We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140716/METRO01/307160034

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/31/take-a-gander-at-americas-most-heavily-armed-counties-the-ones-that-arent-on-the-map-might-surprise-you/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/ed8ad5eb#/ed8ad5eb/65

[Crafty_Dog]

http://gunssavelives.net/why-i-carry/video-why-i-carry-clerk-shot-in-head-after-complying-with-all-of-armed-robbers-demands-in-ga/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://defund.com/mob-of-teens-try-to-violently-rob-concealed-carry-holder-get-shot/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[DougMacG]

http://defund.com/mob-of-teens-try-to-violently-rob-concealed-carry-holder-get-shot/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

"He fatally shot one of the robbers, a 15-year-old known gang member who was already the victim of another non-fatal shooting on August 1.  The teen had previously been charged with armed robbery, auto theft, theft, and fleeing.  Police have arrested another two 14-year-old males, a 16-year-old male, a 17-year-old female...  Police say this particular group is responsible for multiple armed robberies that have recently hit Milwaukee. Police say the group may be responsible for dozens of robberies over just the past three days. ...The Daily Caller reports that a “similar incident involving a Milwaukee robbery gang occurred in July. A nurse carrying a concealed carry permit shot a 15-year-old assailant as he and a 17-year-old accomplice attempted to steal her car. "


Examples of what the mainstream media, in another context, call "unaccompanied children".  Maybe Homeland Security could help them locate their parents.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/senator-feinstein-study-shows-she-misleads-on-value-of-assault-weapon-ban/ 

[Crafty_Dog]

second post of day:

I notice the data starts in 2001.  I wonder what it was in prior decades?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?emc=edit_th_20140925&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

[Crafty_Dog]

FBI Used Bogus Numbers in Mass Shooting Report

Last month, the FBI released a study on mass shootings since 2000. We looked at the underlying cultural problems, but gun researcher John Lott dug deeper into the actual numbers the FBI used. What he found is astounding. "The FBI counted 160 'mass' or 'active' shootings in public places from 2000 to 2013," Lott wrote. "Worse, it said these attacks rose from just one in 2000 to 17 in 2013. Media outlets worldwide gave the 'news' extensive coverage. Too bad the study is remarkably shoddy -- slicing the evidence to distort the results. In fact, mass public shootings have only risen ever so slightly over the last four decades. While the FBI study discusses 'mass shootings or killings,' its graphs were filled with cases that had nothing to do with mass killings. Of the 160 cases it counted, 32 involved a gun being fired without anyone being killed. Another 35 cases involved a single murder. It’s hard to see how the FBI can count these incidents, which make up 42 percent of its 160 cases, as 'mass killings.'" In other words, it appears the FBI produced a deceptive report that just happens to bolster the gun-grabbing agenda of the Obama administration

more at http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/

[G M]

FBI Used Bogus Numbers in Mass Shooting Report

Last month, the FBI released a study on mass shootings since 2000. We looked at the underlying cultural problems, but gun researcher John Lott dug deeper into the actual numbers the FBI used. What he found is astounding. "The FBI counted 160 'mass' or 'active' shootings in public places from 2000 to 2013," Lott wrote. "Worse, it said these attacks rose from just one in 2000 to 17 in 2013. Media outlets worldwide gave the 'news' extensive coverage. Too bad the study is remarkably shoddy -- slicing the evidence to distort the results. In fact, mass public shootings have only risen ever so slightly over the last four decades. While the FBI study discusses 'mass shootings or killings,' its graphs were filled with cases that had nothing to do with mass killings. Of the 160 cases it counted, 32 involved a gun being fired without anyone being killed. Another 35 cases involved a single murder. It’s hard to see how the FBI can count these incidents, which make up 42 percent of its 160 cases, as 'mass killings.'" In other words, it appears the FBI produced a deceptive report that just happens to bolster the gun-grabbing agenda of the Obama administration

more at http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/

It's almost like Obama is trying to destroy all faith in American institutions.

