Posts Tagged With: Gun control

Obama picks anti-gun activist for Supreme Court….


In a move meant to openly defy U.S. Senate Republicans, President Barack Obama has nominated a judge to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s open Supreme Court seat.

And Obama’s pick appears to be no friend of the Second Amendment or private gun ownership rights.

At a morning press conference in the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday, Obama formally announced his nomination of federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

The pick sets up a confrontation with Republicans leaders, who say they will refuse to consider his nomination in an election year.

garlandGarland, 63, is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices.

He would replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly last month, leaving behind a bitter election-year fight over the future of the court.

Garland will be a hard sell to the Republicans that control the Senate, which must confirm any nominee, because of Garland’s opposition to the Second Amendment.

According to The National Review, “Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2007, Garland supported upholding a Washington, DC gun law that was called the most restrictive in the nation. The law, eventually struck down, banned private ownership of handguns and wouldn’t let citizens even keep them in their homes.

Garland also supported other restrictive gun control measures during the Clinton administration.

“Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things,” the National Review wrote. “First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.”

GOP leaders want to leave the Supreme Court choice to the next president, denying Obama a chance to alter the ideological balance of the court before he leaves office next January. Republicans contend that a confirmation fight in an election year would be too politicized.

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, gun control, Obama, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Grandpa Carries a gun…..


478958_377775065590126_103594823008153_1147845_1460009017_o.jpg-20-20Charlton-20Heston-20Quote-20on-20GunsWhy Grandpa carries a gun. The quintessential reason why Grandpa carries a gun. Please take time to read this and pay particular attention to “A Little Gun History” about half way down –   staggering numbers!   Why Carry a Gun?

 My old Grandpa said to me, “Son, there comes a time in   every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts   bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to   take a whoopin’.”   I don’t carry a gun to kill people; I carry a gun to keep   from being killed.   I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil; I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the World.   I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government; I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.   I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry; I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.   I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone; I   carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.  I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man; I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.   I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate; I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.   I don’t carry a gun because I love it; I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.   Police protection is an oxymoron: Free citizens must protect themselves because police do not protect you   from crime; they just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a whoopin’!

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY PLEASE  DON’T THINK  FOR  A  MOMENT,  THAT     THIS COULDN’T HAPPEN IN  OUR COUNTRY  ALSO !!!!!!

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control: · From 1929 to 1953,  about 20 million dissidents,   unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

In 1911, Turkey established gun control: · From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

Germany established gun control in

1938: From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were   unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

China established gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

Guatemala established gun control in 1964: From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend    themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

Uganda  established gun control in 1970: · From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,  unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

Cambodia established gun control in 1956: · From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated in the

20thentury because of gun control.

———————–

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.   Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely  affect only the law-abiding citizens.   With guns, we are ‘citizens’; without them, we are ‘subjects’.   During WW II, the Japanese decided not  to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Gun owners in the USA are the largest armed forces in   the World! · If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun   control message to all of your friends.   · The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible   victory in defense.

The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES A GUN TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD! SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND TRAINS EVERY ADULT IN THE USE OF A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!   IT’S A NO BRAINER!  DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT   WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN  EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS  AN EASY TARGET.

I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!  If you are too, please forward this.

If you’re not a believer, please reconsider the true facts.  This is history; not what’s being shown on TV, sanctioned by our illustrious delusional leaders in Washington .

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Execution, Germany, gun control, Nazi Germany, One Government, Politics, Uncategorized, world control | Tags: , , , , , | 8 Comments

Parrot laughs like a super villain…


Categories: 2nd Amendment, adult radio | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Australian Gun Law Update…..didn’t work out as planned…


Joe Faso's photo.

Here’s a thought to warm some of your hearts….
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to
surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria…..
lone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that
while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not
and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins andassaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it’s too late!
Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?
WHY? You will need it.
FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.
DON’T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.
BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON ‘T STAND FOR NONSENSE

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Democrats, gun control, Liberals | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tim Kaine’s Gun Control Bill Is A Backdoor Ban On All Private Gun Sales….


A new gun control bill from Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia appears to be nothing more than a backdoor ban on all private firearm sales in the U.S.

