Category Archives: Firearms

Gun Control Pacification Measures

THEN THERE WAS A LOUD BOOM! It was called Gun Control For Dummies. Think you've heard everything? Try this on for shock value. The mob origin of Chicago's handgun ban. Now, tell me who else from Chicago is trying to take away all guns...

gunstormers4
Right To Self-Protection No Government Should Be Able To Negate.
Dear Concerned Citizen,

The liberals are at it again. In a new bill introduced the first day of the present session of Congress, and with zero coverage from the MSM, H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) targets all gun owners in the USA. While the media the world and everyone else is focused on the "phony plan" to spend tax dollars legislation is sneeking through the House and Senate for more gun control. This nefarious bill seeks to strip us all of our Constitutional Rights to possess and bear firearms of any distinction. It requires, within the first two years, that all new guns be registered. The bill goes retroactive after two years. Meaning that two years after the passage of the bill, ALL FIREARMS in a citizen's possession must be registered, not just those purchased after the bill passes, and this apparently applies to antique firearms as well.

Every five years the firearm owner must go through a complete renewal process for each weapon owned. Failure to comply carries stiff penalties including confiscation of the firearms and jail time (penalties as high as ten years imprisonment in some cases). The bill also authorizes government searches without warrant, the creation of a federal bureaucracy to monitor firearm possession, et cetera.

The following is a summary of the bill as provided by the Congressional Research Service. If you read the whole bill, you'll find it will effectively preclude the ownership of any firearms by law-abiding people unless directly licensed by the Attorney General :

1/6/2009—Introduced. Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009—Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

Prohibits:
1. Transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
2. Licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
3. Failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
4. Failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days;
5. Keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury. Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act. Directs the Attorney General to:
1. Establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
2. Conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
3. Collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer. Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

Like all other threats against our liberty, we must rise and defeat this bill, slap it down hard.

In order to stop Democratic Party Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and their fellow gun-grabbers—we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone.

Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation—and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands. So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution.

Help me flood the U.S. Senate and the House with the sea of FAXES big enough to drown each and every Senator and Representative willing to vote away the Second Amendment.

Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!

CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.

DO NOT BE SILENCED–MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators and Representives right away!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on voluntary financial support from individuals who care. Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive. But then, it's impossible to put a price tag on freedom. But together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

For more information contact CCRKBA.

Sincerely,

Alan Gottlieb
Chairman, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to:

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 NE Tenth Place
Dept Code 2098
Bellevue, Washington 98004

If you are still not certain what's going on here, ask yourself this question—why is the liberal establishment even interested in much less think they can accurately account for the massive accumulation of handguns, rifles, shotguns, and various other firearms scattered about this vast nation any more than they can haul in, document, and deport the illegal aliens that are flooding into this country?

Whenever this question of illegals comes up in polite company the pat response is, "Oh there's no way we can round up all these people. The challenge is just too daunting. They are here. We just have to deal with it as a compassionate nation."

Or something to that effect.

And yet, these same laissez-faire liberals dare insist upon this notion to round up, document, tax, monitor, or confiscate every personal weapon in the possession of law-abiding citizens, contrary to the notion of the Second Amendment which guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, (whereas illegal aliens have no such Constitutional protection).

This ain't Denmark, my friends, but something is definitely rotten in the neighborhood.

Students Unprepared For Adulthood

From the NRA today:

Gun Debate Tradeshow
Michael Kiefer, of DeFuniak Springs, Fla., checks out a display of rifles at the Rock River Arms booth during the 35th annual SHOT Show, Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013, in Las Vegas. The world's largest gun and outdoor trade show runs through Friday. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)

I have heard the arguments against extending Right-to-Carry onto college campuses before, but I've never heard them stated in such a way that belittles college students. In the Tulsa World, columnist Wayne Greene (who makes some pretty ridiculous arguments himself) quotes a "former academic" named Mark Taylor, who says college students "are unprepared for dealing with adult decisions of any kind, and especially with decisions of life and death."

The columnist writes that Taylor believes overprotective parents "have produced a generation of students who don't know how to fend for themselves but believe that they are tremendously important."

That argument is so ridiculous I hardly know where to begin, and if I were a college student I'd find it incredibly insulting. Are these the same students who are taking part in ROTC programs at colleges around the country? What about the military veterans who are going to school on the GI Bill? Are they "unprepared for dealing with adult decisions of any kind"? What about non-traditional students who live off-campus but drive in for evening classes? Do they not know how to "fend for themselves"?

Right-to-Carry holders are, statistically, far more law abiding than the general population. Forty states in this country have or shall-issue Right-to-Carry laws, and not one state has moved to repeal their statute. Right-to-Carry holders aren't the problem—and in fact are part of the solution when it comes to public safety.

What will the effeminate Left not do to stop law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves in the face of flagrant aggression? And yet when these very same law-abiding citizens try, under the aegis of well-founded law, to throw the book at murderous criminals, these criminals are coddled and supplied excuses for their vicious behavior. The fix is in, folks. There are people alive and in charge, or close to those who are, who desire and foment for a world on fire, whose secret and not so secret actions are slipped into our daily news along with impassioned pleas of peace, no less. Know your enemy. His name is Unsubstantiated Peace or Total Submission, so roll the dice or take your pick.

Virginia Diners Packing Heat

Virginia Carry
Virginia Carry

As the nine esteemed justices sitting on the United States Supreme Court wrestle with the legality of the DC Law banning all hand-guns, in a decision which will perhaps affect gun laws throughout the country, here is one working version of the Second Amendment from nearby Fairfax County in northern Virginia.

THE PATRONS AT CHAMPPS in Reston, an upscale restaurant and bar chain, were eating ribs and drinking beer on a recent Saturday when customer Bruce Jackson stood up and made an announcement: He was armed, and so were dozens of other patrons.

The armed customers stood up in unison, showing off holstered pistols. Mr. Jackson said a word or two about the rights of gun owners to carry firearms in Virginia, then thanked everyone for his or her attention and sat down. And the diners returned to their burgers and Budweisers.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) organized the dinner at Champps to prove a point: that the presence of armed customers in Northern Virginia restaurants would elicit little more than shrugs. The dinner—and several other restaurant visits throughout Northern Virginia last month—were a response to comments from the majority leader in the state Senate, Democrat Richard L. Saslaw, who said during a legislative debate that armed patrons would be unwelcome in Northern Virginia restaurants.

"In most urban areas, you walk into a restaurant with a gun on your hip, they're going to tell you to get out," Mr. Saslaw said.

In fact, with a few exceptions, the gun owners got their meals. The group went to eight different restaurants last month—at two of them, they were asked to leave. More often than not, though, their presence failed to generate a stir.

Read it all.

France And Her Muslim Youths

france-anti-islam
French Muslim Gangs Plague Paris

VILLIERS-LE-BEL—Rampaging youths rioted for a second night in Paris' suburbs, firing at French officers and ramming burning cars into buildings. France is not stunned that at least 77 officers were injured, according to a senior police union official.

The overnight violence was more intense than during three weeks of rioting in 2005, said the official, Patrice Ribeiro. He said that "genuine urban guerillas with conventional weapons and hunting weapons" were among the rioters. The riots were triggered by the deaths of two teens killed in a crash with a police patrol car on Sunday in Villiers-le-Bel, a blue-collar town in Paris' northern suburbs.

Residents claimed that officers left the crash scene without helping the teens, whose motorbike collided with the car. Officials cast doubt on the claim, but the internal police oversight agency was investigating. Rioting first erupted in Villiers-le-Bel on Sunday night. It grew worse and spread Monday night to other towns north of Paris. Rioters hurled stones and petrol bombs at police, authorities said.

The use of firearms added a dangerous new dimension. Firearms are widespread in France, and police generally carry guns. Guns, though, were rarely used in the 2005 riots that spread to poor housing projects nationwide. Police are facing "a situation that is far worse than that of 2005," said Ribeiro, national secretary of the Synergie officers union.

"Our colleagues will not allow themselves to be fired upon indefinitely without responding," he warned on RTL radio. "They will be placed in situations which will become untenable."

Read more commentary on the sad state of French affairs here, but in particular, new observers to this story should first read Hugh Fitzgerald's more comprehensive comments found here.

France has some 751 “No Go” zones. The French government has labeled these areas “sensitive urban zones” that are dangerous for whites and non-Muslims to enter. French writer Guy Milliere said even the local authorities stay out of these zones. “It means that it’s the part of the country where the police don’t go,” he said. “The firemen don’t go and even doctors and ambulance don’t go, except if they have no other choice.”

“Our government, our politics are leading us to war,” he said. Many say the government treats the majority in France like a minority. They have been marginalized politically and victimized by immigrant crime.

“There is on one end, the political speech which says, ‘Oh, everything is okay. It feels so good to feel the difference, to live together, everything is great. We live in harmony. It’s communion. It’s perfect,’” a resident explained. “And on the other hand, you got the truth of what people are feeling. They are feeling like foreigners in their own country,” he continued.

Challenging The DC Gun Law

DC Gun LawsThe following essay was originally published by Robert A. Levy on February 19, 2003. The real news, however, is that the Supreme Court is finally about to rule on the case in the next few days. But, to tide us over in the meantime, here's the background story.

Six District of Columbia residents want to be able to defend themselves in their own homes. To vindicate their rights, on Feb. 10 three local attorneys and I filed a civil lawsuit in a Washington, D.C. federal court.

The litigation, Parker v. District of Columbia, will not be about machine guns and assault weapons. It will be about the right to own ordinary, garden-variety handguns. Nor will the plaintiffs argue for the right to carry a gun outside the home. That's another question for another day.

The D.C. government has done little or nothing to disarm violent criminals; yet it has done a really effective job of disarming decent, peaceable residents. Still, lots of cities and states have restrictive gun laws along with high rates of violent crime. What, then, is unique about the District of Columbia? Why do D.C.'s laws have gun defenders up in arms? First, a little background.

The High Court hasn't decided a Second Amendment case since United States v. Miller in 1939. On that occasion, the challenged statute required registration of machine guns, sawed-off rifles, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers.
In a recent Texas case, United States v. Emerson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Constitution "protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia ... to privately possess and bear their own firearms ... that are suitable as personal individual weapons."

That right is not absolute, said the court. It does, however, establish a powerful presumption against gun control. And to rebut that presumption, government regulators must first identify exceptional factors that justify a limitation on our Second Amendment right. Then government must show that its regulation goes no further than necessary to achieve its aims.

For example, no reasonable person would argue that killers have a constitutional right to possess weapons of mass destruction. Some persons and some weapons may be restricted. Last year, the Ninth Circuit, in Silveira v. Lockyer, rejected a challenge to California's ban on so-called assault weapons. In the Emerson case itself, the Fifth Circuit held that Emerson's Second Amendment rights could be temporarily curtailed because there was reason to believe he posed a threat to his estranged wife. Emerson asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse that holding, but the Court decided not to review the case.

The High Court hasn't decided a Second Amendment case since United States v. Miller in 1939. On that occasion, the challenged statute required registration of machine guns, sawed-off rifles, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers.

First, said the Court, "militia" means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms." That suggested a right belonging to all of us, as individuals. But the Court also held that the right extended only to weapons rationally related to the militia—not the sawed-off shotgun questioned in Miller. That mixed ruling has puzzled legal scholars for more than six decades. If military use is the decisive test, then citizens can possess rocket launchers and missiles. Obviously, that's not what the Court had in mind. Indeed, anti-gun advocates, who regularly cite Miller with approval, would be apoplectic if the Court's military-use doctrine were logically extended.

Because Miller is so murky, it can only be interpreted narrowly, allowing restrictions on weapons, like machine guns and silencers, with slight value to law abiding citizens, and high value to criminals. In other words, Miller applies to the type of weapon, not to the question whether the Second Amendment protects individuals or members of the militia. That's the conclusion the Fifth Circuit reached in Emerson. It found that Miller upheld neither the individual rights model of the Second Amendment nor the collective rights model. Instead, Miller simply decided that the weapons at issue were not protected, whether used individually or collectively.

For starters, no handgun can be registered in D.C. Even those pistols registered prior to the District's 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in the home without a license. Moreover, all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, must be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. In effect, no one in the District can possess a functional firearm in his or her own residence.
Enter U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. First, in a letter to the National Rifle Association, he "reaffirmed a long-held opinion" that all law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep and bear firearms, clearly protected by "the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment."

