undo.  Get busy.

The Guardian:

Rifles and submachine guns assembled in the UK could be exported for use in conflicts involving child soldiers, according to a report by European children’s charities.

The report accuses Heckler & Koch (H&K) – a German company that is among the world’s largest producers of small arms – of sidestepping obstacles to exports at home by using its subsidiary in the UK, where a “lack of transparency” has frustrated attempts to scrutinise arms deals.

H&K and another major German firm, Sig Sauer, turn to UK and US operations when guidelines and political pressure in Germany are likely to block exports to conflict-affected countries, according to the report – entitled Small Arms in the Hands of Children (English, German pdf) – by the Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic Security.

The cases cited by the study include H&K’s attempts to export thousands of guns to Nepal in 2000-01. “When it became obvious that Germany would deny such an export deal due to public pressure because of the ongoing civil war, Heckler & Koch quickly applied for an export licence for 6,780 rifles in Great Britain, which was then granted,” said the report’s authors.

The point I’d like to make has nothing whatsoever to do with arms shipments, or selling arms on the open market, or H&K (whom I don’t like), or the British people per se.

The point is simply this.  Governments disarm those they fear.  They send arms wherever they can make a pound, but disarm their own people with gun control laws that are more extreme by a wide margin than those in Russia.

They have yet to latch on to the danger posed by Islamic migration.  Sending arms overseas and disarming their own people is an open and honest admission that they have a greater fear of being toppled by their own people for their infidelity to the citizens and malfeasance in office than they do Muslim gangs of rapists.

USA Today:

President Trump killed a regulation that would have tightened gun background checks Tuesday, signing a bill to undo one of his predecessor’s executive actions following the San Bernardino shootings in 2015.

The Obama administration rule required the Social Security Administration to submit records of mentally disabled people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the FBI database used to determine whether someone can buy a firearm under the 1993 Brady Bill.

Ooooo … hold me Uncle Bob, I’m askeerd!!!   The oogey boogey man’s gonna’ gettcha!!!   Quick.  Look under the bed, in the closet.  Somebody’s there, I just know it!!!  All those severely, seriously, horribly, terminally, mentally ill to the point they cannot do finances are coming for me!!!

Good.  Trump undid Obama’s treachery concerning the elderly who want someone else to do their finances for them but still want a means of self defense.  This should never have been done in the first place, and it was worth the price of admission.  Go to hell, Obama.

Now, there’s much more treachery to undo.  Get busy.

KGAB.com:

David Codrea:

True, both he and Ellison have long histories of oath-breaking and subversion. Both are for cultural terraforming of the Republic through “immigration” and “refugee” actions to bring in and embed or sanction existing unvetted foreign nationals. And both are hostile to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But Ellison is more vulnerable to exploitable suspicions over his agenda and motives …

Well, they certainly picked the least vulnerable ass-clown.  But make no mistake about it, this ass-clown will run as fast as he can down the road to cultural chaos and transformation in order to destroy liberty.

As Kurt Schlichter recently observed, “it’s reasonable to wonder how this can end peacefully.”  You haven’t stopped preparing, have you?  You haven’t stopped activism, have you?  We’re just in the skirmishes.  There is much more to come.

AL.com:

Pistol permits are a financial boon to the Madison County sheriff’s department but that’s not why Sheriff Blake Dorning opposes a Senate bill that would eliminate them.

“We hear it’s just a money thing,” Dorning said Wednesday.

I wonder where he’s hearing that?

“No, it’s not. It’s a life and death safety issue for our men and women because the equipment we’re able to provide them with drastically makes them more efficient and more able to address the situations that they come into every day.”

Dorning and other top department officials held a press conference Wednesday to follow up on the open letter the sheriff posted online over the weekend.

Capt. Michael Salomonsky outlined a handful of cases where law enforcement tracked down criminals through their pistol permits as evidence for the need to oppose the bill introduced by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa.

The bill would repeal the requirement to have a permit to conceal carry a pistol. It would also allow conceal carry at events such as demonstrations and protest rallies. Without the criminal background checks required for a permit, applicants with a violent criminal past would be able to conceal carry, Dorning said.

Officials also met head-on the issue of money associated with the permit fees, saying that the permits yield about $700,000 annually to the department.

[ … ]

“Without technology, you’re almost going back 20 years to a deputy who just has the basics,” Jernigan said. “I really feel this community wants a professionally trained and a professionally equipped law enforcement agency to go out and protect the public.”

Jernigan said pistol permit fees are not an infringement on the Second Amendment, which provides for the right to bear arms. Jernigan it’s no different than paying a fee for a drivers license, marriage license, hunting license or car registration.

Thanks for self-identifying as a liar.  Driving a car is not mentioned in the constitution.  And if you really feel that the community wants the things you say you think you need, then why not make that case straight to the community and let them decide whether they want to fund them or not?

Oh, it’s because you have people who want to defend their lives over a barrel.  This is a forced tax of a targeted set of people for exercising what God and the founders consider an inalienable right.  You know it’s true.

In telling me it’s not all about the money, and then spending so much effort try to tell us what you need the money for, you’ve told us it’s all about the money.  So we’re back where we started, and you have no case.