Kaine’s proposed law, entitled the “Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act,” places a criminal federal liability on anyone who transfers a firearm to an individual prohibited from possessing one by federal law, according to a fact sheet provided by Kaine’s office. Under current law, only federal firearms licensees (FFLs) are criminally liable if they sell a gun to a prohibited individual. Kaine’s law would extend that criminal liability to private individuals as well.

Sounds simple and uncontroversial, right?

Not really. The reason FFLs currently face criminal liablity for unlawful transfers is that they’re mandated by law to conduct or confirmbackground checks on all firearms sales (even sales at gun shows). All interstate sales between private residents must also be processed through an FFL in the buyer’s home state, and that process must include a federal background check. Sales between two private, non-FFL individuals who reside in the same state are the only major category of firearms transfers that are exempt from federal background checks (the reason for that exemption is obvious: there’s no federal or interstate commerce nexus).

In order to conduct those federal background checks, and to prevent themselves from being held criminally liable for selling guns to criminals, FFLs are granted access to the FBI’s NICS database. Before completing a sale, FFLs will contact the FBI, give them the information provided by the buyer on ATF form 4473, and the FBI will tell the FFL whether the buyer is cleared to purchase a gun.

While current federal gun law imposes a criminal liability only on those institutions with authority to conduct criminal background checks, Kaine’s bill does no such thing.

Instead, Kaine’s proposal criminalizes a private individual’s failure to conduct a federal background check while refusing to give that individual the right to conduct the federal background check in the first place. Kaine’s office confirmed that his bill does not give private individuals the authority or ability to conduct federal background checks in order to avoid the federal criminal liability imposed by his proposal. Federal law currently restricts NICS access to FFLs or state law enforcement agencies.

“[I]t does not give non-FFLs access to the [NICS] database,” Amy Dudley, Kaine’s communications director, told The Federalist via e-mail.

The legislative text of the proposed bill releases the criminal liability only if the seller “has taken reasonable steps to determine that the recipient is not legally barred from possessing firearms.” However, the most reasonable step available — conducting a background check via the same system used by FFLs — is not available to any private individuals.

Kaine’s gun control proposal is akin to an anti-speeding law which for some reason prohibits drivers from using speedometers to gauge their speeds.

Aside from virtually eliminating the private sales market in the U.S., Kaine’s gun control bill will also likely drive up profits for FFLs. If private individuals remain banned from conducting federal criminal background checks, they will be forced to process their transfers through FFLs, most of which charge hefty fees to process external sales.

The latest gun control effort from the junior senator from Virginia comes on the heels of the gun control movement’s failure in 2013 to enact so-called universal background checks. Rather than working to convince states to require background checks on all purchases, Kaine is doubling down on the gun control movement’s repeated failure to enact federal universal background checks.

Given that the 2013 gun control effort failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to end debate, it seems highly unlikely that a far more drastic proposal — a de facto ban on private, intrastate gun sales — would come anywhere close to passage.

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hstory of Gun Control…do you still want it?


gun control
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 19
17, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT’S A NO BRAINER!
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It’s time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people. —Hawk Seeker of Liberty—

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Breakdown of weapon components…..Freedom pieces…


weapon freedom

Categories: 2nd Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama..”clinging to their guns and religion…


480x360xi_wonder_when_obama_is_going_to_tell_the_muslims_to_stop_clinging_to_their_guns_and_their_religion.jpg.pagespeed.ic._o3yV8y8VM

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What happened to the Second Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court this year?….


 

The U.S. Supreme Court building.
This term, the Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid the right to bear arms.

June is always an exciting month for law geeks and political junkies. It’s the month when the U.S. Supreme Court typically issues opinions on some of the most controversial disputes of the day. This June will be no different, with high-profile decisions expected on abortion protests, Obamacare’s contraception mandate, and the president’s recess appointment power. Yet one of the lingering mysteries of this past Supreme Court term lies in a matter the justices seemingly refuse to rule on: What happened to the Second Amendment?

The justices are rarely hesitant to wade into any hot-button legal issue, including guns. Six years ago, the court made headlines when it ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a gun. The court expanded on that decision two years later, but this term, despite numerous invitations and opportunities, the justices went out of their way to avoid the right to bear arms.

