Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment  (Read 985813 times)

prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #300 on: March 20, 2009, 05:23:59 AM »
Woof,
 They remember what happened to their Majority the last time they voted for a ban under Wet Willy. :-D
                  P.C.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
WSJ: Case dismissed
« Reply #301 on: March 20, 2009, 09:58:05 AM »
By JOEL MILLMAN
An Arizona court on Wednesday dismissed the case against a gun-store owner accused of looking the other way while front men purchased weapons to deliver to Mexico's drug cartels.

The trial, which began earlier this month, had been heralded as an example of U.S. authorities working to stanch the flow of weapons to Mexico, where a recent war among drug gangs is believed to have killed more than 6,000 people.

At the heart of the case was the X-Caliber gun store, where prosecutors alleged more than 700 high-powered rifles were sold to purchasers whom the owner, 47-year-old George Iknadosian, should have known were acting as so-called straw buyers for Mexican customers. Sales of most weapons to non-U.S. citizens north of the border are severely constrained, as is gun possession by civilians in Mexico.

To get around those restrictions, Arizona officials alleged, Mr. Iknadosian allowed Arizonans with clean criminal records to buy weapons they would resell in Mexico, first by falsifying forms attesting that the firearms were for the purchasers' personal use. Witnesses in the case included several of these alleged straw buyers, who have pleaded guilty to charges that bring a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

Yet in dismissing the 21 counts against Mr. Iknadosian, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Gottsfield ruled that the evidence prosecutors presented wasn't "material," and therefore didn't support charges against the defendant.

"The state's case is based upon testimony of individuals who [alleged]...that they were the actual purchaser of the firearms when they were not," Judge Gottsfield wrote. He then indicated that such testimony, by itself, failed to establish that any additional unlawful conduct transpired.

"There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited possessor ended up with the firearm," the judge said.

To be considered "material," he explained, testimony about falsifying government forms must further demonstrate that the act "resulted in an unlawful person ending up with the guns, which has not been proven."

View Full Image

Associated Press
George Iknadosian's closed shop, X-Caliber Guns in Phoenix, was deserted in January.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, briefing reporters at the agency's Washington headquarters Wednesday, declined to comment on the ruling.

State and federal authorities, including a task force supervised by the Phoenix office of the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, worked for 11 months with local police building a case against X-Caliber. According to law-enforcement officials in Phoenix, the investigation included sending undercover agents posing as buyers to Mr. Iknadosian's shop, where agents not only purchased weapons, but boasted of plans to resell them in Mexico.

Authorities also relentlessly publicized the link between X-Caliber and Mexican drug cartels by claiming weapons purchased in Mr. Iknadosian's store had been recovered at Mexican crime scenes. One special weapon -- a handgun inlaid with $35,000 worth of diamonds -- purportedly was captured late last year after the assassination of a top Mexican policeman.

"We are all taking this pretty hard," said Anne Hilby, spokeswoman for Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard. Mr. Goddard released a statement disagreeing with Judge Gottsfield's analysis of the case, adding, "We are reviewing the ruling to determine how best to respond."

Messages left for Mr. Iknadosian's attorney and at the defendant's home weren't returned.

Write to Joel Millman at joel.millman@wsj.com

prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #302 on: March 20, 2009, 11:25:08 AM »
Woof,
 Man... I tell ya, I don't even know what to think about that. The government can't enforce or won't enforce the laws we already have in place to keep guns from going to Mexico or getting into criminals hands but they still want to pass more laws that will infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. WTF? :x
                       P.C.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Gen. McCaffrey
« Reply #303 on: March 26, 2009, 04:16:46 PM »



Gen. McCaffrey in 1996 -
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the White House drug policy director, traveled to Mexico in March 1996 smoothing the way for an agreement between the two governments which has resulted in Mexican soldiers beginning to train at Ft. Bragg and other American bases, and in the gift of 73 "surplus" helicopters, four C-26 surveillance planes, night vision goggles, radios and other military equipment. In addition, the White House has requested $9 million in military aid for Mexico for fiscal year 1998 (up from $3 million in fiscal year 1996) for the purchase of new weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers. - http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/mexico.htm

Gen McCaffrey 2009 -
The outgunned Mexican law enforcement authorities face armed criminal attacks from platoon-sized units employing night vision goggles, electronic intercept collection, encrypted communications, fairly sophisticated information operations, sea-going submersibles, helicopters and modern transport aviation, automatic weapons, RPG’s, Anti-Tank 66 mm rockets, mines and booby traps, heavy machine guns, 50 cal sniper rifles, massive use of military hand grenades, and the most modern models of 40mm grenade machine guns. - http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/pdfs/Mexico_AAR_-_December_2008.pdf

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #304 on: March 26, 2009, 05:41:06 PM »
The Mexican cartels recruit open from the Mexican military and police. When they desert to go to work for the cartels, guess what they take along? Then there are Los Zetas....

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
ALERT
« Reply #305 on: April 05, 2009, 11:22:56 PM »

·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4713

Mexican Drug Violence--Anti-Gunners Lead Witness Friday, April 03, 2009 As we continue to report, Congress has jumped into the topic of Mexican border violence with both feet, having held 10 different Subcommittee and Full Committee hearings on the topic, with more coming. It has also become clear that anti-gun politicians and groups are intent on using this issue to advance new gun laws.
In the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Drugs and Crime, Sen. Dianne Feinstein renewed her attacks on gun owners' rights. During her remarks, she stated that there are over 2,000 guns smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. each day. But when she tried to elicit support for that number from a representative from the BATFE, he responded that the number was much lower. Senator Feinstein was clearly unhappy that he would not endorse her anti-gun sound bite.
Feinstein also repeated the claim that 90% of seized guns are from American sources (please see related story below). In fact, it is unknown where most of the arms possessed by the cartels originate. According to the BATFE 90% of the firearms traced are from American sources, but BATFE only traces 25% of the guns seized by Mexican authorities. The remaining 75% of guns seized along with all the firearms remaining in the hands of the cartels are of unknown origin. The fact that only 25% of the guns seized are traced raises a significant question: Why has the Mexican government not requested traces on the remaining 75%? Could it be because those guns are far less likely to have originated in America? Could it be that the Mexican authorities do not want it known where these guns come from? Could it be that it benefits the Mexican government to continue to blame U.S. gun laws to divert attention away from the rampant corruption of local governments and police forces? Could it be all of the above?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also entered the debate, traveling to Mexico and taking the opportunity to blame American gun laws. She called for a renewal of the semi-auto ban, and even trumpeted the ban's illusory impact: "And there's no doubt in my mind that the 10 years we had an assault weapons ban in America was one of the tools that helped to drive down the crime rate."
Perhaps if Clinton had read the congressionally mandated study performed by the Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf) she would know it showed that the ban couldn't possibly have had much impact on crime because "the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders" before the ban.
In another development that will not please the gun ban crowd, the leader of the Border Patrol Union, T.J. Bonner, said he was "underwhelmed" by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's plans to secure the border and went on to debunk the idea that Mexican violence is caused by American guns: "The U.S. has more weapons but we don't have that kind of violence in our streets," he said.
American gun owners know that that the real solution to the border violence is to actually secure the border. Shifting the focus to gun laws is nothing more than a calculated attack on our Second Amendment rights.
For more information on the hearings, please go to www.nraila.org.


Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...indow.print();

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #306 on: April 06, 2009, 12:36:09 AM »

prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #307 on: April 08, 2009, 03:39:23 AM »
Woof,
 Well here we are fighting the same battle over and over again. The recent spate of Media inspired maniacs going out in a blaze of gory (pun intended), has all the anti gun dim wits', panties in a twist again and calling for gun control. What about nut job control? It would help a lot if the Media didn't give these guys a stage to play out their sick fantasies on and give them ideas as to how to out nut job the last nut job that went out and killed a bunch of people because their feelings were hurt.
 Here's the deal, people that are willing to commit murder and face the death penalty or life in prison, are not going to let a gun law stand in their way. Gun laws are like stop signs, they are not brick walls that are going to stop anyone from doing anything. They only work if people obey them.
 I've seen all kinds of stats being thrown around that show that guns are used to kill people. I'm shocked! :-o The stats don't show that most of the people killed and the people doing the killing are gangbangers, drug dealers, and other felon criminals that can't have a gun legally in the first place. They also don't show how many lives have been saved because law abiding citizens used a firearm that stopped the beginning of a killing spree because they defended themselves with a firearm.
 In every state that passed a conceal carry law, the crime and murder rates went down. Passing gun laws that infringe on gun rights gives the nut jobs and the criminals just what they want, defenseless victims to prey on. What these anti gun losers want us to buy into is that people can't be trusted because anyone could just go nuts at anytime and if there's a gun then, boom!. If you buy that then can we be trusted to govern ourselves? To be in control of our own lives and be allowed any freedoms or rights? We can't just let potential nut jobs run free, there's no telling what we might do.
 Be careful what you buy into people.
                                P.C.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #308 on: April 09, 2009, 06:24:11 AM »
A positive trend.
Now if we could only get a few democrats to sign up and realize that gun control is not the answer...

Poll: Fewer Americans support stricter gun control laws

Story Highlights
Poll: 54 for percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 39 percent today
Long-term decline in support for gun control coincided with a decline in murder rate
Sudden change may be influenced by politics, namely the Obama administration
Nearly all the decline is from people who don't identify themselves as Democrats
From Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst
(CNN) -- From Oakland, California, to Binghamton, New York, several mass shootings in recent weeks have killed dozens across the country. But has there been an effect on public opinion?

Yes, and in a surprising way.

Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling.

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

The gradual, long-term decline in support for gun control from the early 1990s to 2008 coincided with a decline in the murder rate. But this year's sudden drop seems to be influenced by politics, namely the Obama administration.

"If [President Obama] and the people in control of Congress right now could have what they want, they would heavily restrict or eliminate guns from this country," said Sean Healy, an attorney who has advocated on behalf of gun-owner rights. Watch why some people don't want stricter gun laws »

Or, Americans may have heard the new administration's take on assault weapons.

"There are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstate the ban on the sale of assault weapons," said Attorney General Eric Holder in February.

In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "I, as a senator, supported measures to try and reinstate it. Politically, that is a very big hurdle in our Congress. But there may be some approaches that could be acceptable, and we are exploring those."

Still, the decline in American favor for stricter gun laws doesn't mean people want to see restrictions lifted -- 46 percent want no change in the current law, while only 15 percent want gun laws that are less strict.

Nearly all the decline in support for stricter gun laws is from people who don't identify themselves as Democrats. Six in 10 Democrats still support stricter gun laws, but support has dropped 13 points among Republicans and 17 points among independents. Half of all independents supported stricter gun laws in 2007; now only a third of them do.

The poll, based on phone interviews with 1,023 U.S. adults from Friday through Sunday, were conducted after Friday's mass shooting in Binghamton, New York, where 13 people were killed at an immigrant services center.

On the issue of whether gun laws should be stricter, the poll contains a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The breakdown of opinions on that issue over party lines had a sampling error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Hoplophobes & Intent
« Reply #309 on: April 11, 2009, 11:58:33 AM »
Equipped to be a Killer
The Firearms Coalition ^ | Daniel White

April 9, 2009)

There is a funny story about a woman who rowed her husband’s boat out for a little solitude. While she was enjoying the fresh air and sunshine a Park Ranger pulled up alongside and asked to see her fishing license. When she told him she didn’t have one he said that he was going to write her a ticket because, even though she was just sitting in the boat reading, there was fishing equipment in the boat. The woman replied that she wanted to charge the Ranger with rape then because, even though he was just sitting in his boat talking, he had all of the necessary equipment.

Unfortunately, in the real world, the woman’s quick wit would probably not get her out of the ticket and might cost her more charges, but there is a truth in this story that deserves careful consideration. There is a dramatic difference between having tools and having intent. While this truth should apply to fishing gear or guns in parks, it is also one of the fundamental flaws in the thinking of hoplophobes and their attacks on individual rights – that having tools and using tools is the same thing.

I recall a story of a hoplophobic politician or reporter who, looking at the firing line at Camp Perry saw hundreds of “potential assassins” rather than hundreds of dedicated sportsmen, patriots, and potential defenders of the nation. That distorted perception demonstrates a level of fundamental human distrust which is simply astounding. How can a person who is so mistrustful of his fellow man ever get behind the wheel of a car or even leave his home?

But this is the mindset that we in the rights movement are up against. These people believe that having the equipment is the same as being equipped, leaving out the most important factors; motivation and inclination. Virtually everyone in the world has the equipment to be “violent killers,” but only a small fraction of the world’s population are equipped with the desire and inclination to truly be violent killers. (And then there is the question of those who equip themselves to be violent killers to protect civilized society, but that’s a whole other can of worms.)

What the hoplophobes refuse to see or understand is that criminal behavior – whether with a gun, knife, car, or bare hands – is always first and foremost about the behavior. The tool is a side issue. Behavior is the problem and any “solution” that fails to address behavior is no solution at all. While there is some truth to the old saw, “the clothes make the man,” likewise having the accoutrements of criminal behavior at hand can help to facilitate that behavior – but only in people predisposed to the behavior and only to a very limited degree. Dress an honor student in gang-banger duds and give him a gun and he’s not likely to start ripping off liquor stores. Conversely, dress a street punk in Ralph Lauren and he’s still not someone you want your daughter dating.

Most importantly, even if it were possible to keep guns away from people who are predisposed to criminal violence (which is not really possible, but let’s play “even if…”) the lack of a firearm is not going to deter those people from engaging in their criminal violence. There is no credible, statistical evidence that violent crime, including murder, has ever been significantly reduced by restrictions on firearms. Crime involving firearms might go down some, depending on how draconian the gun control laws are and how actively they are enforced, but actual numbers of murders, assaults, rapes, and robberies tend to go up rather than down in the wake of stricter gun laws. That’s why the anti-gun agitators are always careful to focus their attention on “gun crime” rather than just crime.