[Crafty_Dog]

Maybe my friend Dr. Donald Miller, with whom I have discussed variations of this, can chime in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/nyregion/mental-reports-put-34500-on-new-yorks-no-guns-list.html?_r=0

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-missouri-dem-arrested-with-9mm-pistol-refuses-breathalyzer-test

[Crafty_Dog]

http://bulletsfirst.net/2014/10/20/police-ny-demand-facebook-profile-password-applying-permit/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/us/gun-control-groups-blocked-in-washington-turn-attention-to-states.html?emc=edit_th_20150103&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

[Crafty_Dog]

Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan on Thursday vetoed gun legislation that was supported by the National Rifle Association and approved by wide margins in the state’s Legislature, dominated in both chambers by Mr. Snyder’s fellow Republicans.

Mr. Snyder, who was endorsed by the N.R.A. as he sought a second term as governor last fall, had received a flood of pressure from both sides on the two-bill package in recent days, including letters of opposition from Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman from Arizona who was shot in 2011, and Representative Debbie Dingell, a Democrat of Michigan.


Mr. Snyder said the package could allow people accused of domestic abuse to obtain concealed pistol licenses. “We simply can’t and won’t take the chance of exposing domestic abuse victims to additional violence or intimidation,” Mr. Snyder said in a news release. “There are certainly some reforms that can improve the way Michigan issues concealed pistol licenses and we support the rights of law-abiding firearm owners, but it’s crucial that we leave in place protections for people who already have endured challenges and abuse.”


Under current Michigan law, a person who is the subject of a personal protection order may not receive a concealed pistol license, the governor’s office said, while the new measures would have barred such licenses only in cases where that was specifically required by the courts.

Mr. Snyder has irked those in his party before on other issues, at one point urging that the state quickly set up a health care exchange and, at another, vetoing several voting measures including one that called for photo identification to get an absentee ballot.

Mr. Snyder said that he supported some elements of the package, which was aimed at turning the duties of concealed weapons licensing boards over to county clerks and law enforcement authorities. He urged lawmakers to seek new measures to further those elements. Generally, the governor’s spokeswoman said, he considers gun issues an “important balancing act — making sure we’re vigilantly protecting the constitutional rights of the state’s law-abiding firearm owners while also ensuring public safety and security, especially for vulnerable Michiganders.”

Gun rights supporters criticized the decision, saying the new measures had been widely mischaracterized, while advocates for gun control and for victims of domestic violence said the governor had made an essential choice on a question of safety, not partisanship.

Chris W. Cox, executive director of the N.R.A.’s Institute for Legislative Action, said the measures did not expose victims to any additional risks of violence. Under the new measures, someone applying for a personal protection order could check a box seeking that the subject of the order be barred from having a firearm, he noted.

“The fact is that this bill would have provided victims of domestic violence increased protections against would-be abusers, while protecting our constitutional rights of self-defense and due process,” Mr. Cox said in a news release.

[prentice crawford]

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read/category/US%20News/article/afp-130yearold_gun_that_won_the_west_found_in_us_park-afp

Los Angeles (AFP) - US experts are scratching their heads after finding a more than 130-year-old Wild West rifle leaning against a Juniper tree in a remote area of a national park.

The Winchester Model 1873 firearm was found in Great Basin National Park in Nevada by a park employee, Eva Jensen, who happened to be working in the area with an archaeology team.
Exposed for years to the elements, the rifle's cracked wood stock was "weathered to gray," while the brown rusted barrel "blended into the colors of the old Juniper tree," officials said.
Tucked into a remote rocky outcrop, the rifle appeared to have remained "hidden for many years," they added in a statement.
The gun's serial number indicates that it was made and shipped in 1882. But beyond that it remains a mystery.
"Who left the rifle? When and why was it leaned against the tree? And why was it never retrieved?" the statement said, adding that experts were poring over old newspapers and family histories to search for where it may have come from.
The Winchester Model 1873 rifle holds a prominent place in local history -- referred to as "the gun that won the West."
Some 720,610 were manufactured between 1873 and 1916 when production ended.
The gun was not loaded when it was found, but would have held .44-40 caliber ammunition when in use.

                    P.C.

[Crafty_Dog]

Good to see you posting here again 

[Crafty_Dog]

What say we to this?
======================

BOULDER, Colo. — JUST after Christmas, Veronica Rutledge of Blackfoot, Idaho, took her 2-year-old son to a Walmart store to spend holiday gift cards. As they strolled by the electronics section, according to news reports, the toddler reached into his mom’s purse and pulled out a handgun that she legally carried. He pulled the trigger once and killed her.

The previous month, a 3-year-old boy in Washington State was shot in the face by a 4-year-old. Earlier, a 2-year-old boy in Pennsylvania shot and killed his 11-year-old sister.

About 20 children and teenagers are shot daily in the United States, according to a study by the journal Pediatrics.  Indeed, more preschool-age children (about 80 a year) are killed by guns each year than police officers are killed by guns (about 50), according to the F.B.I. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  This toll is utterly unnecessary, for the technology to make childproof guns goes back more than a century. Beginning in the 1880s, Smith & Wesson (whose gun was used in the Walmart killing) actually sold childproof handguns that required a lever to be depressed as the trigger was pulled.

“No ordinary child under 8 years of age can possibly discharge it,” Smith & Wesson boasted at the time, and it sold half-a-million of these guns, but, today, it no longer offers that childproof option.

Doesn’t it seem odd that your cellphone can be set up to require a PIN or a fingerprint, but there’s no such option for a gun?

Which brings us to Kai Kloepfer, a lanky 17-year-old high school senior in Boulder, Colo. After the cinema shooting in nearby Aurora, Kloepfer decided that for a science fair project he would engineer a “smart gun” that could be fired only by an authorized user.

“I started with iris recognition, and that seemed a good idea until you realize that many people firing guns wear sunglasses,” Kloepfer recalls. “So I moved on to fingerprints.”

Kloepfer designed a smart handgun that fires only when a finger it recognizes is on the grip. More than 1,000 fingerprints can be authorized per gun, and Kloepfer says the sensor is 99.999 percent accurate.  A child can’t fire the gun. Neither can a thief — important here in a country in which more than 150,000 guns are stolen annually.

Kloepfer’s design won a grand prize in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. Then he won a $50,000 grant from the Smart Tech Challenges Foundation to refine the technology. By the time he enters college in the fall (he applied early to Stanford and has been deferred), he hopes to be ready to license the technology to a manufacturer.

There are other approaches to smart guns. The best known, the Armatix iP1, made by a German company and available in the United States through a complicated online procedure, can be fired only if the shooter is wearing a companion wristwatch.


The National Rifle Association seems set against smart guns, apparently fearing that they might become mandatory. One problem has been an unfortunate 2002 New Jersey law stipulating that three years after smart guns are available anywhere in the United States, only smart guns can be sold in the state. The attorney general’s office there ruled recently that the Armatix smart gun would not trigger the law, but the provision has still led gun enthusiasts to bully dealers to keep smart guns off the market everywhere in the U.S.

Opponents of smart guns say that they aren’t fully reliable. Some, including Kloepfer’s, will need batteries to be recharged once a year or so. Still, if Veronica Rutledge had had one in her purse in that Idaho Walmart, her son wouldn’t have been able to shoot and kill her.

“Smart guns are going to save lives,” says Stephen Teret, a gun expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “They’re not going to save all lives, but why wouldn’t we want to make guns as safe a consumer product as possible?”

David Hemenway, a public health expert at Harvard, says that the way forward is for police departments or the military to buy smart guns, creating a market and proving they work.

An interfaith group of religious leaders is also appealing to gun industry leaders, ahead of the huge annual trade show in Las Vegas with 65,000 attendees, to drop opposition to smart guns.

Smart guns aren’t a panacea. But when even a 17-year-old kid can come up with a safer gun, why should the gun lobby be so hostile to the option of purchasing one?

Something is amiss when we protect our children from toys that they might swallow, but not from firearms. So Veronica Rutledge is dead, and her son will grow up with the knowledge that he killed her — and we all bear some responsibility when we don’t even try to reduce the carnage.

[ccp]

I am all for it if it is not forced via more regulations to all gun owners. 

So if demand is so great why does not S & W make a modern version?

[G M]

When seconds count, your smart gun is onlyminutes away from functioning.

[ccp]

"When seconds count, your smart gun is onlyminutes away from functioning."

Yes.  One could only hope you grip the handle correctly so it "reads" you prints.  Or you have your wireless device near you to unlock the electronic safety like keyless entry into one's vehicle.

Doesn't sound so smart to me......

Eighty children dying a year is sad.  But I don't see the logic behind making 100,000,000 gun owners risk their lives and jump through regulatory hoops to say reduce this number to say 40.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51clP7JRqv8

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.mississippigunnews.com/interstate-transportation-of-firearms-and-ammunition-bill-introduced/?utm_content=bufferd395b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[G M]

http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2015/02/03/peak-feed-chinese-immigrant-explains-gun-control-means/

Speaking from experience.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/federal-court-rules-residency-requirements-pistol-/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://controversialtimes.com/news/atf-is-attempting-to-ban-popular-ar-15-ammo/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

[prentice crawford]

shallnot.org/tennessee_bills_would_block_federal_gun_control … Tennessee Bills Would Block Federal Gun Control


Tennessee Bills Would Block Federal Gun Control
 


 
 posted by Scott Landreth | 1939sc
 February 17, 2015 



NASHVILLE, Tenn. (FEB. 17, 2015) - Two bills filed last week in Tennessee would effectively block a proposed new ATF ban on the popular M855 AR-15 round and other federal gun control measures within the state. The bills make the state the tenth to consider such legislation so far this year.

Introduced by Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver and Sen. Richard Briggs, House Bill 1341 (HB1341) and Senate Bill 1110 (SB1110), prohibit the state from carrying Uncle Sam's water by implementing or enforcing federal gun "laws," rules, regulations and orders.

If passed, Tennessee law would be amended by adding the following as a new section: 


(a) On or after July 1, 2015, no public funds of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.

(b) On or after July 1, 2015, no personnel or property of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.

EFFECTIVE

Based on James Madison's advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a "refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union" is an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership in the states.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a recent televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws "nearly impossible" to enforce.

This is because a vast majority of federal enforcement actions are either led or supported by law enforcement - and other agencies - on a state level. As noted by the National Governor's Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, "states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs."

"A partnership doesn't work too well when one side stops working," said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. "By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down."

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL

Refusing to participate with federal enforcement is not just an effective method, it has also been sanctioned by the Supreme Court in a number of major cases, dating from 1842.

The 1997 case, Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone. In it, Justice Scalia held:


The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.

As noted Georgetown Law Constitutional Scholar Randy Barnett has said, "This line of cases is now 20 years old and considered well settled."

MOMENTUM

Introduction comes at a time when several other states are considering similar bills, building momentum and support for the effort to block federal gun control at the state level. Similar bills have already been filed for 2015 in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Montana, Minnesota, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and New Hampshire and several more states are expected to do the same. Since 2013, Idaho, Alaska and Kansas have already passed into law legislation that pushes back at federal gun control measures with this same strategy.