Ashcroft noted that early Supreme Court decisions "routinely" recognized an individual right, as had U.S. attorneys general of both parties prior to Miller. Ashcroft's letter was followed by the Justice Department's brief to the Supreme Court in the Emerson case. For the first time, the federal government argued in formal court papers that the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia ... subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

Despite that pronouncement, the Ashcroft Justice Department declared that Emerson was correctly decided. A restriction on persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order was a reasonable exception to Second Amendment protection. That's roughly the position of an impressive array of legal scholars, including Harvard's liberal icon, Laurence Tribe, and Yale's highly respected Akhil Amar, who agree on two fundamental issues: First, the Second Amendment confers an individual rather than a collective right. Second, that right is not absolute; it is subject to reasonable regulation. To the extent there's disagreement, it hinges on what constitutes reasonable regulation; that is, where to draw the line. That's why D.C.'s handgun ban is so interesting—and so vulnerable.

For starters, no handgun can be registered in D.C. Even those pistols registered prior to the District's 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in the home without a license. Moreover, all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, must be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. In effect, no one in the District can possess a functional firearm in his or her own residence. The law applies not just to "unfit" persons like felons, minors, or the mentally incompetent, but across-the-board to ordinary, honest, responsible citizens.

Roughly three dozen challenges to the D.C. law have already been filed—but mostly by criminals who are serving longer sentences because their crimes included gun possession. This case is different. The lead plaintiff, Shelly Parker, resides in a high-crime neighborhood and is active in community affairs. As a result of trying to make her neighborhood a better place to live, Ms. Parker has been threatened by drug dealers. She would like to possess a functional handgun within her home for self-defense, but fears arrest, prosecution, incarceration and fine because of D.C.'s unconstitutional gun ban.

But the District of Columbia says that if someone breaks into their houses, their only choice is to call 911 and pray that the police arrive in time. That's not good enough. The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to defend your property, your family and your life. No government should be permitted to take that right away.
A second plaintiff is a Special Police Officer who carries a handgun to provide security for the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center. But when he applied for permission to possess a handgun within his home, the D.C. government turned him down. Other plaintiffs include a gay man who was assaulted in another city on account of his sexual orientation, but was able to ward off the attacker with a handgun.

Quintessentially, a handgun is a personal weapon, used by citizens to defend themselves against criminal predators. It is not a weapon like the sawed-off shotgun barred in Miller. If "reasonable" regulations are those that prohibit bad persons from possessing massively destructive firearms, then the District's blanket prohibitions are patently unreasonable. "Some gun laws—Washington's notably among them—sweep more broadly than any individual right can reasonably be read to permit," said the Washington Post in an Aug. 5, 2002 editorial.

Just as important, Congress has plenary legislative authority over the nation's capital. That means the D.C. government, a creature of Congress, is constrained no less than the federal government itself by the Second Amendment. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But unlike most of the other 10 amendments, the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states has not been resolved. Yet because Washington, D.C. is not a state and is controlled by Congress, that complex, widely debated question need not be addressed when D.C. law is challenged on Second Amendment grounds.

Finally, felonies under D.C. law are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, an employee of the Justice Department—the same Justice Department that is now on record favoring an individual rights theory of the Second Amendment. To be sure, Ashcroft declared in an internal memorandum that the Justice Department "will continue to defend the constitutionality of all existing federal firearms laws." But D.C. law, although enacted pursuant to congressional delegation, is not federal law.

Naturally, D.C. law must comply with the U.S. Constitution, and the federal courts are the ultimate authority on the meaning of that document. Sixteen years ago, a local court in D.C. held that "the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." That precedent, however, is not binding in D.C.'s federal court, which has not yet resolved its theory of the Second Amendment.

Soon, the court will have an opportunity to do so. The six plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia are asking a federal judge to prevent D.C. from barring the registration of handguns, banning the possession of functional firearms within the home, and forbidding firearms from being carried from room to room without a license. The plaintiffs live here, pay their taxes here, and obey the laws. But the District of Columbia says that if someone breaks into their houses, their only choice is to call 911 and pray that the police arrive in time. That's not good enough. The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to defend your property, your family and your life. No government should be permitted to take that right away.

  • Robert A. Levy is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.