People with an irrational fear of weapons, particularly firearms, think that it is the weapon that causes the crime. If they were able to think rationally they would realize that it is criminals who cause crime and criminals, by definition, violate laws such as laws against acquisition and possession of weapons just as they do laws against rape, robbery, and murder.

Something that rights supporters must understand is that hoplophobes can not be “cured” with reason any more than people with an irrational fear of spiders or snakes can be convinced that such vermin are “friendly.” That’s what irrational means.

Therefore efforts to reform hoplophobes are wasted. Instead we must focus our energies on exposing the irrationality and distortions put forward by these people so that the rational public can see the truth.

Gun laws don’t work.

Restricting the rights of responsible citizens does nothing to reduce crime or protect society.

Focusing on tools diverts resources away from effective strategies for reducing crime and suicide.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108. ©Copyright 2009 Neal Knox Associates

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4362/53/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
John Lott on CSPAN Today
« Reply #310 on: April 14, 2009, 03:51:49 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Re: Where's that store?
« Reply #312 on: April 15, 2009, 05:31:16 AM »
Where's the gun store in Texas that's selling that machine gun?

Heck, where's the "anti-aircraft gun"? I see what looks like a .50 with a big muzzle brake on the left side of the longshot; it doesn't appear to be set up on an AA mount of any sort have been used for AA in the past, most notably during WW II, they were usually arranged in task specific mounts in tandem or quad arrangements. About the only aircraft the gun shown could shoot would be one sitting on the tarmac.

Inside baseball stuff, I suppose, but it bugs the bejesus out of me that no MSM story regarding firearms can be reported without incorporating major errors caused by breathless ignorance.

BTW, like how the spread all those AK mags out to increase the apparent size of the haul. . . .
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 03:44:06 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Convolute, Distort, and Confuse
« Reply #313 on: April 15, 2009, 03:45:39 PM »
Gun Control for the Sake of Mexico: The Meme That Wouldn’t Die

Posted by David Rittgers

Fox News already debunked the claim that 90% of the guns involved in Mexico’s drug war come from the United States.  Facts aside, the press onslaught continues in a new push for gun control.

The fact is that out of 29,000 firearms picked up in Mexico over the last two-year period for which data is available, 5,114 of the 6,000 traced guns came from the United States.  While that is 90% of traced guns, it means that only 17% of recovered guns come from the United States civilian market.

Where did the rest come from?  A number of places.  To begin with, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted in the last six years for the better pay and benefits of cartel life, some taking their issued M-16 rifles with them.

Surprisingly, a significant number of the arms are coming to the cartels via legitimate transactions.  They are produced and exported legally every year, regulated by the State Department as Direct Commercial Sales.  FY 2007 figures for the full exports are available here, and State’s report on end-use is available here, alleging widespread fraud and use of front companies to funnel the weapons into the black market.  (H/T to Narcosphere)  This doesn’t even take into account the thousands of weapons floating around Latin America from previous wars of liberation.  This Los Angeles Times article also shows how the cartels are getting hand grenades, rocket launchers, and other devices you can’t pick up at your local sporting goods store.

Perhaps this is why law enforcement officials did not ask for new gun laws to combat Mexican drug violence at recent hearings in front of Congress.

Never mind those pesky facts.  The story at the New York Times recycles the 90% claim.  The associated video is just as bad.  Narrator: “The weapons that are arming the drug war in Juarez are illegal to purchase and possess in Mexico.”  They’re also illegal in the United States.  As the narrator says these words, the Mexican officer is handling an M-16 variant with a barrel less than sixteen inches long.  This rifle would be illegal to possess in the United States without prior approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE).  As the video mentions the expired “Assault” Weapons Ban, the submachine gun in frame would also be classified as a short-barreled rifle and require BATFE approval.  Ditto for many of the rifles shown in the video.  The restrictions on barrel length would not apply to weapons exported as Direct Commercial Sales.  Law enforcement folks call this a “clue.”

The language of gun control advocates is changing subtly to demonize “military style” weapons.  “Military style” weapons is a new and undefined term that means either (1) automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and destructive devices already heavily regulated by federal law; or (2) a term inclusive of  all modern firearms in a back-door attempt to enact a new gun control scheme.

Yes, ALL modern firearms.  Grandpa’s hunting rifle?  Basis for the system used by military snipers.  The pump-action shotgun you use to hunt ducks and quail?  Basis for the modular shotgun produced for the military.  The handgun you bought for self-defense, a constitutionally protected right?  Used by every modern military.

This is not a new tactic.  The Violence Policy Center has previously tried to fool people by portraying ordinary rifles as machine guns with the term “assault” weapons: “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Making our domestic policies based on the preferences of other countries is unacceptable, especially in an activity protected by the Constitution.  One of Canada’s Human Rights Commissioners is on record saying that “[f]reedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”  (Apparently, it makes the folks at the Department of Homeland Security nervous too)  In a similar vein, the United Nations says “[w]e especially encourage the debate on the issue of reinstating the 1994 U.S. ban on assault rifles that expired in 2004.”

It’s not theirs to say, and we shouldn’t listen to an argument based on lies.  Related posts here and here.

David Rittgers • April 15, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Filed under: Foreign Policy and National Security; Law and Civil Liberties
Tags: Congress, department of homeland security, drug, drug violence, drug war, gun control, guns, latin america, Mexican drug violence, Mexico, military, rifles, violence

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/15/gun-control-for-the-sake-of-mexico-the-meme-that-wouldnt-die/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Second Amendment "Incorporated"!!!
« Reply #314 on: April 20, 2009, 01:35:53 PM »
Our resident lawyer will have to explain why this is a big deal as the whole "incorporation" process strikes me as having more to do with transubstantiation than the cold light of law, but regardless this is a big deal for gun owners. Link to the decision here:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf

[Eugene Volokh, April 20, 2009 at 1:03pm] Trackbacks

Second Amendment Incorporated by Ninth Circuit Panel, in
Nordyke v. King. For those who count such things, the unanimous panel consists of a Reagan appointee (Judge O'Scannlain, who wrote), a Carter appointee (Judge Alarcon), and a Clinton appointee (Judge Gould).

The panel avoids the late 19th-century cases United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Presser v. Illinois (1886) by reading them as simply foreclosing the direct application of the Second Amendment to the states, or the application of the Second Amendment to the states via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The panel instead follows the Supreme Court's "selective incorporation" cases under the Due Process Clause, and concludes that the right to bear arms "ranks as fundamental, meaning 'necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.'" And in footnote 16 it points out that

Because, as Heller itself points out, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23, Cruikshank and Presser did not discuss selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause, there is no Supreme Court precedent directly on point that bars us from heeding Heller’s suggestions. Cf. Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls ....”). But see Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56, 58-59 (2d Cir. 2009) (concluding that Presser forecloses application of the Second Amendment to the states).


(I should note that many scholars view Due Process Clause incorporation as historically unfounded, but take the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was originally understood as incorporating nearly all of the Bill of Rights against the states; but that is not the view the Supreme Court has taken.)

This sort of "fundamentalness" reasoning in naturally mushy — as it has been throughout the Court's selective incorporation cases — but here's roughly how the panel goes through it: (1) It points to evidence that the right was seen as very important by the Framers, and concludes, "This brief survey of our history reveals a right indeed 'deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.' Moreover, whereas the Supreme Court has previously incorporated rights the colonists fought for, we have here both a right they fought for and the right that allowed them to fight."

(2) It points to continued support for the right from the Framing on, noting among other things that 44 state constitutions contain a right-to-bear-arms provision.

(3) It particularly points to the support of the right, including its self-defense component, around the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

Note that the better articulation of the test the panel actually applied was probably whether the right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" (citing Glucksberg), not whether it's "necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty." Among other things, the Anglo- half of "Anglo-American" abandoned the right decades ago, and it's pretty clear that many of the rights that have indeed been incorporated (such as, for instance, the privilege against self-incrimination) aren't strictly necessary to our regime of ordered liberty. But that criticism would equally apply to many of the Court's selective incorporation cases, which probably also followed the "deeply rooted" test even if they didn't articulate their reasoning that way.

The panel's reasoning begins by pointing to the Framing Era sources

Thanks to Alice Marie Beard for the tip. Will blog more as soon as I can carefully read the opinion.

Related Posts (on one page):

What Now for the Question Whether the Second Amendment is Incorporated Against State and Local Governments?
Why the Gun Show Organizers Nonetheless Lost their Case,
Concurrence by Judge Gould (a Clinton Appointee) in the Second Amendment Incorporation Case:
Second Amendment Incorporated by Ninth Circuit Panel, in

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1240247034.shtml

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #315 on: April 20, 2009, 01:51:15 PM »
"The panel instead follows the Supreme Court's "selective incorporation" cases under the Due Process Clause, and concludes that the right to bear arms "ranks as fundamental, meaning 'necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.'"

 :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
An email I received
« Reply #316 on: April 23, 2009, 01:59:46 AM »
An email I received:
======================

Before Heller, and now Nordyke, numerous law review articles and other material debating what the Second Amendment means, the origins of it, collective right v. individual rights...were published.

But I haven't yet come across any scholarship discussing what types of arms would be necessary to preserve the second amendment's core purpose as discussed in Heller and Nordyke - Self Defense and Defense Against Tyranny.

Right now the cases are focusing on incorporation, getting it applicable to the states, but once that is successful...then what?

Eventually, an assault weapon ban case will be before the court.

It's easy to argue how your rights have been infringed upon when you can't even buy a gun, or you have to keep it in a condition that renders it useless...but it's a lot harder to sell a court on overturning an assault weapon ban.

A Court will ask, "Well, won't a revolver, a pistol or a shotgun do just as well to preserve your right to bear arms? Why do you need a weapon such as an AR-15/a 30 round magazine/other... to preserve your right to bear arms when other options are available to you under the law you are contesting?".

Has anything published from a constitutional law & tactical point of view on what kind of arms would be needed at a minimum to make rights under the second amendment anything more than dead letter?

If it has...someone let me know were I can get a copy...But, if it hasn't been done yet, Why not do it?

If no material exists for a court or future litigants to look at, something that addresses the issue from a trainer's prospective on the "minimum arms" needed to keep the right to bear arms from being relegated to uselessness, and to address how the case law in other areas such as reproductive freedom and privacy rights should apply to such arms...

Why not create it? Why not set the standard before a court starts to look for one?

Anybody interested?


« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 10:15:35 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Accidental discharges during crimes
« Reply #317 on: May 01, 2009, 08:58:39 AM »
From the 'Court Jesters' File: Accidental Shooting Ruling
The Supreme Court also ruled this week on a case involving a robbery during which the perpetrator accidentally fired his gun. He claimed that the automatic 10-year sentence for firing a weapon during a crime was too harsh for something that was an accident. The Court disagreed. Mandatory minimum sentences are another can of worms, but we agree with Chief Justice John Roberts, who pointed out that if criminals wanted to avoid the penalty for firing the gun, even by accident, they should "lock or unload the firearm, handle it with care during the underlying violent or drug trafficking crime, leave the gun at home or -- best yet -- avoid committing the felony in the first place."

Funnier still is the dissent, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Stephen Breyer, which said, "Accidents happen, but they seldom give rise to criminal liability. Indeed, if they cause no harm, they seldom give rise to any liability. The court today nevertheless holds that petitioner is subject to a mandatory additional sentence -- a species of criminal liability -- for an accident that caused no harm." Call us crazy for pointing it out, but these are two of the justices who dissented from last year's Heller ruling, which affirmed the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In other words, they are in the unusual position of defending a criminal who accidentally fired a weapon during a crime while maintaining that law-abiding citizens have no right to own a firearm.

PatriotPost

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Maybe they should look for them in Mexico , , ,
« Reply #318 on: May 01, 2009, 08:29:30 PM »
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...efolo0425.html

Phoenix police reported 11 of their own assault rifles missing this week based on the results of an audit which showed no trace of the weapons.

With 381 rifles deployed from precinct patrols to SWAT teams across Phoenix, police spokesmen downplayed the audit.  Four days after a detective filed a loss report, they said the weapons probably were stashed in a car trunk or locker somewhere and were simply misplaced, rather than out on the street.

"They were put into the (National Crime Information Center database) to ensure they don't get into the wrong hands," said Officer Luis Samudio.   A loss report detailed more than $7,000 in stolen weapons, according to Samudio.

Board members from the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association argued that the missing rifles reflected poorly on a department that prohibits its sworn officers from purchasing their own assault rifles for duty.  The list included a non-lethal training rifle and a Steyr-AUG rifle which sells for as much as $5,000, according to some estimates.

"If they were still conducting their audit and they felt confident they knew where they are, why would they enter them into NCIC as stolen?" said Ken Crane, a board member of the law-enforcement group. "They wouldn't have taken that step unless they exhausted all means to locate those rifles first."

Some major U.S. police departments allow private purchases to equip more officers with the high-powered weapons required in some situations.  Phoenix City Council approved the purchase of 80 more Bushmaster AR-15 rifles in March, allowing police to use more than $59,000 to secure the added firepower. However, it could take until this fall to phase the weapons into patrol because of manufacturer backlogs due to military orders.

This spring's order marked the first police rifle purchase since actor David Spade donated $100,000 in December to help buy more rifles.