TAKE ACTION IN SUPPORT

In Tennessee: Follow the steps to support this bill at THIS LINK

ALL OTHER STATES:

Urge your state rep and senator to introduce a similar bill. Send them the link the model legislation at this link:
http://shallnot.org/legislation

 contact info here:  http://openstates.org/find_your_legislator

 

**WE NEED YOUR HELP TO CONTINUE THIS WORK. PLEASE CHIP IN HERE:http://shallnot.org/donate

[G M]

Good. It's not a federal law, and shouldn't have the force of one.

[Crafty_Dog]

       

        From the Patriot Post:

        Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is re-introducing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to allow gun owners with concealed carry permits to bring their firearms to any other state with concealed carry laws. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some version of concealed carry in place, but the laws and reciprocity vary significantly from one state to the next -- a patchwork that has landed law-abiding citizens in trouble for years.

        "The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders," explained Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home."

        The most prominent recent example of this is the case of Shaneen Allen, a single mother from Pennsylvania threatened with 10 years in jail for inadvertently bringing a concealed gun into New Jersey. Fortunately, sanity prevailed in that instance. But this type of case will only become more common in the coming years now that every state has a concealed carry law and the legal purchase of firearms is on the rise.

        Cornyn said his legislation seeks to eliminate these "gotcha moments," but, naturally, the gun control crowd is warning of the apocalypse.

        Michael Bloomberg's gun-grabbing group, Everytown for Gun Safety, released a report on concealed carry reciprocity, claiming, "Some states do thorough criminal background checks on applicants, while other states have such ineffective permitting systems that they inadvertently issue permits to felons." Everytown and other anti-Second Amendment groups argue this bill will negate strict gun control laws in favor of states with weaker laws in place.

        It's almost comical to see the Left fly the flag of federalism. Leftist dogma dictates all power belongs to the central government -- health care, school lunches, same-sex marriage, etc. But this time they have found a convenient use for states' rights by arguing that it's wrong for Washington to establish a uniform system for recognizing the gun laws of other states.

        Leftist hypocrisy aside, Cornyn believes such a scenario is not possible under his proposed legislation. The bill upholds laws currently in place in individual states by providing that weapons conceal-carried by one state's residents must be carried in the same manner as residents in the host state. The legislation also does not allow concealed carry in states that do not allow the practice for their own residents. This last point seems irrelevant considering all states currently have concealed-carry, but it does signal the bill is not designed to roll back or in any way change existing state laws.

        The federal government will not be empowered to force a national minimum concealed-carry standard under this bill. It will merely protect state residents from being unduly harassed by other states with stricter concealed carry laws.

        The bill likely passes constitutional muster on grounds that no state can violate the rights guaranteed by the Bill of the Rights or the 14th Amendment. But there is a difference of opinion about which constitutional clause is the best vehicle. Some say the Commerce Clause offers the best argument because it is in the federal government's interest to see that citizens can freely engage in interstate travel and commerce. If citizens fear undue punishment or harassment in certain states because of unreciprocated concealed-carry laws, then travel and commerce between states will be deterred.

        The Commerce Clause is too often used to justify ever more regulatory power in the hands of the federal government, and thus many conservatives argue the Full Faith and Credit clause is more appropriate here.

        According to the Constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

        Consider a driver's license. Any state's driver's license allows its holder to drive in any other state, subject to the laws of the state in which he or she is driving. Concealed carry reciprocity already works in a similar manner and Cornyn's bill wouldn't change that.

        The anti-Second Amendment crowd doesn't want to see Cornyn's concealed carry reciprocity bill pass because it will further confirm what they already fear -- they are losing the gun control fight. A large majority of Americans embrace the right to possess firearms. And it is a right, not a privilege.

        The leftist argument that Cornyn's bill will ultimately lead to a loosening of concealed carry restrictions in certain states is not entirely off base. It may very well do that, since the loosening of gun laws in this country has been trending for at least 20 years with positive results. That trend will likely continue, no matter the fate of Cornyn's bill.