Signs of this were clear on Monday, when the court in a 5–4 ruling upheld a major gun control law, the federal ban on “straw” purchasing without so much as mentioning the Second Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan reasoned that the background checks gun dealers are required to perform before selling someone a firearm would be “virtually repeal[ed]” if anyone could go in and buy a gun for someone else, while saying it was for him. In the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia accused the majority of misreading federal law, which he said was not intended to prohibit straw purchasing at all.

The justices’ failure to consider the Second Amendment was in part due to how the case was framed. The law wasn’t challenged as an infringement of the constitutional right to bear arms. The issue was one of statutory interpretation. Yet judges often look to background principles in deciding whether to read a statute broadly (as Kagan did) or narrowly (as Scalia did). One might have expected the values and concerns enshrined in the Second Amendment to at least make an appearance, if not a star turn. When the justices ignore the Second Amendment when construing a major gun control law, one suspects it isn’t merely an oversight.

Even as Second Amendment battles heat up in legislatures across the country—exemplified by Georgia’s recently adopted “guns everywhere” law permitting firearms in churches, bars, and airports—the Supreme Court refused to enter the fray. The justices declined to hear appeals in several Second Amendment cases this year. They turned away a case out of New Jersey on the constitutionality of discretionary permitting for concealed carry. They steered clear of a case challenging Texas’ ban on concealed carry by people under 21. And they denied cert in another case contesting the federal law banning gun dealers from selling handguns to people under 21.

Were the justices having second thoughts about the Second Amendment? One thing is certain: There were very strong reasons for the court to take a Second Amendment case this term. The court’s previous decisions left open two major questions: Does the Second Amendment protect the right of people to carry guns in public? And what test should courts use generally to determine the constitutionality of gun restrictions?

These questions have bedeviled the lower courts over the past few years, with judges all across the country offering contradictory answers. One federal appeals court held that police can exercise broad discretion over who can carry a gun in public, while another held the opposite. Some courts have adopted a test for Second Amendment cases that gives lawmakers considerable leeway to enact gun laws, while others have insisted on a more strict scrutiny. In some ways, the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on guns raised as many questions as it answered.

Such disagreement in the lower courts is usually the best predictor of whether the Supreme Court takes a case. The justices understand the nation’s need for uniformity, especially when it comes to individual rights. This term, however, the justices weren’t inclined to sort out any such inconsistencies involving the Second Amendment. Indeed, when expressly invited to wade in, they balked.

Über Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement, at the top of the shortlist of high-court nominees should the GOP recapture the White House in 2016, tried to goad the justices into taking a Second Amendment case. In a brief he filed on behalf of the National Rifle Association in the gun dealer case, Clement argued that the lower courts have engaged in a “pervasive pattern of stubborn resistance to this Court’s holdings” in the earlier gun cases. This language evoked the notorious “massive resistance” of Southern states to the court’s school desegregation decisions. Like the NAACP before him, he and the NRA were looking for the court to issue a clear, strong command to lower courts to read the Second Amendment broadly.

No thanks, said the court, declining to take the case. Indeed, the NRA may have been this term’s biggest loser. Not only did the court refuse to hear Clement’s case and another brought by the nation’s leading gun rights group, but it also rejected the NRA’s position outright in the straw-purchaser case just decided. In March, the court held in another case that a law banning guns to people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of “domestic violence” applied to those convicted of domestic “assault,” even if it was unclear that the assault involved violent force. Although the NRA didn’t take an official position in that case, many in its leadership were surely unhappy to see another Supreme Court ruling broadly reading a gun control law to reduce access to guns.

NRA disappointment might well turn into despair after Monday’s ruling, as Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote on the Second Amendment and so many other issues, sided with gun control advocates and the court’s liberal wing. It’s long been suspected that Kennedy signed on to the earlier Second Amendment rulings by the court only after language was inserted allowing for reasonable restrictions on guns. But the question has lingered: How far would Kennedy allow gun control to go?

That question might well have been on the minds of the other justices when they voted not to hear a Second Amendment case this year. With four justices likely in favor of broad Second Amendment rights and another four likely opposed, the scope of the right to bear arms turns on Kennedy. His views may have been sufficiently unclear that neither side wanted to take a risk of a landmark decision coming out the wrong way.