Representatives of the law-enforcement group estimated that one in 10 Phoenix patrol officers have access to a rifle in field, with only 128 available to the patrol force of about 1,200 officers.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Why haven't your heard about this from Pravda?
« Reply #319 on: May 07, 2009, 11:21:02 AM »
College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader


COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.

“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.

“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.

Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Panama
« Reply #320 on: May 09, 2009, 03:11:05 PM »
PANAMA GUN LAWS

Introduction – This article is written for the Ex-Pat who has legally become a resident of the Republic of Panama and wishes to acquire a firearm. We will walk you through the process. Tourists can not acquire firearms in Panama. You must have a residency or be a Pensionado. You do not need to retain a lawyer to purchase a gun. If you have permission to buy the firearm you can carry it concealed on your person, in your pocket or purse, in your vehicle etc. Certain buildings have a firearms prohibited sign on the entrance and of course you should obey these signs. Banks, airports, government offices have such signs. So there are no concealed carry permits in Panama, if you can buy the gun lawfully you can carry it concealed. Exposed carry of the firearm is not allowed and will cause police attention fast.

Types of Guns in Panama – You can buy handguns (semi-auto handguns, revolvers), rifles and shotguns. You can have hi-capacity magazines in any type gun, no restrictions. You can not have full-auto firearms. You can have semi-auto rifles and handguns. You can not have a silencer. Guns are costly in Panama, figure 50% higher than North America on name brand guns like Ruger, Sig Sauer, Smith, Remington, etc. Gun dealers generally do not have a large inventory in Panama. Expect to see 10 or so rifles and shotguns in stock and perhaps as many handguns. Many of the guns will be cheapies from Argentina and Russia. The dealer can order you what you want but expect a wait of 2-3 months or more then add in the time for the permission to buy the gun to go through.

The Gun Buying Process in Panama – First you go to the gun store and prove to them you are eligible to buy a firearm by way of Residency, Pensionado, etc. Next you select a gun and pay for it. Then the gun store will have you go to the bathroom and pee in a cup which is a medical sample cup. Then you will be given a form to take to a government health office for a finger prick blood test – DNA sample. Plan on a wait to get your blood sample. Next the gun store sends the paperwork through the police system. It goes to three departments and can take 6-10 weeks to clear. When it is complete you get the gun. More than one gun can be bought at the same time. You also get a gun permit which is a folded piece of green cardboard paper which a photo on it. You can enter up to 10 guns on the permit. Panama does not limit amount of guns so if you earn more than 10 guns an additional listing page will be provided for the permit. The police will take ballistic sample of a fired round.

Sawed off Shotguns and Short Barreled Rifles – These are legal in Panama. They are not sold that way but can be modified by a gunsmith to suit. Pistol grip shotguns with no shoulder stock are generally available in the stores with an 18” barrel and a large magazine underneath. Double barrel shotguns are available and of course can easily be shortened by a gunsmith; you could even add a choke so the short barrel groups tight. Short barrel rifles can also be created by a gunsmith but the purpose of this is hard to determine other than slightly reducing the barrel length on an assault rifle but in any event it is lawful. I guess some want to do it because they could not do so in their home country?

Ammo- No armor piercing ammo allowed. Hollow points, high speed light weight defensive rounds etc. are fine.

Firearm Importation into Panama – This is possible. Generally this appeals to Americans since they seem to have lots of firearms. You go to a gun store and get their assistance. You apply for an importation permit which is something like the same process for a purchase if you do not already have a permit. It is easier if you have a permit. Then you get permission to import the weapon into Panama. There can be problems and restrictions shipping a firearm from other countries like the USA which require the services of a licensed gun dealer able to export. You would Fed Ex the unloaded gun with paperwork from USA and Panama to Panama. Then you would hope for the best and that things sort themselves out before the gun rusts out in some non-climate controlled government warehouse somewhere. You will be required to pay an import duty which can be steep. A customs broker would be best source for costs on this, we do not know but a guess would be 50% of the value – is it new or used, etc. We are a law firm not a customs broker. If you have a question about bringing in some rare special gun like a Browning Safari Grade Rifle or a Heckler and Koch squeeze cocker handgun we really have no idea what the taxes will be. First become eligible for buy a gun and then retain a customs broker. Suggestion: Skip the importation process, buy a gun in Panama.

Ranges – There are an ample amount of indoor handgun ranges and outdoor ranges. No worries.

Knives – You can carry concealed knives. Do not carry an exposed sheath knife in the city – asking for trouble from the police. There are no blade size restrictions. You can carry butterfly knives, automatic knifes, gravity or flick knives, out the front knives, double edge folders (carry Band-Aids) whatever kind of knife. Most of the available knives are the cheapos, sometime you see a medium grade product like a Smith and Wesson knife. Bring your good knives with you, not in carry on. Do not take knives into government buildings, airports, banks and other restricted places. It will come up on the metal detector.

Pepper Spray – Readily available small canisters. No permits needed. Decent quality, not gourmet pepper spray but effective enough.

Swords, Tonfas, Batons, Billy Clubs, Staffs, Nunchukas – All readily available and not restricted.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Guns 'n AGW
« Reply #321 on: May 11, 2009, 01:20:29 PM »
Could be filed several places:

 
On guns and climate, the elites are out of touch

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
05/10/09 10:05 PM EDT


On issues like global warming and gun control, the political elite does not see eye-to-eye with the American public. (Photos by Photos.com)
--
Many years ago political scientists came up with a theory that elites lead public opinion. And on some issues they clearly do. But on some issues they don’t. Two examples of the latter phenomenon are conspicuous at a time when Barack Obama enjoys the approval of more than 60 percent of Americans and Democrats have won thumping majorities in two elections in a row. One is global warming.

The other is gun control. On both issues, the elites of academe, the media and big business have been solidly on one side for years. But on both, the American public has been moving in the other direction.

Over the last decade, the Gallup organization has been asking Americans whether the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated or generally correct. From 1998 to 2007, except for the runup to the 2004 election, they said it was generally serious by roughly a 2-1 margin — 66 to 30 percent in 2006, for example. But in March 2009, that margin slipped to only 57 to 41 percent, with two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of independents saying concern is exaggerated.

Similarly, last month pollster Scott Rasmussen found that only 34 percent believe that global warming is caused by human activity, while 48 percent said it was caused by long-term planetary trends. That’s almost exactly the opposite of what he found 12 months before — 47 to 34 percent the other way around. However, 48 percent of the group Rasmussen calls the Political Class — in other words, the elite — continues to believe global warming is man-made.

On guns, Gallup has been testing opinion for many years on one extreme proposal that is the goal, usually unstated, of many gun control advocates: banning the possession of handguns. Support was 60 percent in 1960 and 49 percent in 1965. It was as high as 43 percent in the early 1990s, before the Clinton Congress passed the so-called assault weapon ban. In March 2007 it had fallen to 29 percent — a minority, almost a fringe position. In the early 1990s Gallup found that Americans by a 2-1 margin favored stricter gun sale laws over less strict ones or keeping them the same. By fall 2008 they were evenly split.

Some of these shifts in opinion may be responses to events that liberal elites have not deigned to notice. Forty of the 50 states now have concealed weapons laws that allow law-abiding citizens to get permits to carry guns. Gun controllers predicted these would result in traffic shootouts and general mayhem. They haven’t. It turns out that criminals are deterred from attacks less by gun control laws than by the possibility that their intended victims may be armed. As for global warming, many Americans may have noticed that temperatures actually haven’t been rising over the last decade as global warming alarmists predicted. The elites are able to hire armed security guards and jet off on private jets, so they are less likely to notice these things.

I think there’s something else at work here. For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith. We have sinned (by hoarding guns or driving sport utility vehicles), we must atone (by turning in our guns or recycling), we must repent (by supporting gun control or cap-and-trade schemes). You may notice that the “we” in question is usually the great mass of ordinary American citizens.

The liberal elite is less interested in giving up its luxuries (Al Gore purchases carbon offsets to compensate for his huge mansion and private jet travel) than in changing the lifestyles of the masses who selfishly insist on living in suburbs and keeping guns for recreation or protection. Ordinary Americans are seen not as responsible fellow citizens building stable communities but as greedy masses who must be disciplined to live according to the elite’s religious dogmas.

It should not be completely surprising that, over time, these views have become less congenial to the masses who are the object of such condescension. Democratic officeholders who must live by the discipline of the ballot have noticed. Party leaders did not press to re-enact the assault weapons ban when it expired and are currently flummoxed by their backbenchers who are resisting a cap-and-trade bill that will impose huge costs on those who use electricity. Elites may lead, but Americans do not always follow.

 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/On-guns-and-climate-the-elites-are-out-of-touch-44616257.html
 

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
9th Circuit Rules Again!
« Reply #322 on: May 11, 2009, 03:23:13 PM »
Second post. The 9th Circuit again finds in favor of firearm rights:

[Eugene Volokh, May 11, 2009 at 4:43pm] Trackbacks
Ninth Circuit Panel Applies and Upholds the Federal Statute Preempting Various Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers, in Ileto v. Glock, Inc. (just handed down today). I might not have time to say much about this, but I thought I'd give the pointer, and note that the opinion was by Judge Graber joined by Judge Reinhardt, with a partial concurrence and partial dissent by Judge Berzon. For more on the underlying tort theory, which the Ninth Circuit accepted before Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, see the four posts that begin here.
Note that the panel did hold that the Act doesn't apply to one of the defendants, a foreign manufacturer that isn't "licensed to engage in business as such a manufacturer under [federal law]," to quote the Act; but while there was some argument about that, the result seems to be pretty clearly correct. Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_10-2009_05_16.shtml#1242074620

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/06-56872.pdf

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Next One the SCOTUS Considers?
« Reply #323 on: June 10, 2009, 12:53:05 PM »
A new Second Amendment case
Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 4:55 pm | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!

Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., attorney who won the historic Supreme Court ruling last year establishing a personal right to have a gun for self-defense at home, started a new challenge in the Supreme Court Tuesday.  It seeks to have the Second Amendment right enforced against state, county and city gun control laws. The petition in McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, can be downloaded here. (A docket number has not yet been assigned.)

Last week, the National Rifle Association filed a separate appeal raising the same issue (NRA, et al., v. City of Chicago, docket 08-1497). It is doubtful that the Court will consider the two new cases before recessing for the summer, probably late this month.

The McDonald petition involves four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, all challenging a handgun ban in Chicago.  Their petition said the ban is identical to one struck down by the Supreme Court in its Second Amendment ruling last June in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

The Heller decision, however, applied only to laws enacted by Congress or for the federal capital in Washington.  The Court expressly left open the question of whether individuals would have the same right against state and local government gun restrictions.

Arguing that the Second Amendment right is a “fundamental” one, the new petition said that means that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that such rights “may not be violated by any form of government throughout the United States.  Accordingly, Chicago’s handgun ban must meet the same fate as that which befell the District of Columbia’s former law.”

Part of their argument is that the Justices should step in now to resolve a dispute among federal appeals courts and state supreme courts on whether the Second Amendment is absorbed (technically, “incorporated”) into the Fourteenth Amendment — a part of the Constitution that operates against state and local government.

The question posed to the Court is whether the incorporation is accomplished under either the “privileges or immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or under its “due process” clause.  The petition urges the Court to use this case as an opportunity to reexamine the meaning of the “privileges and immunities” provision, which it noted was given an “almost meaningless construction” by the Court’s controversial decision in the Slaughter- House Cases in 1873.

The split of authority in lower courts “warrants speedy resolution, as it perpetuates the deprivation of fundamental rights among a large portion of the population,” it said. It would serve no purpose to let this conflict go on, the petition contended.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/a-new-second-amendment-case/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
The second, the fourteenth, & incorporation
« Reply #324 on: June 10, 2009, 01:10:13 PM »
See entry #16 for a fascinating piece on these issues:

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1850.0

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Pigs fly; LA Times supports incorporating the 2d!
« Reply #325 on: June 10, 2009, 02:40:59 PM »

A legal shootout over the right to own a gun

Conflicting court opinions gun may result in linking the 2nd Amendment with the 14th.

June 10, 2009

Two federal appeals court opinions -- one signed by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor -- have created a quandary for those who cherish the protections of the Bill of Rights and also believe in meaningful gun control. But the way out of the dilemma is not to urge the high court to pick and choose which constitutional rights are protected against state and local laws.

Among the charges leveled by some conservatives against Sotomayor is that she has been insufficiently protective of the 2nd Amendment, which says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Exhibit A was the judge's role in a decision by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the constitutionality of a New York state law banning the possession of nunchucks.

Sotomayor and two other judges ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the federal government, a long-standing view that the Supreme Court didn't address when it struck down a gun control law in Washington, D.C., last year. In legal jargon, the high court hasn't explicitly "incorporated” the 2nd Amendment in the 14th Amendment, which protects "liberty" against state interference. Other amendments long have been incorporated, making it possible to sue the states for violating many of the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Using the 2nd Circuit decision to portray Sotomayor as an opponent of gun rights became harder last week when two of the nation's most prominent conservative judges issued an opinion espousing the same view. The opinion for a three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, a President Reagan appointee. The justices may soon address the incorporation question in order to resolve a conflict between the position taken by the 2nd and 7th circuits and the opposite view adopted by the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It's tempting for supporters of gun control -- including this page -- to hope that the high court will rule that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. That would be a mistake and would give aid and comfort to conservative legal thinkers, among them Justice Clarence Thomas, who have questioned the incorporation doctrine.

We were disappointed last year when the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, giving short shrift to the first part of the amendment, which refers to "a well-regulated militia." But we also believe the court has been right to use the doctrine of incorporation to bind states to the most important protections of the Bill of Rights. If those vital provisions are to be incorporated in the 14th Amendment, so should the right to keep and bear arms.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
BO seeks to end run second via treaty
« Reply #326 on: June 12, 2009, 01:30:04 AM »
and inform foreign govts of US gun owners to boot!

http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/blog/?p=594

sgtmac_46

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #327 on: June 14, 2009, 03:58:45 PM »
The good news is that blue helmets and berets make good targets.

Freki

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People/movement to try and ban our pocket knives
« Reply #328 on: June 15, 2009, 05:36:07 AM »
 
If Knives Are Outlawed…Customs And Border Protection Proposal Could Ban Many Pocketknives
 
Friday, June 12, 2009
 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a proposed rule change that directly targets the importation of "assisted opening" folding knives.  (Read the proposed rule here.) The proposed regulations would designate all these knives as "switchblades" (despite the fact they do not fall under the federal definition of "switchblades"), and would make them illegal for import into the United States. 
The proposed rule could affect all knives that can be opened with one hand, because it also includes changes in the interpretation of "gravity and inertia" opening knives in a way that could outlaw all knives that can be opened with a single hand. This means the new regulation could ban the importation of most of the pocketknives that are now in popular use. 

And it could have a far greater impact.  The American Knife and Tool Institute and Knife Rights, Inc. have both reviewed the proposed new regulations and are very concerned that the impact will be far greater than just a ban on the importation of assisted opening knives.  If the new regulations also affect the broader category of single-handed opening knives, it could make millions of knives illegal for import.  More importantly, many local jurisdictions and some states depend on the definitions used by the CBP.  These changes could make hundreds of millions of knives now in regular use, illegal.  And, of course, millions of hunters use and rely on their knives and would be adversely affected by this proposed regulation.

CBP is attempting to expedite this rulemaking and is only keeping comments open until June 21, 2009.  The American Knife and Tool Institute and Knife Rights, Inc. are leading the charge against the.  For more information and to make your voice heard in opposition to these new regulations, please go to: http://www.kniferights.org/index and http://www.akti.org/.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4972

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Incorporation Speculation
« Reply #329 on: June 18, 2009, 11:32:09 AM »
Will Second Amendment Be Incorporated Through Citizenship Clause?
Posted Jun 17, 2009, 06:49 am CDT   
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Federal appeals courts hearing gun rights cases after the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling last year in District of Columbia v. Heller are confronting an old issue: whether the amendment applies to restrict state and local laws under the incorporation doctrine.

Heller found that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave. New suits challenging state and local laws have resulted in a split. Two federal appeals courts refused to apply the Second Amendment to local laws without express Supreme Court authorization. A third disagreed.

University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson told the New York Times that the case could present a dilemma for some conservative justices who scoffed at incorporation arguments in the past. Because of the touchy issues, he says he would be surprised if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear new cases on the issue.

Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar told the Times that incorporation fell out of favor after the 1960s, but it’s being resurrected by liberal scholars. Most of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states under liberal Warren Court rulings that found the 14th Amendment required incorporation. One exception is the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, which has not been applied to the states.

“The precedents are now supportive of incorporation of nearly every provision of the Bill of Rights,” Amar told the Times. “Now what’s odd is that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states.”

He believes the justices will support incorporation. A post at the Volokh Conspiracy after the Heller ruling cited evidence that Justice Antonin Scalia may be on board.

Scalia’s Heller opinion highlights the importance to the newly freed slaves of the right to keep and bear arms in the home—the kind of evidence used to support incorporation. One Scalia passage hints that he believes the amendment could be incorporated through the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, rather than due process safeguards, says the Volokh Conspiracy writer, University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/will_second_amendment_be_incorporated_through_citizenship_clause

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
23 State Attorney Generals
« Reply #330 on: June 18, 2009, 01:44:27 PM »
BBG:

EXCELLENT find!  I am spreading it around.

======================

Here's this:

23 State Attorneys General To Attorney General Holder: "No Semi-Auto Ban"

Friday, June 12, 2009

On June 11, the top law enforcement officials of nearly half the states signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing their opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

"We share the Obama Administration's commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans' access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems," the letter said.

The letter notes congressional opposition to bringing back the ban, and calls for increasing enforcement of existing laws.

We encourage NRA members to let these state officials know we appreciate them standing up to the incessant clamor for gun control that is currently coming from anti-gun groups and their media allies.

The 23 state Attorneys General, in alphabetical order, by state, are:

Arkansas – The Honorable Dustin McDaniel
Alabama - The Honorable Troy King
Colorado - The Honorable John W. Suthers
Florida - The Honorable Bill McCollum
Georgia - The Honorable Thurbert E. Baker
Idaho - The Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden
Kansas - The Honorable Steve Six
Kentucky - The Honorable Jack Conway
Louisiana - The Honorable James D. Caldwell
Michigan - The Honorable Mike Cox
Missouri - The Honorable Chris Koster
Montana - The Honorable Steve Bullock
Oklahoma - The Honorable W.A. Edmonson
Nebraska - The Honorable Jon Bruning
Nevada - The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto
New Hampshire - The Honorable Kelly A. Ayotte
North Dakota - The Honorable Wayne Stenehjem
South Carolina - The Honorable Henry McMaster
South Dakota - The Honorable Lawrence Long
Texas - The Honorable Greg Abbott
Utah - The Honorable Mark L. Shurtleff
Wisconsin – The Honorable J.B. Van Hollen
Wyoming - The Honorable Bruce A. Salzburg



To read the letter in its entirety, please click here.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Ammo control begins in CA
« Reply #331 on: June 19, 2009, 01:43:13 PM »
Commencing July 1, 2010, it will be illegal for anyone in CA to privatley transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition....



quote:
(3) Commencing July 1, 2010, a vendor shall not sell or otherwise
transfer ownership of any handgun ammunition without at the time of
delivery legibly recording the following information on a form that
is in a format to be prescribed by the department:
(A) The date of the sale or other transaction.
(B) The purchaser's or transferee's driver's license or other
identification number and the state in which it was issued.
(C) The brand, type, and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise
transferred.
(D) The purchaser's or transferee's signature.
(E) The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other
transaction.
(F) The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee on the
above form.
(G) The purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and
telephone number.
(H) The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth.




http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...amended_asm_v98.html

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #332 on: June 19, 2009, 02:06:21 PM »
I presume "private" covers retail sales? Any clue how it impacts reloading?

I don't envy you denizens of the People's Republic of Kalifornia. I blow through at least a hundred rounds per practice session; guess you all will now have to stand in line twice to make that nut?

Freki

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #333 on: June 19, 2009, 03:14:17 PM »
It is a sad state of affairs indeed!  Time for the citizens of California to vote, either in an election to stop this madness or with their feet. :-o :cry:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
No guns for negroes
« Reply #334 on: June 26, 2009, 10:35:09 AM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
They the Unarmed People
« Reply #335 on: July 01, 2009, 08:53:06 PM »
Don't expect to see the implications of this article in the MSM any time soon.


The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By JAMES SLACK
Last updated at 3:24 AM on 02nd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it is revealed today.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

Britain even has a worse violence rate than South Africa, where violent clashes last year in Johannesburg resulted in a man being set alight

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.


 
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

'We're now on our fourth Home Secretary this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction.'

The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available.

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.

But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. That is why last year we published 'Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public. An Action Plan for Tackling Violence 2008-11'.'

The timing of the Europe-wide violence figures is a blow for Mr Johnson, who will today seek to reassert Labour's law and order credentials.

In his first major speech on crime since becoming Home Secretary, Mr Johnson is expected to promise a concerted crack down on antisocial behaviour.

He wants to set up a website to allow the public to see what is taking place in their neighbourhood, such as the number of louts who have been served with Asbos.

Mr Johnson is also known to support early intervention to stop children going off the rails.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
WSJ: Bring an apple instead
« Reply #336 on: July 08, 2009, 08:04:54 AM »
By ALEX ROTH and ANSLEY HAMAN
Gun-rights advocates have won victories in several states in recent months allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public parks, taverns and their work places.

So it came as a surprise to Tennessee state Rep. Stacey Campfield that he couldn't persuade his colleagues to pass a law allowing students at public colleges to carry concealed firearms on campus. The bill died this spring in the Republican-controlled legislature -- one of 34 straight defeats nationwide for people who believe a gun wouldn't be out of place in a college student's knapsack.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
The shooting at Virginia Tech, where students observed its April 15 anniversary, mobilized supporters and opponents of campus-carry laws.
Raucous debates over the parameters of the Second Amendment have become a staple of the culture wars. But even on an issue as divisive as gun control, states may be nearing something resembling a national consensus: Guns don't belong in a college classroom.

In the two years since a Virginia Tech student shot and killed 32 students and professors, gun-rights advocates have failed to pass laws even in states strongly supportive of gun owners' rights, including Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Mississippi and Kentucky. In June, a bill died in the Texas legislature in the face of criticism from college administrators and student groups, who invoked the specter of students toting loaded weapons to booze-soaked campus parties.

Gun-control advocates tout what they label an unprecedented winning streak, noting that it comes at a time when even many Democrats are wary of alienating U.S. gun owners.

Proponents of the bills are pressing on, arguing that passing such laws could help prevent the next Virginia Tech-style massacre. Mr. Campfield said he intends to reintroduce his bill in the next Tennessee legislative session. His state, which had 6.21 million residents in 2008, has approved the sale of more than 2.6 million firearms and issued more than 231,000 handgun carry permits, according to state records. The bill is "coming back stronger next year," Mr. Campfield said.

Some gun-rights advocates predict Texas will eventually provide their first victory, saying the legislature had the votes to pass the bill but simply ran out of time. "If Texas were to pass it, we predict that it would catch on in other states," said Katie Kasprzak, director of public relations for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

Only Utah expressly allows students at public universities to carry guns to class. The state passed such a law in 2004, before the Virginia Tech killings. Several states leave the decision up to schools. But only two schools in those states -- Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia and Colorado State University -- allow students to carry guns to class.

The push for legislation began in the immediate aftermath of the Virginia Tech killings. Ken Stanton, an engineering student there, helped found the first local chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, arguing it would allow students to defend themselves and prevent massacres from taking place. Within a year of the shooting, bills to expand the firearms-carrying rights of college students had been introduced in more than a dozen states.

But if the Virginia Tech shootings helped mobilize supporters of guns on campus, it also helped mobilize opponents. And some of the most vocal have been either victims of the shootings or people who lost loved ones.

Colin Goddard, a 21-year-old junior at the time, was shot four times in a classroom where his teacher and 11 fellow students were killed. Not long afterward, Mr. Goddard began speaking out against guns on campus, and he is now an intern at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

Like other critics of these proposed bills, including many police departments, Mr. Goddard argues that a proliferation of firearms would simply add to the chaos during a shooting spree, making it impossible for police to distinguish between good guys and bad. He also says events unfolded at such a lighting pace during the shootings that even an armed student would have been powerless to prevent them.

"There were students dead in their chairs -- it happened that quick," he said. "I was shot before I really even knew what was going on."

Another former Virginia Tech student, John Woods, whose girlfriend was killed in the shootings, helped lead the fight this spring against the bill in Texas, where he is now a graduate student at the University of Texas.

In some states, legislators with strong gun-rights voting records have found themselves opposing these bills. This spring, Louisiana state Rep. Hollis Downs was one of 86 members of the Louisiana House to vote against allowing students with concealed-weapons permits to bring their guns onto the state's public campuses. The bill was defeated 86-18.

"I thought that the last thing that law enforcement needed was the fraternity militia to charge the building [in a shooting] with all guns blazing," said Mr. Downs, a Republican whose district includes Louisiana Tech University.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Mex-US arms trade
« Reply #337 on: July 09, 2009, 08:19:05 AM »
Also posted in the Mexico-US thread:

Mexico: Economics and the Arms Trade
July 9, 2009




By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton

On June 26, the small Mexican town of Apaseo el Alto, in Guanajuato state, was the scene of a deadly firefight between members of Los Zetas and federal and local security forces. The engagement began when a joint patrol of Mexican soldiers and police officers responded to a report of heavily armed men at a suspected drug safe house. When the patrol arrived, a 20-minute firefight erupted between the security forces and gunmen in the house as well as several suspects in two vehicles who threw fragmentation grenades as they tried to escape.

Related Special Topic Page
Tracking Mexico’s Drug Cartels
When the shooting ended, 12 gunmen lay dead, 12 had been taken into custody and several soldiers and police officers had been wounded. At least half of the detained suspects admitted to being members of Los Zetas, a highly trained Mexican cartel group known for its use of military weapons and tactics.

When authorities examined the safe house they discovered a mass grave that contained the remains of an undetermined number of people (perhaps 14 or 15) who are believed to have been executed and then burned beyond recognition by Los Zetas. The house also contained a large cache of weapons, including assault rifles and fragmentation grenades. Such military ordnance is frequently used by Los Zetas and the enforcers who work for their rival cartels.

STRATFOR has been closely following the cartel violence in Mexico for several years now, and the events that transpired in Apaseo el Alto are by no means unique. It is not uncommon for the Mexican authorities to engage in large firefights with cartel groups, encounter mass graves or recover large caches of arms. However, the recovery of the weapons in Apaseo el Alto does provide an opportunity to once again focus on the dynamics of Mexico’s arms trade.

White, Black and Shades of Gray
Before we get down into the weeds of Mexico’s arms trade, let’s do something a little different and first take a brief look at how arms trafficking works on a regional and global scale. Doing so will help illustrate how arms trafficking in Mexico fits into these broader patterns.

When analysts examine arms sales they look at three general categories: the white arms market, the gray arms market and the black arms market. The white arms market is the legal, aboveboard transfer of weapons in accordance with the national laws of the parties involved and international treaties or restrictions. The parties in a white arms deal will file the proper paperwork, including end-user certificates, noting what is being sold, who is selling it and to whom it is being sold. There is an understanding that the receiving party does not intend to transfer the weapons to a third party. So, for example, if the Mexican army wants to buy assault rifles from German arms maker Heckler & Koch, it places the order with the company and fills out all the required paperwork, including forms for obtaining permission for the sale from the German government.

Now, the white arms market can be deceived and manipulated, and when this happens, we get the gray market — literally, white arms that are shifted into the hands of someone other than the purported recipient. One of the classic ways to do this is to either falsify an end-user certificate, or bribe an official in a third country to sign an end-user certificate but then allow a shipment of arms to pass through a country en route to a third location. This type of transaction is frequently used in cases where there are international arms embargoes against a particular country (like Liberia) or where it is illegal to sell arms to a militant group (such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known by its Spanish acronym, FARC). One example of this would be Ukrainian small arms that, on paper, were supposed to go to Cote d’Ivoire but were really transferred in violation of U.N. arms embargoes to Liberia and Sierra Leone. Another example of this would be the government of Peru purchasing thousands of surplus East German assault rifles from Jordan on the white arms market, ostensibly for the Peruvian military, only to have those rifles slip into the gray arms world and be dropped at airstrips in the jungles of Colombia for use by the FARC.

At the far end of the spectrum is the black arms market where the guns are contraband from the get-go and all the business is conducted under the table. There are no end-user certificates and the weapons are smuggled covertly. Examples of this would be the smuggling of arms from the former Soviet Union (FSU) and Afghanistan into Europe through places like Kosovo and Slovenia, or the smuggling of arms into South America from Asia, the FSU and Middle East by Hezbollah and criminal gangs in the Tri-Border Region.

Nation-states will often use the gray and black arms markets in order to deniably support allies, undermine opponents or otherwise pursue their national interests. This was clearly revealed in the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s, but Iran-Contra only scratched the surface of the arms smuggling that occurred during the Cold War. Untold tons of military ordnance were delivered by the United States, the Soviet Union and Cuba to their respective allies in Latin America during the Cold War.

This quantity of materiel shipped into Latin America during the Cold War brings up another very important point pertaining to weapons. Unlike drugs, which are consumable goods, firearms are durable goods. This means that they can be useful for decades and are frequently shipped from conflict zone to conflict zone. East German MPiKMS and MPiKM assault rifles are still floating around the world’s arms markets years after the German Democratic Republic ceased to exist. In fact, visiting an arms bazaar in a place like Yemen is like visiting an arms museum. One can encounter century-old, still-functional Lee-Enfield and Springfield rifles in a rack next to a modern U.S. M4 rifle or German HK93, and those next to brand-new Chinese Type 56 and 81 assault rifles.

There is often a correlation between arms and drug smuggling. In many instances, the same routes used to smuggle drugs are also used to smuggle arms. In some instances, like the smuggling routes from Central Asia to Europe, the flow of guns and drugs goes in the same direction, and they are both sold in Western Europe for cash. In the case of Latin American cocaine, the drugs tend to flow in one direction (toward the United States and Europe) while guns from U.S. and Russian organized-crime groups flow in the other direction, and often these guns are used as whole or partial payment for the drugs.

Illegal drugs are not the only thing traded for guns. During the Cold War, a robust arms-for-sugar trade transpired between the Cubans and Vietnamese. As a result, Marxist groups all over Latin America were furnished with U.S. materiel either captured or left behind when the Americans withdrew from Vietnam. LAW rockets traced to U.S. military stocks sent to Vietnam were used in several attacks by Latin American Marxist groups. These Vietnam War-vintage weapons still crop up with some frequency in Mexico, Colombia and other parts of the region. Cold War-era weapons furnished to the likes of the Contras, Sandinistas, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front and Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity movement in the 1980s are also frequently encountered in the region.

After the civil wars ended in places like El Salvador and Guatemala, the governments and the international community attempted to institute arms buy-back programs, but those programs were not very successful and most of the guns turned in were very old — the better arms were cached by groups or kept by individuals. Some of these guns have dribbled back into the black arms market, and Central and South America are still awash in Cold War weapons.

But Cold War shipments are not the only reason that Latin America is flooded with guns. In addition to the indigenous arms industries in countries like Brazil and Argentina, Venezuela has purchased hundreds of thousands of AK assault rifles in recent years to replace its aging FN-FAL rifles and has even purchased the equipment to open a factory to produce AK-103 rifles under license inside Venezuela. The Colombian government has accused the Venezuelans of arming the FARC, and evidence obtained by the Colombians during raids on FARC camps and provided to the public appears to support those assertions.

More than 90 Percent?
For several years now, Mexican officials have been making public statements that more than 90 percent of the arms used by criminals in Mexico come from the United States. That number was echoed last month in a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).

External Link
GAO report on arms trafficking to Mexico
(STRATFOR is not responsible for the content of other Web sites.)
According to the report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican officials in 2008. Out of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them, (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure comes from the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by the Mexicans or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. The 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing.

In a response to the GAO report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrote a letter to the GAO (published as an appendix to the report) calling the GAO’s use of the 87 percent statistic “misleading.” The DHS further noted, “Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.”

Trying to get a reliable idea about where the drug cartels are getting their weapons can be difficult because the statistics on firearms seized in Mexico are very confusing. For example, while the GAO report says that 30,000 guns were seized in 2008 alone, the Mexican Prosecutor General’s office has reported that between Dec. 1, 2005, and Jan. 22, 2009, Mexican authorities seized 31,512 weapons from the cartels.

Furthermore, it is not prudent to rely exclusively on weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing as a representative sample of the overall Mexican arms market. This is because there are some classes of weapons, such as RPG-7s and South Korean hand grenades, which make very little sense for the Mexicans to pass to the ATF for tracing since they obviously are not from the United States. The ATF is limited in its ability to trace weapons that did not pass through the United States, though there are offices at the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency that maintain extensive international arms-trafficking databases.

Mexican authorities are also unlikely to ask the ATF to trace weapons that can be tracked through the Mexican government’s own databases such as the one maintained by the Mexican Defense Department’s Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM), which is the only outlet through which Mexican citizens can legally buy guns. If they can trace a gun through UCAM there is simply no need to submit it to ATF.

The United States has criticized Mexico for decades over its inability to stop the flow of narcotics into U.S. territory, and for the past several years Mexico has responded by blaming the guns coming from the United States for its inability to stop the drug trafficking. In this context, there is a lot of incentive for the Mexicans to politicize and play up the issue of guns coming from the United States, and north of the border there are U.S. gun-control advocates who have a vested interest in adding fuel to the fire and gun-rights advocates who have an interest in playing down the number.

Clearly, the issue of U.S. guns being sent south of the border is a serious one, but STRATFOR does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that 90 percent (or more) of the cartels’ weaponry comes from the United States. The data at present is inclusive — the 90 percent figure appears to be a subsample of a sample, so that number cannot be applied with confidence to the entire country. Indeed, the percentage of U.S. arms appears to be far lower than 90 percent in specific classes of arms such as fully automatic assault rifles, machine guns, rifle grenades, fragmentation grenades and RPG-7s. Even items such as the handful of U.S.-manufactured LAW rockets encountered in Mexico have come from third countries and not directly from the United States.

However, while the 90 percent figure appears to be unsubstantiated by documentable evidence, this fact does not necessarily prove that the converse is true, even if it may be a logical conclusion. The bottom line is that, until there is a comprehensive, scientific study conducted on the arms seized by the Mexican authorities, much will be left to conjecture, and it will be very difficult to determine exactly how many of the cartels’ weapons have come from the United States, and to map out precisely how the black, white and gray arms markets have interacted to bring weapons to Mexico and Mexican cartels.

More research needs to be done on both sides of the border in order to understand this important issue.

Four Trends
In spite of the historical ambiguity, there are four trends that are likely to shape the future flow of arms into Mexico. The first of these is militarization. Since 2006 there has been a steady trend toward the use of heavy military ordnance by the cartels. This process was begun in earnest when the Gulf Cartel first recruited Los Zetas, but in order to counter Los Zetas, all the other cartels have had to recruit and train hard-core enforcer units and outfit them with similar weaponry. Prior to 2007, attacks involving fragmentation hand grenades, 40 mm grenades and RPGs were somewhat rare and immediately attracted a lot of attention. Such incidents are now quite common, and it is not unusual to see firefights like the June 26 incident in Apaseo el Alto in which dozens of grenades are employed.

Another trend in recent years has been the steady movement of Mexican cartels south into Central and South America. As noted above, the region is awash in guns, and the growing presence of Mexican cartel members puts them in contact with people who have access to Cold War weapons, international arms merchants doing business with groups like the FARC and corrupt officials who can obtain weapons from military sources in the region. We have already seen seizures of weapons coming into Mexico from the south. One notable seizure occurred in March 2009, when Guatemalan authorities raided a training camp in northern Guatemala near the Mexican border that they claim belonged to Los Zetas. In the raid they recovered 563 40 mm grenades and 11 M60 machine guns that had been stolen from the Guatemalan military and sold to Los Zetas.

The third trend is the current firearm and ammunition market in the United States. Since the election of Barack Obama, arms sales have gone through the roof due to fears (so far unfounded) that the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress will attempt to restrict or ban certain weapons. Additionally, ammunition companies are busy filling military orders for the U.S. war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. As anyone who has attempted to buy an assault rifle (or even a brick of .22 cartridges) will tell you, it is no longer cheap or easy to buy guns and ammunition. In fact, due to this surge in demand, it is downright difficult to locate many types of assault rifles and certain calibers of ammunition, though a lucky buyer might be able to find a basic stripped-down AR-15 for $850 to $1,100, or a semiautomatic AK-47 for $650 to $850. Of course, such a gun purchased in the United States and smuggled into Mexico will be sold to the cartels at a hefty premium above the purchase price.

By way of comparison, in places where weapons are abundant, such as Yemen, a surplus fully automatic assault rifle can be purchased for under $100 on the white arms market and for about the same price on the black arms market. This difference in price provides a powerful economic incentive to buy low elsewhere and sell high in Mexico, as does the inability to get certain classes of weapons such as RPGs and fragmentation grenades in the United States. Indeed, we have seen reports of international arms merchants from places like Israel and Belgium selling weapons to the cartels and bringing that ordnance into Mexico through routes other than over the U.S. border. Additionally, in South America, a number of arms smugglers, including Hezbollah and Russian organized-crime groups, have made a considerable amount of money supplying arms to groups in the region like the FARC.

The fourth trend is the increasing effort by the U.S. government to stanch the flow of weapons from the United States into Mexico. A recent increase in the number of ATF special agents and inspectors pursuing gun dealers who knowingly sell to the cartels or straw-purchase buyers who obtain guns from honest dealers is going to increase the chances of such individuals being caught. This stepped-up enforcement will have an impact as the risk of being caught illegally buying or smuggling guns begins to outweigh the profit that can be made by selling guns to the cartels. We believe that these two factors — supply problems and enforcement — will work together to help reduce the flow of U.S. guns to Mexico.

While there has been a long and well-documented history of arms smuggling across the U.S.-Mexican border, it is important to recognize that, while the United States is a significant source of certain classes of weapons, it is by no means the only source of illegal weapons in Mexico. As STRATFOR has previously noted, even if it were possible to hermetically seal the U.S.-Mexican border, the Mexican cartels would still be able to obtain weapons from non-U.S. sources (just as drugs would continue to flow into the United States). The law of supply and demand will ensure that the Mexican cartels will get their ordnance, but it is highly likely that an increasing percentage of that supply will begin to come from outside the United States via the gray and black arms markets.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
"There Will be Blood on the Streets"
« Reply #338 on: July 26, 2009, 05:26:32 PM »
Fears of Interstate Handgun Laws Soon Forgotten?
Just like the original ruckus over passing concealed handgun laws, the fears about allowing people to travel with guns will soon be forgotten.
 

Wednesday morning the US Senate voted on whether to allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry handguns across state lines.  The legislation sponsored by Senator John Thune (R, SD) would only allow reciprocity in permitting, as anybody would still be required to obey the laws of the states that they travel in.  This is the same way driver's licenses work.

Yet, gun control advocates are predicting the worst. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) warns it is an "attempt by the gun lobby to put its radical agenda ahead of safety and security in our communities." Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) calls it a "harmful measure" that will put the public at risk.  Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) says: "It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most all parts of America."

The claims echo those made when concealed-handgun laws were originally passed, when gun control advocates warned that permit holders would lose their tempers and there would be blood in the streets.

Obviously that never happened. We now have extensive experience with concealed-handgun permit holders. In 2007, about 5 million Americans were permitted to carry concealed handguns across 48 states that let citizens carry.  39 of these states have relatively liberal right-to-carry laws that let people get permits once they pass a criminal background check, pay a fee, and in many states receive training

Take Florida, for example. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and March 31, 2009, Florida issued permits to 1,480,704 people, many of whom renewed their permits multiple times. Only 166 had their permits revoked for a firearms-related violation - about 0.01 percent.

Similarly in Texas, in 2006, there were 258,162 active permit holders.  Out of these, one hundred forty were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of .05 percent.  That is about one-seventh the conviction rate in the general adult population, and the convictions among permit holders tend to be for much less serious offenses. The most frequent type of revocation, with 33 cases, involved carrying a weapon without their license with them.

The same pattern occurs in state after state.  Permit holders lose their permits at hundredths or thousands of one percent for any type of gun related violations, and even then they are usually for relatively trivial offenses.

Gun control groups such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign have put out reports this week that attempt to show how dangerous permit holders are.  But they make several serious mistakes: they usually include arrests and not convictions and they make mistakes on whether the people have concealed handgun permits.  Even in the few cases where they correctly identify problems, they never discuss the rate that permit holders violate the law.

If a permit holder fires a gun defensively and kills or wounds an attacker, even if the shooting was completely justified, they will almost always be arrested. A police officer who arrives on the scene simply can't be sure what happened until an investigation is completed.  But these justified shootings are exactly why concealed handgun permits are allowed and including them as a cost of concealed handgun laws has the entire process backwards.

Even though the adoption of right-to-carry laws was highly controversial in some states, the laws were so successful that no state has ever rescinded one. Indeed, no state has even held a legislative hearing to consider rescinding concealed-carry.

Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals. The problem is that law-abiding citizens are the ones most likely to obey the gun control laws, leaving them disarmed and vulnerable and making it easier for criminals to commit crime.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime - according to my research, the most important factor. But the police also understand that they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed.

There is a lot of refereed academic research on the impact that right-to-carry laws across the country have crime rates.  While a large majority of the refereed studies by economists and criminologists find that crime rate fall after these laws are adopted and some claim to find no effect, no such studies find a bad effect on crime rates, suicides or accidental deaths.

The legislation before the senate doesn't really break new ground.  Most states already recognize permits from other states: 34 states recognize Missouri's permits, 33 for Utah, 32 for Florida, 31 Texas, 26 Ohio, and 24 Pennsylvania.  And there is no evidence that these reciprocity agreements have caused any problems.

Here is a prediction. Just like the original ruckus over passing concealed handgun laws, the fears about allowing people to travel with guns will soon be forgotten.

John Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime.  John Lott's past pieces for Fox News can be found here and here.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/john-lott-concealed-carry/

Freki

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Freedom prt1
« Reply #339 on: October 29, 2009, 09:07:08 PM »
Bill Whitle: blog is Eject, Eject, Eject

FREEDOM is the second essay in SILENT AMERICA. It started out as a series of comments in Rachel Lucas’s blog (which for some reason I cannot seem to link to, but it’s www.rachellucas.com) on the subject of gun ownership.  Rachel mentioned she had a friend who wanted to buy a gun, and asked if anyone could help her make the case.

The honest truth is I had never given the matter any thought at all. My dad was a hunter and 2nd Lt. in the U.S. Army, so we always had guns in the house and I was taught how to respect them from the day I was born. But I had never owned a gun, and only fired a real one on two or three occasions when visiting my dad as a teen and young man.

However,  I remember very, very clearly watching a store clerk pull down two Daisy Winchester BB guns — one for me and one for my brother — and as he did, I can still hear my father telling us what would happen to us if we EVER pointed it at another person, car or house. I don’t remember all the details exactly but it involved a lot more than the worst thing we thought he could do at the time; namely, take the BB guns away.

Anyway, I started thinking about it, and wrote three or four long replies in Rachel’s comments section.  She thought they were good enough to combine and publish on her front page, and the response was so overwhelming that she personally created Eject! for me out of thin air — did all of the set-up and got it hosted and everything, for which I am eternally grateful and without which I would not be here.

Many long-time readers think this was the first impression I made on the web, back in late 2003. Actually, the reason this is the second essay is because about a month earlier, I had returned to LA from attanding my father’s funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, and I was (and remain) a huge fan of Steven Den Beste and his USS Clueless blog. Steven had posted an article on the nature of American armies versus Arab ones, and I wrote him to tell him of my experience at Arlington. He posted the letter in full, and that, with very minor modifications, became the first essay in the Silent America book: HONOR, which I will re-post here next week.

Anyway, that’s the story. Here’s FREEDOM]

 

When I was a little kid, I asked my dad about an image I had seen of really huge numbers of prisoners being marched to their execution in a forest clearing, guarded by perhaps five or ten men with rifles. I wanted to know why they didn’t just rush the guards? I mean, it’s one thing if they were heading to another crappy day at work camp, but these people were being led off to be killed. I mean, for God’s sake, what did they have to lose?

I was six. My dad looked at me. He had served in the latter days of WW2 in Europe as a U.S. Army intelligence officer. No parachuting onto the decks of enemy U-Boats at night to steal Enigma machines — just newly-minted, 2nd Lieutenant grunt work. He’d been to the camps though, seen some horrible things. When I asked him why they didn’t fight back or run for the woods, he said, without any arrogance or contempt or jingoism, “I don’t know Billy, I can’t figure that one out myself.” Then there was a long moment. “But I can’t imagine Americans just walking off like that, either.”

Now before the combined military might of the European Union responds with a very harshly worded letter, let me clarify something: When he said he couldn’t imagine Americans marching off to their deaths, he meant, obviously, Americans like the ones he knew. Kids who grew up hunting, kids who got a BB gun for their fifth birthday (never Christmas though — you could shoot your eye out!)

I don’t believe for an instant in any genetic nonsense about slave races or nations of pure-bred heroes. That’s a deadly trap, and the end result of such thinking is a place on the watchtower machine-gunning starving prisoners. But humans are the most successful species this planet has seen not for being ferocious or fast or strong or even intelligent, but for their malleability. Humans can, and do, adapt to anything. It is their culture that determines what is in their hearts.

Consider the case of Jews in Germany, during the 1930’s:

Here was a people who had been so tormented and prosecuted and psychologically beaten down that they came to believe the outrageous slander that they were guests in their own county. Behind their shuttered doors at night, they created cocoons of astonishing culture and beauty, a symphony of violins and cellos and poetry and literature. They were far over-represented in occupations we rightly esteem as among the most noble of our species: surgeons, musicians, teachers and scientists.

By any measure of human decency, these were the people that should have been helping to lead a ravaged Germany back to respect and prosperity. Yet they were massacred in their millions by brutes and sadists who could barely write their own names.

If it is possible to write a clearer lesson on human nature, then I cannot imagine it, nor can I imagine the amount of blood it will take to convince people unwilling to look reality in the face; that reality being that compassion, culture, law and philosophy are precious, rare and acquired habits that must be defended with force against people who understand nothing but force. The great failure and staggering tragedy of European Jews is that they could not accept that some of their neighbors were not as decent, humane and educated as they were. A culture that learned to survive by turning inward simply never was willing to face the reality of what they were up against; namely, that hoping for compassion and humanity from the likes of the Nazis was akin to reading poetry to a hurricane. This denial — and that is the only word for it — is, in the final horrible analysis, a form of unconscious arrogance, a refusal to see things for what they are. A people of astonishing internal beauty simply could not look into the face of such ugliness without turning away. And now they are dead.

And there are many intelligent, enlightened, gentle and good-hearted people today who believe exactly the same thing. If we let this moral blindness continue to gain ground, then they will get us all killed, too. And then who will put their boot on humanity’s neck for the next thousand years?

 

 

 

I recently visited a website that featured a picture of Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, with the caption: My hero! Someone who thinks his way out of trouble! The implication, of course, is that force and violence are universally to be rejected and despised as unworthy of thinking people (or Vulcans).

Well bucko, Spock carried a phaser as well as a tricorder, and he used it when he had to. If the Star Trek future represents a hope for our species at its most reasonable and open-minded best, it would be well to remember that the Enterprise carries a hell of a lot of photon torpedoes because the cause of human decency cannot be advanced if all the decent humans lie dead.

Freedom is preserved by free people. Our 40th President wrote that “no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”

Free people know in their heart that they are free. Back again for a moment to a culturally rich, bathed in literature and opera, non-simplisme culture like 1940s Germany: I also asked my father what would happen if the Gestapo came for us one night. He said he couldn’t stop them from taking us, but he could damn sure take a few of those bastards with them, and I decided right there that I’d do the same thing.

In the Warsaw Ghetto, in Solzhenitsyn’s Gulags, in countless other miserable terrifying pits of murder, some people woke up to the idea that resistance is NOT futile. Which is why that old saw, which in my terribly, tragically misspent liberal youth I used to sneer at as the mark of a real idiot – “they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers” – suddenly makes a new kind of sense to me.

That is not the statement of someone who doesn’t want to give up a snowmobile or a Beemer. That is a statement that draws a line in the sand for the government, or any other oppressor, to plainly see. You want to take this freedom away from me? COME AND GET IT.

I believe gun ownership is the truest form of freedom, and here’s why: It says you are your own person, responsible for your own actions. You are not willing to be collectively punished for the misdeeds of others. In fact, those that abuse this freedom by committing crimes are thought of and dealt with much more harshly by gun owners, as a rule, than Hollywood celebrities, precisely because a free person understands the responsibility that comes with freedom.

To the many thoughtful and intelligent Europeans and Canadians who scorn the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as the dangerous plaything of illiterate, mindless oafs who enjoy loud noises, let me simply refer you to that great unbiased and incorruptible teacher: History.

Ask yourselves why intellectual elites so love totalitarian states where people are unarmed and dependant sheep. Look at the examples of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam, and the horrors they have inflicted at will on their own people. And when contemplating your ever-so-sophisticated foreign policy, ask yourselves what real options you are left with when facing a determined, heartless bastard like Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan or Attila.

Maybe the time for real evil like that has finally gone. I hope you are right, I really do. I don’t want to go fight those bastards; I’d rather barbeque and watch the Gators. I’m sure the Jews in 1930 Germany thought such things could never happen again, not in the heart of European culture and civilization. I’m sure every bound and beaten musician, surgeon, philosopher and painter being lined up at the side of a ditch thought exactly that.

Try and understand this about Americans like myself and others who can look such horrors in the eye: We are not going out like that. Get it? We’ll put up with handgun murders if we have to, but we are not going down that road. As a general rule, we are quiet, peaceful, decent people with better things to do than referee endless bloodbaths abroad. But it is possible to get our attention. And believe me, you have it now, and I believe the time will come when you will regret calling us cowboys and Nazis and idiots, because the day may come when you once again need the help of a free and determined people, fighting forces you ignore not from superior sophistication but from sheer moral cowardice.

Great Britain, the philosophical home and mother to this nation, has responded to a horrible shooting tragedy by essentially disarming their entire population. That is their decision alone to make, and history will record whether it was a wise one or not. But consider this:

A Marine Corps officer wondered to himself whether such an order would be carried out in the United States. He was surprised to see that most of his men would not follow an order to disarm the populace by force.

This, to my mind, is the fundamental difference between the Europeans and the U.S.: We trust the people. We fought wars and lost untold husbands and brothers and sons because of this single most basic belief: Trust the people. Trust them with freedom. Trust them to spend their own money. Trust them to do the right thing. Trust them to defend themselves. To the degree that government can help, great – but TRUST THE PEOPLE.

It would take an army — not an army of celebrities or trial lawyers, an actual SHOOTING ARMY — to forcibly disarm this nation. Who will do the dirty work? Volunteer citizen soldiers, that’s who – and the first guns they’d have to turn in would be their own.

See, we don’t have shock troops here, boyo. No Republican Guards, Special or otherwise; no Hussars, no Cossacks, no SS; we lack Praetorian elites, Napoleonic bodyguard units – any of that ideologically inculcated poison. Just kids serving their country, making some money for college. You think those people would fire on a crowd of American citizens fighting to preserve the Constitution, when they themselves have taken the same oath? Think again.

Unlike the those poor, unarmed, psychologically battered Jews, Poles, homosexuals and uncounted other souls lost in the mid 1940s, NO ONE is pulling ANY kids out of this crowd’s house at night and going home fully staffed, ready to try again tomorrow. Understand? THAT is the point.

Here is a sociological experiment that might have something to teach us:

Kick down100 doors of self-proclaimed French pacifists, grab the women and kids, and haul them away. Then try again in Texas, with 100 NRA members. Collate, or rather, have a surviving relative collate the results. Extrapolate the abductors’ rates of casualties to determine the total number of murdering swine needed. See what percentage of jackbooted thugs have a suicide wish and then determine the number of men you will need to disarm, kidnap and murder 50 million armed people.

You will need a lot of men. More than you can raise.

These trust the people freedoms are so deeply engrained in the fabric of America as to be almost hereditary, I think. I used to worry that we’d bred that out of us, and then along comes Todd Beamer and company on United Flight 93, who, first among us that day, realized they were being marched to their deaths and decided to do something about it. Not for themselves, because by taking that action they knew they were doomed. They did it for us. Not only to save the lives of those on the ground for whom their aircraft was headed, but to remind us of who we are as a people, to add to the list of ordinary Americans who can gather extraordinary courage and resolve because they have been trusted all their lives by their government and their fellow citizens.

We are a nation of unruly immigrants, self-selecting people who placed bold action above endless suffering, sold what little they had and bought passage to take a chance on a place they had never seen except in their quiet hopes, a land our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, described as “a beacon, a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.” Intellectuals have called Ronald Reagan an idiot, but that is to be expected from people incapable of being moved by anything other than the sound of their own bitter and small voices in a world too full of hope for them to grasp.

We are, and remain, the descendents of people who had had quite enough of being told what to do by inbred aristocratic fops and unelected, intellectual sadists. When Europeans call us simplisme, they show themselves incapable of recognizing the difference between intelligence, of which we are amply endowed, and intellectualism, that circle-jerk of coffee table revolution and basement politburo planning that we have never had much patience with.

To those who doubt our mental sophistication, I would remind you that our grandparents walked upon the moon. And why is it that of all we produce and all we exult, the only things that seem to have caught on in Europe are McDonald’s and Baywatch? That says much more about them than it does about us, and none of it good, I’m afraid.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 09:11:27 PM by Freki »

Freki

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Freedom prt2
« Reply #340 on: October 29, 2009, 09:08:06 PM »
We as a nation suffer an appalling number of handgun-related deaths each year — perhaps 11,000 of them. The number is not important; each is a personal tragedy and those lives can never be replaced.

If we attempt to reduce this horrible number by banning handguns, we are taking away the property of a person who has broken no laws by a government whose legitimacy is determined by a document that specifically allows that property, namely guns.

Destroy that trust by punishing the innocent, by pulling a plank from the Bill of Rights, and the contract between the government and the people falls apart. Once the Second Amendment goes, the First will soon follow, because if some unelected elite determines that the people can’t be trusted with dangerous guns then it’s just a matter of time until they decide they can’t be trusted with dangerous ideas, either. Dangerous ideas have killed many millions more people than dangerous handguns – listen to the voices from the Gulag, the death camps, and all the blood-soaked killing fields through history.

The Framers, in their wisdom, put the 2nd Amendment there to give teeth to the revolutionary, unheard-of idea that the power rests with We The People. They did not depend on good will or promises. They made sure that when push came to shove we’d be the ones doing the pushing and shoving, not the folks in Washington. And by the way, gun rights supporters are frequently mocked when they say it deters foreign invasion – after all, come on, grow up, be realistic: Who’s nuts enough to invade America? Exactly. It’s unthinkable. Good. 2nd Amendment Mission 1 accomplished.

But back to the undeniable domestic cost: When confronted with the idea of banning handguns to reduce this horrible toll, many handgun defenders are tempted to point to the numbers killed on the highways each year — perhaps four times that number — and ask why we don’t ban cars as well.

The logical response is that bans on travel – cars, airplanes, etc. – are a false analogy compared to banning guns because cars have a clear benefit while guns don’t do anything other than kill what they are aimed at.

While that is exactly true, I think it misses the point, which to me is simply this: We’d never ban car travel to avoid thousands of highway deaths. It’s clearly not worth it in both economic and personal freedom terms. We chose, reluctantly, and with many a lost loved one in mind, to keep on driving.

Here is my dry-eyed, cold-hearted, sad conclusion: I believe that the freedom, convenience and economic viability provided by the automobile is worth the 40,000 lives we lose to automotive deaths each year — a number made more horrible by the fact that perhaps 40% are related to drunk driving and therefore preventable.

By the same calculation, I accept that the freedoms entrusted to the people of the United States is worth the 11,000 lives we lose to gun violence each year.

I wish I could make both those numbers go away. I will support any reasonable campaign to make them as low as possible.

But understand this: 11,000 handgun deaths a year, over four years is very roughly 50,000 killed. In Nazi Germany, an unarmed population was unable to resist the abduction and murder of 6,000,000 people in a similar period: a number 120 times higher. Throw in the midnight murders of the Soviets, the Chinese, the various and sundry African and South American genocides and purges and political assassinations and that number grows to many hundreds, if not several thousand times more killings in unarmed populations.

Visualize this to fully appreciate the point. Imagine the Superbowl. Every player on the field is a handgun victim. All the people in the stands are the victims who were unable to resist with handguns. Those are historical facts.

I, myself, am willing to pay that price as a society – knowing full well that I or a loved one may be part of that terrible invoice. I wish it was lower. Obviously, I wish it didn’t exist at all. But any rational look into the world shows us places where the numbers of innocents murdered by their own governments in unarmed nations are far, far higher.

Of course, many societies have far lower numbers. Japan is a fine example. I’m sure if the United States had 2000 years of a culture whose prize assets are conformity and submission then our numbers would be a lot lower. Alas, we are not that society. Thank God, we are not that society.

It is abundantly clear that the rate of handgun murders in the United States is not uniform. Very large murder rates can be observed in small, exceedingly violent populations of every race in this country, and these rates seem to be more related to issues of income, education and living conditions. Certainly guns are freely available in areas where our murder rates are appallingly high. They are also found in very large numbers in communities where handgun crime is virtually nonexistent.

Doesn’t that tell us that there something deeper at work here? Could it be, perhaps, that the problem is not with the number of guns in this country but rather in the hearts of those who we allow to wield them, repeatedly? Could it really be as simple as apprehending, and punishing, those that would do harm to innocents and to civilization? Rather than banning guns, should we not attack the moral rot that infests these small, violent populations of every color who put such horrible numbers at our feet?

 

 

 

Assume for a moment you could vaporize every gun on the planet. Would crime go away? Or would ruthless, physically strong gangs of young men be essentially able to roam free and predate at will?

The history of civilization shows time and time again how decent, sophisticated city dwellers amass wealth through cooperation and the division of labor – only to be victimized by ruthless gangs of raping, looting cutthroats who couldn’t make a fruit basket, sweeping down on them, murdering them and carting away the loot, to return a few years later, forever, ad infinitum. Vikings, Mongols, desperadoes of every stripe – they are a cancer on humanity but there they are and there they have always been.

If civilization is worth having (and I believe it is) then it has to be defended, because the restraining virtues of justice, compassion and respect for laws are products of that civilizing force and completely unknown to those who would do it harm.

Therefore, since I believe in this civilization, in its laws, science, art and medicine, I believe we must be prepared to defend it against what I feel no embarrassment for calling the Forces of Darkness. Those forces could be raiders on horseback, jackbooted Nazi murderers, faceless KGB torturers or some kid blowing away a shopkeeper.

For the gun-ban argument to be convincing, you’d have to show me a time before shopkeepers were blown away, hacked away, pelted away or whatever the case may be. You would have to show me a time in history before the invention of the firearm, when crime and raiding and looting did not exist, when murders and rapes did not exist. We may lose 11,000 people to handguns a year. How many would we lose without any handguns, if murderers and rapists roamed free of fear, ignoring reprisal from citizens or police? I don’t know. You don’t know either. Maybe it’s a lot fewer people, and maybe, in a world where strength and ruthlessness trump all, it would be a far higher one.

You may argue that only the police should be allowed to carry guns. Consider this carefully. Do we really want to create an unelected subculture that views itself as so elite and virtuous as to be the only ones worthy of such power, trust and authority? Have we not clearly seen the type of people drawn to such exclusive positions of authority, and the attitudes and arrogance it promotes?

Furthermore, I can’t see any moral distinction between a policeman and a law-abiding citizen. Policemen are drawn from the ranks of law-abiding citizens. They are not bred in hydroponics tanks. They are expected to show restraint and use their weapon as a last resort. Millions upon millions of citizens, a crowd more vast than entire armies of police, do exactly this every day.

If all of these horrors had sprung up as a result of the invention of the handgun I’d be right there beside those calling for their destruction.

But clearly, this is not the case. In our cowboy past we used to say that “God created Man, but Sam Colt made them equal.” This is simple enough to understand. It means that a villager, let’s say a schoolteacher, can defeat a human predator who may have spent his entire life practicing the art of war. Firearms are what tipped the balance toward civilization by eliminating a lifetime spent studying swordplay or spear play or pointed-stick play. The bad guys have always used weapons and they always will. The simple truth about guns is that they are damn effective and even easier to operate. They level the playing field to the point where a woman has a chance against a gang of thugs or a police officer can control a brawl.

I don’t see how vaporizing all the guns in the world would remove crime or violence – history shows these have always been with us and show no signs of responding favorably to well-reasoned arguments or harsh language. I wish it were not true. I wish the IRS did not exist either, but there it is.

Criminals, and criminal regimes ranging from The Brow-Ridged Hairy People That Live Among the Distant Mountains all the way through history to the Nazis and the Soviets, have and will conspire to take by force what they cannot produce on their own. These people must be stopped. The genius of the 2nd Amendment is that it realizes that these people could be anybody – including the U.S. Army. That is why this power, like the other powers, is vested in the people. Nowhere else in the world is this the case. You can make a solid argument that the United States is, by almost any measure, the most prosperous, successful nation in history. I’m not claiming this is because every American sleeps with a gun under the pillow – the vast majority do not. I do claim it is the result of a document that puts faith and trust in the people – trusts them with government, with freedom, and with the means of self-defense. You cannot remove that lynchpin of trust without collapsing the entire structure. Many observers of America never fully understand what we believe in our bones, namely, that the government doesn’t tell us what we can do – WE tell THOSE bastards just how far they can go.

Of course, all of this is completely whimsical, because, like nuclear weapons, guns are HERE and they are not going to go away. You cannot just vaporize them. Honest people might be compelled to turn in their weapons; criminals clearly will not. So what do you propose? Forget the moral high ground of gun ownership. Again a simple truth, often maligned but demonstrably dead-on accurate: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

 


Freki

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Freedom prt3
« Reply #341 on: October 29, 2009, 09:10:27 PM »
The American Revolution surely is unique in the sense that the ringleaders – Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, etc – were men of property, wealth and prestige; in other words, men with something to lose. Compare this to any other revolution in history, where the ringleaders were outsiders; plotters staring in the windows of prosperity, powerless. The Russian Revolution, French Revolution, etc – these were joined by desperate people fighting mind-numbing poverty and severe political repression.

And yet the Founding Fathers were men who were as well-off as any men on earth at the time, and furthermore, any of them could have been (and were) political leaders under His Majesty’s government. The average colonial farmer likewise led a life far more comfortable than those of his cousins in Europe, to say nothing of Asia or Africa.

For all practical intents and purposes, these people had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything in the world to lose, by taking on the greatest military force the world had ever known. Why would they do this? What possible motivation could, well-off, comfortable people have? Militarily, they seemed certain to lose, and they knew before they started – and Patrick Henry made the point crystal clear – that they would be hanged as common criminals if they failed.

Of course, the answer is, they did it to be free. And they did it to make the rest of their nation – the poor, the disenfranchised – free as well. And it is clear as crystal from their collective writings that they took that risk to make Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and the rest of us in their unseen posterity free, too. They could look down the dim, moonlit riverbanks of the future and see a society worthy of their sacrifice and determination. They knew that God, (or for me, chance perhaps) had put them together in a time and place where bold, courageous action followed by much suffering, doubt, blood and fear could, perhaps, unleash in mankind an energy source the likes of which they could not imagine.

So for me, a child of that bet – that guess, that commitment, that roll of the dice – for ME, I owe them the defense of that freedom, and I will do my poor mite to pass it on as best I can. These men pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor. They pledged that to ME. I owe them. I do not have the right to take away someone else’s freedom and property – it is offensive to me to even contemplate it. Of course, if someone breaks the freedom/responsibility covenant by committing a crime, then all bets are off. To that extent, I view handgun murderers not just as criminals but as traitors as well.

I hate seeing our kids get shot on the street, I hate it, I hate it. But that is the cost of freedom. People get horribly killed on Spring Break road trips to Florida at age 18. They’re driving drunk. We could prevent them from going. We would save lives. Enron and MCI steal like the worst characters from Dickens, taking people’s Christmas dinners so they can have gold plated faucets. We could regulate more, make things harder for the millions of honest businesses that build and trade honorably each day. The day may come when someone flies a Cessna into a stadium. We can ban the airplanes. Ditto for pleasure boats. We can ban and confiscate and regulate to our hearts content, and we will undoubtedly save many, many innocent lives by doing so. All for the price of a little freedom.

I believe we should punish the perpetrators. I will not agree to restrict the freedoms of the vast numbers of people who abide by the concomitant responsibility and live lives of honesty and decency.

And there is more than the physical restriction of freedoms: There is the slow erosion of self-reliance, self-confidence and self-determination among a nation. The more your government restricts your options, the more you psychologically look to government to keep you safe, fed, clothed, housed and sustained.

There is a word for people who are fed, clothed, housed and sustained fully by others, and that word is SLAVES.

If Congress were occupied by angels and Michael sat in a throne of glory in the Oval Office, I would listen to what they said for my own greater good. But no government is made of angels, not even the Canadian government in all its decency and compassion. So who determines how much freedom we trade for how much security? People do. People are not unknown to place their own interests above those of others. There is even a vanishing remote chance that Jean Cretien has at some point perhaps put personal interest above those of his constituents.

The real genius of the Founding Fathers was that these great and good men had the foresight and the courage to look into their own darker motives, and construct a system that prevents the accumulation of power.

The Constitution they created could only be torn up by force of arms. And that is why the Founders left that power in the hands of the people, who together can never be cowed by relatively small numbers of thugs holding the only guns.

As PJ O’Rourke points out, the U.S. Constitution is less than a quarter the length of the owner’s manual for a 1998 Toyota Camry, and yet it has managed to keep 300 million of the world’s most unruly, passionate people safe, prosperous and free. Smarter people than me may disagree with that document – I’m for not touching a comma.

So as a proud son of those brave men, I’ll take freedom – all of it – and because I accept the benefits of those freedoms, I’ll solemnly take the responsibilities as well. I may someday lose a child on a trip to Spring Break, but I’ll never lock them in the basement to keep them safe. And I’ll accept the fact that living in Los Angeles puts me at risk for being shot to death because I feel the freedom is worth it. I breathe that freedom every day, and hey, we all gotta go sometime. I’ll continue to fly experimental airplanes because I am careful, meticulous, precise and responsible, and yet the day may come when I am out of altitude, out of airspeed and out of ideas all at the same time. Oh well. I have seen and done things up there that you cannot imagine and I cannot describe. Freedom.

I respect and admire Canada. Although we have chosen certain diverging paths since the days of the Revolution, we have been, and always will be, the best of friends despite our differences. Canada is unquestionably as decent, modest and good a society as exists on Earth today. And yet while Canadians frequently point out that they are free of our vices, I perceive that they are free of our greatness as well. You can’t have it both ways.

Me, personally, I’ll take the spirit, ingenuity and passion that can plant the American flag on the moon over pre-paid health care. I can buy health care. Thirty three years after watching the event as a ten year old boy, I’m still trying to go to the moon. (Some of us in the Mojave desert may still have few tricks up our sleeve on this one. We’re still free to build airplanes and spacecraft from our garages and fly the goddamn things. Try and keep up with a nation that builds working spacecraft in the garage. As a hobby. Out of pocket. For FUN.)

And everyone who has taken America’s disdain for intellectualism as a lack of intelligence has woken up looking at our dust trail as we speed ever faster beyond them. We’re not just a smart country – we’re THE smart country. Behold the list of inventions and Nobel Prize winning scientists. Einstein was an American. Of course he emigrated here — we all did. Germany threw him away – he’s ours now, by his choice, not ours. Ditto Von Braun and numerous others, not to mention the legion of homegrown geniuses like the Wright Brothers and Robert Goddard, just to draw two names from the narrow field I know best. Staggeringly brilliant men and women, the best, most active minds on the planet pulling for the same team.

Canada is free of many of the foreign policy disasters and failures of vision that the United States has been correctly charged with, but they are free too of the satisfaction and pride of being history’s singular bulwark of freedom and prosperity, and the eternal, unintimidated scourge of tyrants and murderers from the Barbary pirates, through the armed might of the 20th Century’s parade of totalitarians and right up to Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and the criminal lunatics that run North Korea.

Our failures and disgraces cruelly remind us that we, like every other government, are composed of fallible men and women with no divine ability to read the future or foresee all outcomes. But these failures are failures of action, action borne of confidence and a belief in our way of life, and come all the more painful for their contrast to the everyday standards to which we hold ourselves as a people and a nation. For it is an undeniable fact that no great nation in history has held a shadow of our measure of power, and yet exercised it with such restraint, nor does any time in the bloody history of warfare reflect a people so magnanimous in victory against enemies sworn to our murder and destruction. From our first hour, we have been, and remain, the beacon of hope and freedom for a world desperate and longing for such an example, and we can measure our success in building such a place by the numbers of those who are literally dying in an attempt to come and be part of it.

So take your pick: Freedom or security? Greatness or goodness? Passion or decency?

Our respective ancestors made their choice and here we are. I respect anyone’s right to chose differently. I only speak up to defend the choice we Americans made as a deeply spiritual one, borne of reflection and danger and a spectacular triumph against all odds. I cannot stand idly by to hear people denounce our freedoms as the dimwitted macho posturing of a mob of illiterate uncultured idiots who are so vulgar and uncouth as to still believe in Hollywood myths manufactured for our simple complacent unsophisticated nature.

From the Revolution until today, the choice for full freedom with all its accompanying excesses and failures is a profoundly well-reasoned, moral and ethical choice, and the result has been national and personal success unparalleled in the history of this world.

I am deeply proud to be a member of such a magnificent group of people. I hope to God I can give back as much as I owe.

Bill Whitle: blog is Eject, Eject, Eject

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Another Firearms Apocalypse Fails to Materialize
« Reply #342 on: December 15, 2009, 08:10:33 AM »
Marta crime rate falls in wake of gun law
December 14, 3:28 PM
Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner
Ed Stone

One year anniversary of HB 89 arrives without dire consequences

Violent crime lower following law permitting legalized carry of firearms on mass transit.

Today the Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner brings you a story you are not going to see anywhere else.

The Georgia General Assembly passed HB 89 in 2008, which made criminal prohibitions on carrying firearms on public transportation, in restaurants that serve alcohol, in state parks, and in wildlife management areas inapplicable to Georgians possessing a firearms license.  HB 89 took effect on July 1, 2008, and many predicted mass bloodshed as a result.  Nowhere was the controversy so acute as the city of Atlanta and its public transportation system.

The city of Atlanta immediately declared the airport off limits to firearms, and won a lawsuit filed by GeorgiaCarry.Org seeking to enjoin arrests of people with firearms licenses at the Atlanta airport.  The other hot button issue was the carry of firearms on the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit system, known affectionately to Atlantans by the acronym MARTA.  People predicted shootouts on the trains and busses, and both the city of Atlanta and MARTA officials lobbied strenuously against the bill.

MARTA bus drivers gathered more than 1,000 signatures on a petition to have bullet proof shields installed, as if Georgia firearms licensees had just been waiting for the new law to pass so that they could shoot a bus driver. "We don't want cameras. Cameras don't save people's lives. ... We want something that gives us a fighting chance," said Terry Jackson, the MARTA driver who started the petition.  Beverly Scott, MARTA's general manager, called the bill "vigilantism."

Atlanta's mayor went so far as to declare, "The presumption needs to be, in order to have a safe city, that there are no concealed weapons."

MARTA Office of Government and Community Relations employee Rhonda Briggins issued a widely distributed "Call to Action!" alert calling the gun bill "a recipe for disaster."
So at the end of 2009, it is worth a look to see what actually happened to crime rates on MARTA.  Since July of 2008, there have been no news stories of blazing gun battles on MARTA, which would surely have been newsworthy events.  That leaves interested researchers with the publicly available crime rates, and they tell a story at odds with the hysterical predictions of 2008.

Murders drop to zero

In 2007, MARTA had two murders occur on its property.  In 2008, the year the new law took effect and  peaceable citizens began lawfully carrying firearms on MARTA trains and busses, the number of murders dropped to zero, and there has not been a murder reported on the system since.

Robbery rate drops

The murder rate was not the only category of violent crime to go down in the wake of the new gun law.  There were 94 robberies on the MARTA system in 2007.  In 2008, the year the new law took effect, the number of robberies dropped to 71, and in 2009, it has dropped again to 67 (although we still have two weeks to go).
Overall rate lower

The overall rate per number of riders has also dropped since the new law took effect.

Part I Crime Rate per 1,000,000 Riders

MARTA PART I CRIME RATE   FY06*   FY07*   FY08*   FY09*

PER 1,000 RIDERS   3.90%   3.34%   3.35%   3.09%

Not all categories of crime experienced a decrease, however.  Aggravated assaults went up from 2007 to 2008 and remained constant for 2009.  The statistics also reflect one rape in the first quarter of 2009, with none in the previous three years.

You may view the raw numbers for yourself here.

So judge for yourself whether the predictions of massive bloodshed as a result of the new law have come to pass.  Alice Johnson, the leader of Georgians for Gun Safety, a gun control group that lobbied against permitting lawful carry of firearms on MARTA, sent an email in the spring of 2008 claiming,  "Innocent bystanders and law enforcement personnel stand a greater chance of being accidentally shot if more citizens carry concealed weapons in public  . . ." and calling the bill "deadly legislation" that "seriously compromises community safety."

The MARTA crime numbers speak for themselves.  HB 89 has failed to live up to its reputation as a serious compromiser of community safety.  As the General Assembly takes up new gun bills in 2010, relating to carrying firearms lawfully in other places currently prohibited by law, the public will do well to remember what the opponents of HB 89 said and the actual result.  In spite of the predictions, there have been no reported misuses of a firearm by any of the hundreds of thousands of Georgia firearms license holders on the MARTA system.   In addition, crime rates on MARTA fell after the new law took effect.  It would be nice to interview a few of the opponents of HB 89 now to hear whether their opinions have been modified in the slightest.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d14-Marta-crime-rate-falls-in-wake-of-gun-law

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Gun Salesman of the Year = Less Crime
« Reply #343 on: December 30, 2009, 07:02:37 AM »
More Guns, Less Crime in '09

By Joe Gimenez
Americans went on binges buying guns and ammunition in early 2009, worried that a radical leftist president and Democrat-dominated Congress would violate their Second-Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The effects? Less murder, robbery, rape, and property crime, according to an FBI report released Monday. This gives the young president and Democrat Congress at least one proud but unintended accomplishment for which they'll never claim credit.

Indeed, gun buyers were out in droves in late 2008 and early 2009. While it's easy to infer that increased gun ownership figures align precisely with the drop in crime in the same calendar period, you won't see that headline in the New York Times, despite their penchant for such inferences about increases in crime coinciding with increasing "guns on the street."

The gun-buying started shortly before, and then took off after, Obama's election. The Toronto Star reported a 15% increase of 108,000 more FBI background checks in October 2008 than during the same month in 2007. People were already anticipating the dire consequences of an Obama victory. Then, in November 2008, the number of FBI background checks on applicants buying guns spiked 42% from the previous year. The FBI performed 12.7 million background checks in 2008, compared to 11.2 million in 2007, a 13% increase.

More evidence of rampant gun-buying loads up in the states. Through June 2009, the Texas Department of Public Safety received a monthly average of 12,700 applications for concealed handgun licenses, up 46% from the average in 2007. Even the New York Times noted how gun sales were up in 2009; in a June story, it focused on its less sophisticated neighbors in New Jersey. Even in liberal Massachusetts, gun permits surged 15% over the last two years (after falling several years before that).

While background checks and applications for concealed handgun licenses don't directly equate to the number of new guns on the street -- some applicants are refused, and applications can include multiple guns at the same time of purchase -- the numbers do indicate that more law-abiding Americans had new or enhanced arms in the first six months of 2009. Most criminals don't subject themselves to background checks.

(This is a good place to note that "new guns on the street" is just a liberal scare cliché we should not carelessly adopt. These statistics indicate the real dynamic: gun purchases and concealed licenses acquisitions are made predominantly by law-abiding citizens taking their guns home with them from the store, for self-defense, hunting, and target-shooting purposes.)

But shouldn't more guns equate to more murders and other violent crime? Only if you live in liberal never-never land.

That certainly has not been the case in early 2009. Guns are purchased so that good people can protect themselves against bad people. And moreover, self-protection is a basic human right, despite the fact that our new wise Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor couldn't bring herself to acknowledge that this summer.

The newspapers west of the Hudson River are chock full of stories in which law-abiding citizens protected themselves by using guns. And these are just the incidents that are reported. The Armed Citizen blog does a great job of capturing these stories in their raw form, and every thinking American needs to make his own inferences about the value of guns in these situations: They prevent people from becoming statistics. Go through the news reports compiled on the Armed Citizen blog and make your own count of people who refused to become statistics.

For instance, in May, eleven students in Atlanta avoided becoming murder statistics thanks to the bravery of one among them who had a gun in his backpack. He used it to kill one robber and injure another. Chillingly, the news reports describe how the robbers were counting their bullets to make sure they had enough to kill their victims. One of the robbers was about to rape a woman as well. That's at least thirteen fewer violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery) that did not need to be included in the FBI's crime report for the first half of 2009.

As 2009 winds down, the Democratic Party deserves an off-handed "thank you" for inspiring more law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons and protect themselves from bad people, at least in the first half of the year.

But even while giving them that tribute, it's important to reflect that the only direct result of their gun control efforts in the past -- the Clinton administration's regulation forbidding U.S. military personnel from carrying personal firearms -- resulted in the deaths of thirteen people and an unborn infant in Fort Hood.

Sadly, those deaths will add to an increase in the second half of 2009's statistics -- and renewed calls for gun control legislation, to be sure.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/more_guns_less_crime_in_09.html at December 30, 2009 - 10:00:50 AM EST

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
"I like guns"
« Reply #344 on: January 16, 2010, 10:44:33 AM »

prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #345 on: January 21, 2010, 11:47:44 PM »
Woof,
 This is what happens when the lawabiding population of a nation is disarmed, through the efforts of its own government and the U.N. www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/1101085.html
 When a government fails its people, and at some point they always do for whatever reason, then only the criminals will be armed and the lawabiding citizens will be left to defend themselves with sticks, stones and whatever hand tools are available while the criminals use fully automactic weapons. :-P
                        P.C.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 11:51:04 PM by prentice crawford »

prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #346 on: January 22, 2010, 04:43:08 PM »
Woof Rarick,
 But how could they further their agenda to undermine the second amendment and circumvent the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms if they simply enforce the gun laws that are already on the books? Here's the deal; our politicians don't adequately protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws or enforce the gun laws we already have. So guess what; we have a bunch of people here illegally that illegally buy firearms from individuals that sell guns to them illegally and then they illegally take guns back into Mexico. Now even though 99% of the sales at gunshows are legal; in our politician's minds the easy fix is to pass yet another law that makes it illegal for a private lawabiding citizen to sell a firearm to another lawabiding private citizen. It doesn't matter if that won't solve the real problems of illegal immigration and gun running by criminals. It does however, restrict the rights of citizens, giving more power and control to our government and the elitist, power hungry, corrupt, do nothing politicians, that endanger us with their ineptness, that want to herd us like sheep.  :-P
                                   P.C.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 10:28:22 PM by prentice crawford »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72251
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #347 on: January 23, 2010, 05:52:58 AM »
As the saying goes "I carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy" though as a subject of the PR of CA, that is not true in my case.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #348 on: January 23, 2010, 08:12:55 AM »
Oh yes, another thing that brought me to this thread........

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d19-Austin-Police-statement-on-banning-private-sales-at-Texas-Gun-Shows

Basically some police backdoored a requirement for private citizens to have a FFL holder involved in every firearm sale transaction at a Texas gun show.  It may violate several laws in Texas.  This is because Illegal Aliens have been buying guns from private citizens, then smuggling them back accross the border.    I do not get it, arrest the criminals, and leave the others alone, don't act "Undercolor of the Law" to intimidate law abiding citizens into giving up their rights.

Wow. The APD met with the paties involved and came to an agreement to address the issues. More hysteria for the ignorant.  :roll:

prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: We the Well-armed People
« Reply #349 on: January 23, 2010, 05:42:29 PM »
Woof GM,
 The violation of a Constitutionally protected right or encouraging citizens not to exercise their rights through intimidation by law enforcement or other government agency, whatever the reasoning behind it, well intentioned or otherwise, is something to be concerned about and only the truly ignorant would think otherwise.
                                    P.C.
 
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 05:46:09 PM by prentice crawford »