[Crafty_Dog]

The Florida Court of Appeal held Wednesday in Norman v. State that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home. "After Heller I, McDonald, and [other recent rulings]," the court ruled, "it is clear that a total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home cannot survive a constitutional challenge under any level of scrutiny." The ruling quoted Peruta v. County of San Diego, in which the Ninth Circuit Court (yes, that Ninth Circuit) said a right is essentially "destroyed [if the] exercise of [that] right is limited to a few people, in a few places, at a few times." The Florida court did uphold the right of states to determine the manner of carry (open or concealed): "The Legislature is permitted to regulate the manner in which arms are borne for the purpose of maintaining public peace and safety, so long as any such regulation leaves available a viable carry mode." The court also didn't handle the question of limits to where a gun can be carried -- only that the overall right extends outside the home. We're glad to see another court rule in favor of the Second Amendment -- it's an encouraging trend

Also see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/18/second-amendment-protects-carrying-guns-outside-the-home-but-state-may-require-concealed-carry-rather-than-open-carry/

[Crafty_Dog]

Democrats Reload on Ammo Ban

After 90,000 comments and condemnation from congressional Republicans, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives backed away from its proposal to ban the 5.56 M855 "green tip" ammunition. But congressional Democrats have taken the idea, expanded the breadth of the proposed ammo ban, and run with it. In a letter to the ATF, Democrats encourage the bureau to move fast and use its "existing authority" to limit any rifle cartridge that can be fired from a handgun. Democrats wrote, "We hope that the Bureau will swiftly review comments on the proposed framework and issue a revised proposal that will address the danger posed by handguns that fire 5.56mm and other rifle ammunition." They have introduced legislation in the House to ban the green-tipped rounds, and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said she would introduced a broader bill to ban even more forms of armor-piercing ammunition. Because cops wear light body armor and there are some unique pistols out there (Thompson Contender pistol chambered in 30-30, anybody?), Democrats are opening the door for potentially banning all center-fire rounds. And the ATF welcomes this lobbying. Its director, B. Todd Jones, said "any 5.56 round" threatens the safety of police officers -- a distorted fear if ever there was one.

[G M]

Democrats Reload on Ammo Ban

After 90,000 comments and condemnation from congressional Republicans, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives backed away from its proposal to ban the 5.56 M855 "green tip" ammunition. But congressional Democrats have taken the idea, expanded the breadth of the proposed ammo ban, and run with it. In a letter to the ATF, Democrats encourage the bureau to move fast and use its "existing authority" to limit any rifle cartridge that can be fired from a handgun. Democrats wrote, "We hope that the Bureau will swiftly review comments on the proposed framework and issue a revised proposal that will address the danger posed by handguns that fire 5.56mm and other rifle ammunition." They have introduced legislation in the House to ban the green-tipped rounds, and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said she would introduced a broader bill to ban even more forms of armor-piercing ammunition. Because cops wear light body armor and there are some unique pistols out there (Thompson Contender pistol chambered in 30-30, anybody?), Democrats are opening the door for potentially banning all center-fire rounds. And the ATF welcomes this lobbying. Its director, B. Todd Jones, said "any 5.56 round" threatens the safety of police officers -- a distorted fear if ever there was one.

Law enforcement faces serious threats from being struck by cars. Time to ban cars!

[Crafty_Dog]

http://downtrend.com/travis/california-begins-confiscating-legally-purchased-guns

[G M]

http://downtrend.com/travis/california-begins-confiscating-legally-purchased-guns

That's the new tactic. Turn everyone into a prohibited person.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/05/gun-toting-good-samaritan-thwarts-carjacking-georgia-car-wash

[Crafty_Dog]

The Tennessee governor's mansion is occupied by a Republican, and the GOP owns supermajorities in both the House and Senate. The result has been a wave of pro-gun measures, including a "Guns in Parking Lots" law approved in 2013 that gives employees the legal right to store a firearm inside personal vehicles even if it's against an employer's inclinations. The move was a good one; the problem is that "an attorney general's opinion later found that while the law decriminalized the actions of those who ignored posted gun bans on private property, employers could still terminate workers for violating company firearms policies," explains WTVC News Channel 9. Last week, the legislature passed and Gov. Bill Haslam signed a fix that allows fired persons the ability to take legal action. Now, even some Republicans contend the new law infringes on employers' rights. But that's misguided — businesses still have the right to ban firearms, but vehicles don't belong to the employer. As Hot Air blogger Jazz Shaw concludes, "This law seems to me to have been a good compromise. The employer can bar carrying weapons in the workplace, but the employee's car is not the workplace. And punishing them for such storage is an unreasonable burden on their constitutional rights." Tennessee hit the bull's-eye on this one. More...

[G M]

The Tennessee governor's mansion is occupied by a Republican, and the GOP owns supermajorities in both the House and Senate. The result has been a wave of pro-gun measures, including a "Guns in Parking Lots" law approved in 2013 that gives employees the legal right to store a firearm inside personal vehicles even if it's against an employer's inclinations. The move was a good one; the problem is that "an attorney general's opinion later found that while the law decriminalized the actions of those who ignored posted gun bans on private property, employers could still terminate workers for violating company firearms policies," explains WTVC News Channel 9. Last week, the legislature passed and Gov. Bill Haslam signed a fix that allows fired persons the ability to take legal action. Now, even some Republicans contend the new law infringes on employers' rights. But that's misguided — businesses still have the right to ban firearms, but vehicles don't belong to the employer. As Hot Air blogger Jazz Shaw concludes, "This law seems to me to have been a good compromise. The employer can bar carrying weapons in the workplace, but the employee's car is not the workplace. And punishing them for such storage is an unreasonable burden on their constitutional rights." Tennessee hit the bull's-eye on this one. More...

A good law would be to make the employer liable to protect employees they disarm.

[DougMacG]

What say Rahm to this?

http://bearingarms.com/uber-driver-concealed-carry-permit-drops-chicago-gunman/
Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy loathes concealed carry, and so it must be particularly painful for him today to deal with the fact that it was a concealed carry permit holder who stopped a madman firing into a Chicago crowd.

A Logan Square man was ordered held on no bail Sunday after prosecutors said he fired a handgun into a crowd of people Friday night.

But 22-year-old Everardo Custodio wasn’t in Cook County bond court to hear Judge Peggy Chiampas deny him bail.

He was at Advocate Illinois Masonic hospital, being treated for gunshot wounds to the shin, thigh and lower back.

As Custodio was allegedly opening fire on the crowd Friday, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit picked up his own firearm and shot Custodio multiple times, according to prosecutors and court records.

The Uber driver, a 47-year-old Little Italy resident, has a firearm owner’s identification card and acted in self-defense and the defense of others, Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn said Sunday in bond court.

No charges have been filed against the Uber driver, police said.

[G M]

Very nice.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://defendandcarry.com/fbi-director-says-concealed-carriers-are-law-enforcement-officers-best-backup/

FBI Director Testifies He’s Never Had Problems With Concealed Carriers

    via Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller

     

    FBI director James Comey testified in front of a House panel on Wednesday to discuss the agency’s 2016 budget, but he ended up making a profound point about the issue of concealed carry.  At the end of the two-hour budget hearing, Texas U.S. Rep. John Culberson, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Justice, asked Comey about the nature of his interactions with legal concealed carry permit holders.

Before his stint as head of the FBI, Comey worked for more than two decades as a federal prosecutor.

“You mentioned earlier about criminals with guns, I doubt you’ve ever had a problem with a concealed carry permit holder who is licensed with a background check using their good judgment,” Culberson said at the end of Comey’s two-hour testimony. “Could you comment on that as a law enforcement officer?”

“I haven’t had situations where there has been problems with that,” Comey said.

“With a concealed carry permit holder?” Culberson asked.

“No, not that I can remember,” Comey said.

“That’s a law enforcement officer’s best backup, particularly if he’s a Texan,” Culberson said.

The best line from this whole piece is the last one here, suggesting that a concealed carrier is law enforcement’s best backup. If only more elected officials understood that.

For the most part concealed carriers understand that their permit is not a badge, and that the police should be called for most non-life threatening issues.

However, having a concealed firearm, and being trained with it does provide permit holders to step in and stop a crime in progress or assist police officers in dire situations.

Kudos to the FBI Director Comey for his astute comments.

 

[Crafty_Dog]

http://concealednation.org/2015/05/suspect-dead-after-armed-citizen-intervenes-in-carjacking/

OREM, UTAH — A suspect is dead after a concealed carry permit holder shot and killed him during a carjacking.

The incident happened a ways away from the beginning of the story when a group of people were seen fleeing in a vehicle from a reported fight. During their getaway, they hit a curb. The suspects got out of the vehicle and ran, and one of them decided to steal a pickup truck.

He then drove the truck to a grocery store named Maceys and left it there. He then went on to attempt to steal a car from a person in the parking lot. An alert –and armed– passerby noticed the confrontation and decided to get himself involved.

The armed citizen, identified as a 31-year-old man, told the suspect to get out of the vehicle. When the suspect got out, he immediately lunged at him. It is at this time that the armed citizen felt threatened and fired his handgun.

The suspect was hit with a single bullet and was transported to the hospital, where he later died of his injuries.

Police say the suspect had numerous felony warrants.

Based on the storyline above, do you feel that you would have involved yourself in a similar situation?
========================
From Mitch Vilos' FB Self Defense Law page:

MV:  "Thanks for the comments Jay and Laron. Of course, the biggest thumbs down factor we hear all the time, even with the police, is that the "victim" was unarmed. Yes, Jay, it is not justifiable to use deadly force to defend property. So as long as the woman in the car was safe, even though her car was being stolen, the safe option would have been to get a good ID and call in the car theft. This legally safe counsel is in line with our policy of keeping you as far from the "edge of the cliff" as possible in your use and threats of deadly force. That, however, does not mean the shooter here does not have several very good theories of defense of self and others. First, it's one thing to just steal a car - deadly force is not justified. However, when you steal a car by force or threat, it becomes a robbery which then justifies the use of deadly force under the Utah forcible felony clause. Furthermore, by going for the shooter's gun, the "victim" is still using force in the course of the robbery - i.e. the robby is still in progress, it hasn't terminated. There is a self-defense aspect to protecting your firearm. But never forget, that is what the defendant contended in Chapter Two of our book, that he thought the "victims" were rushing him to get his gun. He was convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder."

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/19/teen-startled-awake-by-noise-sees-two-faces-at-his-window-grabs-a-gun-and-shoots-the-tragedy-is-who-they-were/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%205-19-15%20Build-TUES

[G M]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/19/teen-startled-awake-by-noise-sees-two-faces-at-his-window-grabs-a-gun-and-shoots-the-tragedy-is-who-they-were/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%205-19-15%20Build-TUES

Target identification. Was the subject at the window an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death?

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19083-the-racist-origin-of-america-s-gun-control-laws

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/07/lawsuits-filed-as-chicago-denies-black-people-concealed-carry-licenses/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://patriotpost.us/posts/35510

Obviously, much here to be concerned about, but I'm not seeing my way to saying that keeping people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns is a bad thing.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://controversialtimes.com/politics/congress-votes-to-restore-gun-rights-for-non-violent-felons/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762

[Crafty_Dog]

http://conservativetribune.com/lynch-assaults-gun-owners/

second post

[Crafty_Dog]

third post

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-top-court-rejects-challenge-to-san-francisco-gun-regulation/ar-BBkPW85?ocid=sf