If, however, this term is any indication, Kennedy seems increasingly less likely to be a solid vote for expansive Second Amendment rights. Indeed, twice this term he voted for expansive readings of gun control laws instead. For the NRA, so used to winning in statehouses around the country, this can’t be good news. After this term, the NRA may be hoping that the Second Amendment stays out of the Supreme Court for a good, long while.

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EMPIRE STATE REBELLION: Hundred of Thousands of New Yorkers Refuse To Register So-Called “Assault Weapons” Ahead Of April 15 Deadline…..


Due the the tyrannical actions of Andrew Cuomo and his allies in the state legislature,  New York residents are required to register an estimated 1 million firearms designated as “assault weapons” under the NY SAFE Act by April 15.

Unfortunately for the Governor and his allies, it appears that the open revolt of most of the state’s law enforcement leaders against NY SAFE—who correctly view the law as a blatantly unconstitutional assault on the state constitution and the Second Amendment—means that noncompliance is overwhelming.

While NY State Police refuse to publicly share the number of firearms that have been registered (citing a provision of the NY SAFE Act itself), leaks purporting to be from within the agency suggest that compliance might be as low as just 3,000-5,000 firearms. There is no way to conclusively verify this paltry figure which suggests that 99.5% of New Yorkers are thumbing their noses at Albany, but it may very well be a credible figure.

Why?

Non-compliance rates of 85%-90% or more are the rule when draconian gun control laws demanding registration are passed in the United States. Those rates are normal even with relatively popular support from voters and law enforcement. Those dynamics of “popular support” are assuredly not in play in New York.

While gun registration may be exceedingly popular south of the Tappan Zee Bridge, and in a few pockets upstate, many (if not most) law enforcement officers and gun owners in the state have publicly rebelled against the law. Many municipal and county governments have joined them in open defiance. Gun owners in New York are well aware of the fact that their county sheriffs, state police, and local officers don’t intend to enforce the law, a stance that many law enforcement leaders have announced publicly.

Knowing that the chief law enforcement officers in most counties have announced that they will not enforce the law, a non-compliance rate exceeding 95% and perhaps exceeding 98% does indeed seem plausible.

As New York Assemblyman Bill Nojay (R-Pittsford) noted previously:

“The rank and file troopers don’t want anything to do with it,” Assemblyman Bill Nojay (R-Pittsford) said Monday. “I don’t know of a single sheriff upstate who is going to enforce it.”

“If you don’t have the troopers and you don’t have the sheriffs, who have you got? You’ve got Andrew Cuomo pounding on the table in Albany,” Nojay said.

Andrew Cuomo has demonstrated that he has the political power to ram through unconstitutional laws in Albany. What he’s also unwittingly exposed is his complete inability to enforce them.

Categories: 2nd Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Blog at WordPress.com.

mayanexplore.com

Riviera Maya Travel Guide

Cajun Food, Louisiana History, and a Little Lagniappe

Preservation of traditional River Road cuisine, Louisiana history & architecture, and the communities between Baton Rouge & NOLA

Jali Wanders

Wondering and Wandering

Southpaw Tracks

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” ~Samuel Adams

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

what's the formula?

Nurturing awesomeness: from the parents of celebrities, heroes, trailblazers and leaders

Tarheel Red

A Voice of Conservatism Living in Carolina Blue

cancer killing recipe

Just another WordPress.com site

dreamshadow59

A great WordPress.com site

Mike's Look at Life

Photography, memoirs, random thoughts.

Belle Grove Plantation Bed and Breakfast

Birthplace of James Madison and Southern Plantation

Letters for Michael

Lessons on being gay, of love, life and lots of it

Sunny Sleevez

Sun Protection & Green Info

Backcountry Tranquility

A journal about my travels and related experiences :)

LEANNE COLE

Art and Practice

Lukas Chodorowicz

Travel, culture and lifestyle experienced on my adventures around the world. All photos taken by me. Instagram: @colorspark

BunnyandPorkBelly

life is always sweeter and yummier through a lens. bunnyandporkbelly [at] gmail [dot] com

%d bloggers like this: