Old enough to fight for the Constitution? Old enough to exercise it

We give them a M-16, send them to a foreign land and tell them to defend the United States and  what it stands for, but if you’re not 21 in some parts of the country you will be denied the 2^nd Amendment rights enumerated in our Constitution.

Well, FINALLY, a state has taken the step in overthrowing this theatre of the absurd.  Missouri has passed  Bill HB1657 that will allow US Military Personnel under the age of 21 to get their Concealed Carry Weapons permit.  Currently, the law states that everyone must be 21 in order to receive a CCW.

As I stated in my opening, we are giving these young men and women rifles, machine guns, tanks and cannons to fire with dire purpose in defense of Liberty, how hypocritical of a nation must we be to then deny them the simple right to defend themselves while at home.

Now, I am not in favor of exceptions, but if anyone deserves one it is our military servicemen and women who have given more than most in defense of what we hold dear.  I am hopeful that this will be a step in the right direction to the day when Constitutional Carry will be recognized by all 50 states.

Furthermore, another measure was passed by Missouri in regards to Open Carry.  While Open Carry is generally legal in Missouri, it is not covered under State Preemption and as such, local municipalities can dictate its legality. 

Now people with a valid concealed carry permit and who legally carry a firearm may “briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.”  While this isn’t a full-on open carry measure (the word briefly is vague) it does offer protection for a licensed gun owner who may be railroaded by a local municipality on trumped up charges.  Not a home run, but still another step in the right direction.

That is not all the good news in the world of gun ownership.  Our neighbors to the north in Canada are “well underway” in the dismantling of their long gun registry.  I bring this up only because a victory for gun rights anywhere is a victory for gun rights everywhere.  Of course, Quebec immediately filed an injunction and kept their long gun registry intact while they challenge the measure in court.  

I’m overjoyed anytime I see a gun registry scheme thrown out.  Gun registry has never been proven to stop any crime but has been proven to be the easiest avenue for gun confiscation and the gateway to the denial of the gun rights on a populace. 

A pair of feel good stories to start your weekend. 

 

In the heat of the moment, true stories of split second decisions to shoot

I got a little blowback from some about my recent blog post about the recent shooting at the Empire State Building. I heard a lot about how dangerous the profession is and how in the heat of the moment you can’t shoot straight so I thought I would look into some other recent examples.

First, let me direct you to what an NYPD officer himself said on reddit.com:

“Any average CCW citizen who practices more than twice a year pretty much has most of the department beat in terms of training”

You can read more about the officer’s insight here.  Training is definitely important for all gun owners, be they wearing a badge or not.

As I said, some kept telling me that “if you’ve never been in that situation you can’t criticize”.  I question that logic too, now that I think about it.  I’ve never been President of the United States either; does that mean I am not allowed to criticize the Obama?

But I digress.  Here are some recent, real world situations about people who, with their life on the line defended themselves from would be murderers and they didn’t have to empty their magazines to do it.

Two would be thieves entered a Dollar Store in Jacksonville Florida with nefarious intent and started threatening the two clerks working.  Unfortunately for the robbers the only customer in the store at the time happened to be a 57 year old grandfather who was also a CCW holder and was armed.  The unnamed Samaritan shot 2 shots, connected both and killed the first robber while the second high tailed it out of there. 

According to his wife. “He’s always been a marksman. He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he’s ever killed anyone and I don’t know how he’ll handle that.” 

I hope that this hero doesn’t have any restless nights because he may very well have saved lives with his actions. 

Now, if there is ever a situation when a full blown firefight may ensue when you can’t hit 100% of your targets it might be a situation like Gun Shop Owner Stephen Bayezes faced on August 9^th in Belvedere, South Carolina.  Three would be thieves drove a van through a wall of the gun shop that Mr. Bayezes owns in order to do a smash and grab of as many weapons as they can.

Mr. Bayezes, who lives on the premises, came out and one of the robbers shouted “Shoot the mother [explicative]”.  At that point Mr. Bayezes heard a gun click.

But once again, unfortunate circumstance for the bad guys, Mr. Bayezes did not bring a knife to this gun fight, he brought his AR platform rifle and he opened fire.  Choosing his targets carefully, shooting to hit he hit all three suspects without the need to reload, killing one and driving the others from his property.

Even being awoken in the middle of the night, outnumbered 3 to 1 by armed bad guys, Mr. Bayezes didn’t just have his trigger finger dance in “spray and pray” mode.  No report of any bullets striking outside of his gun shop, no reports of neighbors houses being hit.  In the heat of the moment an average citizen defended himself with his weapon and the streets did not run red with innocent blood.

This is a direct rebuke of gun control zealots who continue to say that anyone other than the police would just shoot up the place and innocent people would get in the crossfire.  Furthermore, it is a testament to why AR platform weapons are absolutely reasonable for self defense.

Finally, some amazing video of a female store owner defending herself from a gun wielding and violent attacker who was trying to smash his way into her store.  One well placed and timed shot had the attacker limping off as fast as he could.  Here’s the video, it’s amazing to see the ferocity of the attacker and how quickly he turns tail and run after he realizes that his intended victim has bite.

We have 3 situations of varying degrees but all were intense and sudden and needed split second decisions to be made.  In total 3 shots were fired from 2 pistols.  Both stopped a violent crime in its tracks.  From an AR platform weapon fewer than 20 shots were fired at 3 suspects, killing one and stopping a violent crime in action.  At no point was any innocent person injured and at no point was any shooter conceivably out of control.

And before anyone gets the outlandish notion that I am saying that only citizens can use their weapons responsibly I’ll relate a personal story about a shooting I witnessed firsthand on a busy street in Pittsburgh, PA. 

A man was walking down the street mumbling with a meat cleaver.  A Pittsburgh Police Officer, Eric Tatusko just happened upon the scene and ordered the man to drop the cleaver.  The man continued to walk forward and Officer Tatusko retreated some and continued to order the man to drop the cleaver.  The man moved in an aggressive manner toward Officer Tatusko and with innocent people behind him fired a single shot and killed the man with the cleaver.

The point is that a badge does not make you innately better with a gun than the average citizen.  Nor does it make you the only one to whom the Second Amendment applies.  At the end of the day it is training that will carry the day and if you don’t have enough of it then bad things will happen.

This is even truer for average everyday gun owners.  If you think just having a gun is enough then you are setting yourself up for failure.  Any gun you own you should be proficient with it, like any tool, if you don’t use it, your skills will be rusty at best. 

And while a hammer may only smash your finger, a firearm can have more costly mistakes.

 

Take the money and run

Most likely you work hard for your money.  In this economy that sentiment is probably an understatement.  So why would you want to spend your hard earned cash at a place that doesn’t recognize your rights?

I am talking of businesses that are hostile to gun ownership and gun owners.  They come in diverse fields and have varying degrees of being anti gun establishments.  For instance they could have that little sign on their door with a pistol X’d out.  Now, unless I missed it  on the news, force fields or magic pixy dust has not been proven to stop criminals so this business wants you to make yourself vulnerable to death but will do nothing more than place a sign up to insure your safety.

I tend to avoid these places, mainly because I don’t want to be murdered.

Sometimes they won’t have the little sign but if you are printing your weapon or open carrying it they will come to you and ask you to either leave or put it in your car.  I leave, for the same reason as before.  Leaving a place where you are ensuring that the only people who will be armed are those with criminal intent greatly increases your chances of not being murdered.

Then there are those companies and corporations that ardently support gun control.  These are a little harder to find because they often require some leg work to uncover.  These companies may be heavy supporters of gun control groups or they may be hostile to gun manufacturers. 

This is the case with Bank of America.  Earlier this year McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing and McMillan Group International had been collectively banking with Bank of America but were told to pay off their accounts as they would no longer be welcomed to bank with BoA.

Kelly McMillan, Operations Director of the McMillan companies, met with Senior VP of BoA Ray Fox and what was supposed to be an “account analysis” quickly became a political smack down.

In McMillan’s words, “What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer want my business.”  To which Fox replied, “That is correct.”

Of course, not all businesses are so blatantly anti gun like Bank of America.  Some are questionably so.  To this I am thinking of Craigslist and Capital One Credit.

Craigslist has long been against the trade and sale of firearms on their website and from a point of view you could see how that might make sense.  They don’t want to be liable for facilitating an illegal gun sale or other Fast & Furious type operations.  That would initially make sense if it weren’t for the fact that Craigslist has long been used as a hub for prostitution.  I guess it doesn’t come as too much of a surprise that San Francisco based business Craigslist, bans ads for the sale of guns but facilitates prostitution.

That one seems a little more cut and dry than the Capital One stance.  Capital One has an image card in which you can personalize your credit card with a photo or picture.  There was a time when the guidelines specifically stated no firearms but apparently after a backlash they changed the wording.  While still at the sole discretion of Capital One to reject the image one of the guidelines reads: 

Images which could be considered to show violence or violent acts, blood, gore or injury.

So given to who reviews these images, any hunting or harvest photo sent will be (and has been) rejected outright.  Furthermore, any photo of a firearm, regardless of its context could be “considered” to break the guideline.  This one is a judgment call.  But if you have a Capital One credit card I suggest you submit a photo of your 1911, AR-15, your prized hunting rifle, or the shotgun your dad gave you as a kid and see if these pieces of Americana make the grade with Capital One.  If they don’t then I guess you know where they stand.

My point is that if you work hard for your money you should know that the businesses that are fortunate enough to have you as a customer do not go about stabbing you in the back in regards to your Second Amendment rights.

There is yet one more class of business that defer to local law in regards to making gun policy.  Examples would include Starbucks and Wal-Marts who will defer to local law in regards to policy.  In that, if it is legal to Open Carry in Pittsburgh, PA (which it is) then you are welcome to patron those stores.   I have no problem with their no-stance stance as it does not hinder law abiding citizens.

I have found a very good site that offers personal experiences of businesses and rates them on their friendliness to gun owners.  It’s an open site that anyone can rate a business on and I encourage you to check it out and contribute to, in case you are curious as to which businesses support or conspire against your rights.

That site is Friendorfoe.us

Maybe, if these businesses lose enough money they will come to their senses and stop their dangerous and un-American stances against the constitution and personal safety.

 

Please sir…I want some more

Sometimes, as Americans, it’s important to look at other countries that have gone forward with gun control measures to realize what is at stake and what kind of world the gun control zealots would have us live in.  Today, I want to take a look at Australia, who much like England, enacted a gun ban but who are taking the arduous steps to regain what they have lost.

First, the facts.  Australia has more violent crimes since the gun ban was instituted.  5 years into the ban the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged that there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in the commission of crimes.  Plainly put, as if it’s a surprise to anyone with common sense, CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW.  Unfortunately for the law abiding citizens of Australia, they do and have had to pay dearly in the past 15 years for it.

In 2006, year 9 of the gun ban Australia saw the following increase of crimes with a firearm:

 -armed assault rose 49.2%

-armed robbery rose 6.2%

-rape at gunpoint increased 29.9%

-overall violent crime rate with use of firearm increased 42.2%

So, when you disarm the law abiding, the criminals still ignore the laws and you get an overall sky rocketing of gun related crimes by an increase of nearly 50%. 

But I thought gun control was supposed to prevent crime? Some gun control zealots probably are thinking that the US with our 2nd Amendment freedoms must be worse in regards to crime over that period.

Well, let’s take a look at a comparison to the US and Australia from the time period of 1995 – 2007 then.

-In Australia the murder rate decreased by 31.9%.  Not bad, the gun control zealots would tout this as a victory.  But in the US, the murder rate decreased by 31.7%.

-In Australia, as I mentioned previously assault rose 49.2%, robbery by 6.2% and rape by 29.9%

-In that time the US saw a DECREASE of those crimes by 32.2% (assault), 33.2 %(robbery) and 19.2 %(rape)

So, during that time frame, where Australia implemented a gun ban while the US saw gun ownership increase there was a similar decrease in murders by a rate of approx 30% in both countries.  But while the US decreased in crime across the board by HUGE margins, Australia saw a dramatic increase of violent crime against an unarmed populace.  Australian women are 3 TIMES more likely to be raped than American women. That is gun control in action my friends, disarm the lawful so the criminals gain control.

But there is hope in the land down under.  Queensland is the first state to look into easing the restrictions currently facing potential gun owners.  Of course, against all logic, reason and evidence to the contrary the Police have been adamant about opposing this saying such reductions in bureaucratic red tape would have the streets run red with blood. 

Currently, while Australians can get some firearms, mostly shotguns or rim fire rifles the steps necessary in getting the license to do so is arduous and takes anywhere from 8 months to a year.  But that doesn’t seem like enough red tape for some.

Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers said “If anything we shouldn’t reduce red tape for gun owners, but increase it”. 

Now, as Americans we have heard such nonsense before and we fight against it.  But remember, we still have our weapons and we are looking to maintain ground and at times forward the recognition of our innumerable right in the eyes of the government.  Our Aussie cousins have had that right denied them and, like Oliver Twist, are coming up to the gruel master and asking for some more.  And people like Ian Leavers response is a disdainful, “MORE?!?  Actually, here’s the scene with limited modification:

‘Please, sir, I want some more of my rights.’

The master was a fat, healthy man; but he turned very pale. He gazed in stupefied astonishment on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung for support to the copper. The assistants were paralyzed with wonder; the boys with fear.

‘What!’ said the master at length, in a faint voice.

‘Please, sir,’ replied Oliver, ‘I want some more of my rights recognized.’

The master aimed a blow at Oliver’s head with the law; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.

The board were sitting in solemn conclave, when Mr. Bumble rushed into the room in great excitement, and addressing the gentleman in the high chair, said,

‘Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more gun rights!’

There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.

‘For MORE!’ said Mr. Limbkins. ‘Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more, after we gave him a meaningless appearance of rights?’

‘He did, sir,’ replied Bumble.

‘That boy will be shot,’ said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. ‘I know that boy will be shot.’

Nobody controverted the prophetic gentleman’s opinion. An animated discussion took place. Oliver was ordered into instant confinement; and a bill was next morning pasted on the outside of the gate, offering a reward of five pounds to anybody who would shun Oliver Twist and his want of rights. In other words, five pounds were offered to any paper who wanted to shun Oliver Twist and demonize his request for more.

 ——————————————————

Outside of changing what he was asking for and the part about the media, that is the scene from Dickens classic.  How fitting it is.  How the government, any government, would react with condemnation and fear at the thought of someone who dared ask for more than what the government ruled that they have.  How quickly and harshly they come down on someone who simply asks for their rights given to them by natural law be recognized by the state. 

But that is the truth of the matter in Australia.  They have to ask for their rights back and I hope for their sake they can get them.  In America we have the right written out and we fight to keep it.  I am thankful for that, as it is better to fight to keep what you have than it is to come hat in hand and ask for what you should have.

Best of luck to our Aussie cousins and let it be a tale of warning for gun owning Americans.

 

The Bloomberg Hypocrisy

It will come to no surprise to those who have read this blog that I feel that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a tyrant who tramples on peoples free will and freedom of choice to impose his own whims on the people by fiat.  He is a bully in an ivory tower. If New York City was a foreign country we would look upon him with the same condemnation we have for all despots.  He has changed election laws to allow himself to run a third term and he has used his billions of dollars to ridicule and brow beat opposition as well as trying to expand his reach.  Like any greedy little despot, he wants to become a bigger despot.

One of the ways he goes about doing this is by founding the Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  The hypocrisy starts there in the name itself.  Bloomberg views all guns that are not used to protect him and his rich socialite cronies as illegal.  In his mind, the little peons can’t be trusted with firearms so they shouldn’t have them, or perhaps because they aren’t rich or famous they don’t deserve them.  The cost for even applying for a permit (that will most likely be denied) is in excess of $430.

The city issues approximately 2000 gun licenses a year…in a city of 8 MILLION.  We’re not even in the 1% range here…that is .00025 percent of the population is deemed worthy in Michael Bloomberg’s eyes as needing a handgun.  For those of you who don’t know, a New York State carry permit is not recognized in NYC and both are “May Issue” permits.  But Bloomberg retains his grip on his fiefdom by regulating, with high non refundable application fees and arbitrary prerequisites of “need”, that it would take 40 years before 1% of law abiding citizens were allowed to carry in the city.

But let’s get to reason I spent this weekend thinking about this.  Imagine if you will, a criminal with a gun walks over to the Empire State Building with murder on his mind.  Now this criminal pulls out his gun and is about to heinously assassinate a man who was just trying to go about his day heading into work.  But before the  assassin has the chance to pull the trigger a law abiding person, maybe his victim, maybe someone around him , sees what is about to go down and pulls out their firearm that they are legally allowed to have and a firefight ensues.

I won’t even say who fired poorly and who didn’t but I will just tell you how it ends up.  The assassin is dead and nine innocent bystanders were wounded in the crossfire.  What do you think Mayor Bloomberg’s reaction would be?

Would he congratulate the bystander for saving a man’s life?

Would he have been quoted saying, “There is no doubt that the situation would’ve been even more tragic except for the extraordinary acts of heroism”?

Of course he wouldn’t.  He would rail against the vigilante-ism of the act, he would say we no longer live in the wild west, he would bring the hero up on charges and hold them civilly liable for the 9 innocent bystanders shot and he would demonize everything that this person did only to further his end game of eliminating the ability for regular law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

He would go further than this since there is never a tragedy that he doesn’t like to exploit (that isn’t of his own making).  He would try to expand the racially motivated stop and frisk policy that he currently employs as well as trampling on an even more rights in order to assert his control.

But, that’s not what happened.  What happened was that a man was assassinated and the police, who are not expected to stop crime and indeed are legally exempt from having to, pursued the assassin a few feet, drew their weapons, fired wildly at the man and after 16 shots were fired they hit their target a grand total of once, while 9 innocent bystanders lay bleeding on the ground.

And of Michael Bloomberg’s outrage?  Of his need for his officers to be a little more proficient in the use of arms?  In the call to disarm the police if they cannot act responsibly with a firearm?  What mention has he made on the utter and complete failing of his lauded gun control policies that will not and cannot prevent such acts?

I would say he remained silent but that would be giving him credit he does not deserve.

Bloomberg, like a spoiled rich kid, blames all the poor hicks in the country side for his gun violence in his city.  In his mind if only we expanded gun control like they have in New York City than everything would be swell.  If only we disarmed the people and tread completely on their rights can we live in a NYC inspired utopia.  Freedom is overrated anyways, eh Mike?  I mean, who wouldn’t want to live in New York City.  You tell us what to eat, the portion sizes, how mothers must nurse their children, what rights we can and cannot exercise (the latter becoming larger than the former) that we must submit to random searches without reasonable suspicion for the good of the city and all these other things YOU, Mayor Michael Bloomberg think WE the people need.

And if something you impose doesn’t work you simply blame someone else.

Hypocrisy is a vile and petty thing…and Michael Bloomberg you reek of it.

 

 

One should always stand up to bullies, even if they have a badge

I am glad to see that the corruption and racketeering of some in the Nassau Country Police Department does not go unchallenged, especially when the victim happens to be a gun shop owner on the border of his royal pompousness Emperor Bloomberg’s fiefdom (formerly known as New York City).  $5 million for wrongful arrest from alleged crooked cop with a beef.

The shakedown began in 2006 when Officer Erik Faltings in the Pistol Licensing Bureau of Nassau County came to gun shop owner Martin Tretola and asked him to release some weapons to a friend of Faltings in March of that year.  Tretola questioned the legality of such a request and as a responsible gun shop owner refused. 

Officer Faltings apparently didn’t like not being obeyed unquestioningly and according to charges in the court documents orchestrated a raid on Tretola’s T&T Gunnery store which included the Nassau County Fire Marshall, Nassau County Bomb Squad and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco.    It would seem that Officer Faltings likes to emulate Adolf Hitler who stated that one should lie big since the people would not believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Tretola’s attorney, Steven Harfenist puts the ordeal succinctly when he states, “I feel (Faltings) had an animus towards Marty.  He didn’t like being told he didn’t know how to do his job.  He was trying to do somebody a favor and Marty didn’t go along with it.  (Faltings) came down with the dogs of war.”

So basically, if you stand up for what is right and not cave into a crooked cop and his cronyism you will get the dogs of war called down upon you.  And if you happen to be a gun shop owner, be prepared to have your name besmirched when you are brought up on trumped up gun charges.

The main charge in this case was that Tretola was operating an illegal firing range.  When the truth of the matter was he simply maintained a trap box – a device for safely discharging bullets from gun for test purposes.  That charge was dismissed.

Faltings wasn’t satisfied with having his vendetta interrupted by facts or the law so he later brought up charges for filing a false instrument for licensing requirements.  That charge was also dismissed.

The harassment and intimidation attempts did not stop there, last year Tretola was arrested for illegally selling assault weapons.  That charge was also dismissed.

Of course, the Nassau County Attorney John Ciampoli comes to the defense of his crooked officer dismissing the claim that Faltings had targeted Tretola.  Of course, with all the dismissing Ciampoli has dealt with in this case, maybe that is just his knee jerk reaction.   Thankfully, the federal jury in awarding Mr. Tretola $5 million wasn’t swayed by the thin blue line but rather took into account what was plain to see, badge or not a vendetta is a vendetta.

Ciampoli, instead of admitting there’s a crooked cop on the payroll and going after the criminal wearing a badge has decided to ask for the verdict in Tretola’s case to be set aside, and if that doesn’t work filing an appeal.

And people wonder why I will not willingly forfeit my rights to an officer on his whim.  Be they my 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, or 5^th, I will not give up any rights for the ol’ “go along to get along” idiom.  The police are people just like anyone else.  Some are good people and others are not.

One should be wary in knowing which one they are dealing with because every so often you will, especially as a gun owner, come across an Officer Faltings who would use his badge for his own nefarious and selfish desires.

I would like to hope that a $5 million loss to the county would wake Officer Faltings or the county itself that such shenanigans and criminal activity will not be tolerated by the public servants but there’s the rub.  Neither Officer Faltings, nor DA Ciampoli will have to pay one red cent to this.  This buck gets passed onto the good taxpayers of Nassau County. 

I hope they remember who tolerates breaches of the public trust come next election.    

More on the  story can be read here.

 

Standing for the Constitution by standing against the law

When I was in the Army we were told we had to follow all lawful orders.  Sounds easy enough…until you’re given an unlawful order.  Too often in history we hear of atrocities being committed by those “just following orders”.  But even when you are right, and you stand up against what is wrong, it doesn’t mean it’s easy.  In fact, it usually means the opposite and your life is going to get a lot more difficult.  But I guess that’s where things like character and honor come into play.  Are you willing to go against the flow and stand up for what is right?  I just wanted to highlight a few people who seem to grasp the outline of what “shall not be infringed” means in a post Heller and McDonald world.  And then just for kicks, to highlight one who wants to thumb his nose at the Second Amendment and refuse a lawful order because of hatred and bigotry.

In Edwards County, Illinois, the only state that still has a statewide ban against concealed carry, State’s Attorney, Mike Valentine, has recently come out and said “If you’re otherwise law-abiding, you won’t face charges for packing heat in Edwards County”.  A stance that is perfectly and legally within his right to do.

Mr. Valentine has been greeted by some, including State Senator Dan Kotowski, that think they should be stripped of such decision making.  “Higher law enforcement officials should look into it.  I think the attorney general should look into this”, Kotowski said.  What I read into his statement is that he hopes it will get pushed up the ranks and closer to Chicago until someone agrees with him.

But it appears that Mr. Valentine’s thoughts might be gaining traction in other parts of the state.

In Mclean County, State’s Attorney Ronald Dozier has publically announced that he also will not prosecute gun carriers as he views the law as unconstitutional. 

Of course the Governor, Pat Quinn has come down on Mr. Dozier stating the “You have a duty to respect the law”.  Funny, considering how in respecting the Second Amendment Mr. Dozier is doing just that.  Perhaps Gov. Quinn should respect the law and give the people of Illinois the same right that the citizens of all 49 other states (in some regard) have.

Mr. Dozier, a former judge, wrote a four-page statement outlying how the state laws of Illinois regulating how and where people carry guns as unconstitutional under recent US Supreme Court rulings. 

With men like Valentine and Dozier refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws they are taking a stand against Chicago thuggery and are fostering the dialogue in the minds of voters who can know ask themselves, why are we denied our Second Amendment rights in Illinois?

On the flip side, I’d like to take you to Colorado University in Boulder where we find Prof. Jerry Peterson who also wants to stand up for what he believes in.  The only problem is that he believes in allowing massacres to run unabated on college campuses.  Prof. Peterson has publically stated that he will cancel class if discovers any of his students is a CCW holder and is legally carrying a firearm in his class. 

This is the same kind of liberal “feel” good policy that academics like to espouse.  But in truth it’s the same kind of bigotry and hate mongering that a professor who doesn’t want to teach anyone who is in a bi-racial relationship. 

In this way, a Professor is saying, “I don’t like your personal views and I certainly don’t like you exercising your freedom that upsets me in my ivory tower so I am going to cancel class and go home.  My hope is that you will eventually be shamed enough to change your ways.”

Well, tough tamales for Prof. Peterson this time because the Chancellor of Colorado University came out and stated that professors “do not have the right to shut down a class or refuse to teach” should they learn that one of their students is lawfully carrying a gun with a CCW. Doing so will be a breach of their contract (let alone denying the education that students and parents pay for) and there will be disciplinary action.

I’ll once again return to my first point about following lawful orders.  The state prosecutors from Illinois are standing up against an unconstitutional law that they use the US Supreme Court to back their claims.  Prof. Peterson is whining like a little child who wants to take his ball and go home because deep down in his heart he doesn’t like the constitution when it doesn’t agree with him.  That doesn’t make what he is doing brave or noble…it makes it petty and small and like all bigots he should be shunned for it.

 

Is that a gun on your hip or are you just happy to see me?

As an open carrier I have found that there are tangible benefits to the practice that transcend simple self defense measures.  Open carrying of firearms, where legally permissible, offers an opportunity to change perceptions and politics.  Of course, like many things, this is a double edged proposition.

I have been openly carrying in Pennsylvania since about 2005.   Mostly in Pittsburgh but also throughout the state when I travel.  Actually, to any state that it is legal to OC in, I do.  But back to PA for now.  In the Commonwealth it is legal to open carry on foot without a license or permit in every municipality except for Philadelphia.  You need a PA License to Carry a Firearm or a CCW from another state with reciprocity. 

Over the years I have been subject to a great deal of police officers trying to assert dominance over me, by pressuring me to forfeit not only my 2^nd Amendment rights but also my 4^th and even my 5^th.  I would be threatened with jail if I did not give them my identification even though they had no reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime.  Since OC is legal in Pennsylvania I was committing no crime and was under no obligation to show any jack booted thug “my papers”.

I even got brought up on an unenforceable Pittsburgh law that was unenforceable due to pre-emption just because standing up for my rights infuriated a few officers on a power trip.  The result of which can be read here.  

I had a bunch of interactions with the police like that over the years, but over time, by standing my ground, being seen regularly by the public, and threatening to file lawsuits when my civil rights were in danger of being violated, they have decreased and it has been a few years since I have been confronted by the police.  Now, this doesn’t mean that some gun-control zealot isn’t going to call 911 and make up a story about a guy with a gun waving it around in the open (that happened once, I was drinking tea), but nowadays a cruiser may roll by, make sure amok isn’t being run and continue on their way.

I don’t mean to take full credit for this, a great number of people throughout the state, who had greater civil rights violations against them and who had harsher thuggery laid upon them all contributed to the eventual update to the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission book.

Now, outside of some hold outs in Philadelphia who believe that by hassling OCers they will stop OCing, the police have been made aware of the legality and have handled themselves well in relation to my legal rights to Open Carry.

But beyond the police, I often get approached by people who have been so brainwashed by the liberal media and the gun-control zealots that they are mystified by the idea that carrying a gun is legal, let alone to do so openly without a license.  I enjoy these encounters because it offers me the opportunity to throw a little education at them and encourage them to purchase a firearm and take control of the defense of their own lives.

To add a little more personal touch to this, I went to the University of Pittsburgh and I had a great deal of, if not gun control zealots, friends who didn’t understand the need for me to carry a firearm.  But after time, as we went out and lived our lives the firearm on my hip just became another bit of life.  Nothing scary about it, nothing intimidating, the fear that had been bred into them by years of liberal indoctrination slowly seeped away.  I wasn’t doing anything actively to open their minds, just the fact that someone they knew, who wasn’t a criminal, was armed made the idea of people being armed an ok thing.  I of course took them to the firing range and squeezed off some rounds thus making them converts, with a few buying their own firearms soon after.

But that is what Open Carry does.  It allows for the opening of minds by people who have been fed the same line of BS for years that only cops and criminals have guns.  If you never see anyone else with a firearm then why would you think that that isn’t the case?

Of course, there is the flip side.  I spoke of a very passive approach to OC that doesn’t shove it in anyones face.  Sometimes when you push your advantage you end up shooting yourself in the foot; I’m looking at you California.  Time was, I could visit California and openly carry my firearm.  Of course, Cali being Cali, I had to do so unloaded but it was still better than nothing because I could still have the magazine at hand to load quickly if necessary.

But a group in California decided to push it.  When Starbucks corporate HQ stated that their chains would follow state law and would not ban openly carried firearms in their stores the gun control zealots protested.  Instead of just going about their business as usually and enjoying Starbucks coffee the OCer’s of California started counter protesting and rallying in groups to go to Starbucks while OCing. 

To be honest, I’m behind them on that…if it was somewhere other than California.  I mean, you’re not even close to having the backing in the legislature (or even the gun community) to rub the zealots’ nose in something and not get retribution from it.  Because of these counter protests the legislature moved to ban open carry of handguns in the state, it passed overwhelming and Gov. Brown signed it.  Now, when I come to California I cannot carry at all…unless I want to open carry a shotgun around all day…which I don’t.

Here’s hoping for National Reciprocity (until we get Universal Constitutional Carry)

My point is that Open Carrying is a great way to slowly and in small steps make a community and eventually a state better accept an armed public.  But when you jump the shark and try to shove it down California’s throat you get it regurgitated back onto you.

Now, maybe the idea is to get all forms of non licensed carry banned to make a better case for the infringement of the 2^nd Amendment before the Supreme Court, that may be the case…but until then I can’t OC in Cali…and I am none too pleased.  Like I said, I am all for OC and despite what some in the gun community may say, it’s not going to “ruin it for us all”. 

But sometimes, slow and steady wins the race.  Aren’t turtles protected in California?

 

 

Are you ready to survive?

After going over the summary of internet traffic to my blog I noticed that, behind facebook, the most traffic was coming from a site called survival week.  I thought I would give them a look and see what they were all about.

To put it bluntly, the site is a one stop shop of survival information in case the world goes topsy turvy.  So, before some of you start thinking about how the Mayans were all full of it and the end of the world isn’t going to come on December 21st, 2012 I want you to think about what you may need to be ready to survive that has nothing to do with a nigh-mythological doomsday countdown.

Let’s start with something easy and quantifiable: Hurricanes.  Not any hurricane mind you, lets take a look at what a hurricane can do to a city that is literally below sea level, New Orleans.  The residents who decided to remain, or couldn’t get out, were left is a soggy psuedo apocalyptic world.  Law was un-established, power and running water was gone, looting was rampant as well were carjackings, murders, thefts and rapes.  What little influence the law had at times turned into criminals themselves murdering innocent people and trying to cover it up.  That’s when they are not too busy disarming the public; Police Superintendant Compass: “No one will be able to be armed, Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”  I wonder what states with gun registration would use to find all these guns in order to confiscate them…hmmmmm…

So, in the aftermath of a natural event so common it has its own season (June 1st – Nov 30th) are you ready if you have to survive?  And to our west coast countrymen, the aftermath of a hurricane can be the same as the aftermath of an earthquake.  But at least the hurricane can be predicted.  

Not only are there natural disasters that happen on a regular basis, but there are ones that happen so infrequently that we have no idea what would happen to the modern world if it occurs again.  I’m talking about super solar flares or more technically Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun causing massive Electro Magnetic Pulses to shoot toward Earth.  It has happened in the past, the only difference is that when it did, we weren’t a civilization that depended almost wholly on technology and energy.

Picture this if you will.  One day you’re just sitting around the house, lets say it is close to dusk, just watching tv enjoying the cool autumn air.  Then all of a sudden the tv goes out, the lights turn off, you lose power.  You check your cell phone to see what time it is but it’s fried.  You hear outside car crashes.  Not one but ALL of them.  In the distance you see a plane fall out of the sky like a rock.  You turn on your battery powered radio to see what the problem is but it won’t work.  No piece of electronic thing you own will work…EVER AGAIN.  The fridge only has so much cold left in it then your food will go bad.  The water no longer runs, you have no way of getting information any more and as the sun finally disappears beyond the horizon the world enters a state of darkness it has known in over 200 years.  Are you prepared?  

These are some natural disasters that are very real possibilities and should be prepared for just for the sake of preparedness.  I’m not saying you need a bunker to hole up in for 3 years but if you lose clean drinking water for a week and your fridge doesn’t work, could you manage in the short term?

Now, I could break down more examples but they pretty much all play out the same.  You lose power, society panics, roving gangs, survival of the fittest.

So the question remains…are you prepared? 

 

Can you ever pay off your crime?

Spent some time this weekend thinking about a conversation I had concerning a topic from last week about the mandatory jail time for felons who use firearms in another crime or simply illegally carry after their first release.

This post may be a little more philosophical than others but I think its some good food for thought.

Instead of using specific examples of varying crimes I am going to pose the query as such: Should a convicted felon ever be allowed to regain all their rights?  This of course includes the right to keep and bear arms.

In my youth I was a bit more of a hard tack when it came to this notion.  I believed that if you committed a crime you should be punished and that you are no longer a citizen in regards to the Constitution.  You have broken the social contract intrinsic to being a citizen and as such would be rightfully denied the full spectrum of the rights therein.  

Perhaps as my libertarian ways have taken a more firm hold I have come to see things a bit differently.  Or perhaps I have become more of a hard tack when it comes to criminals but my views have moved…oddly enough in both directions.

I once believed, as I said that, that criminals should lose their rights because they have proven that they cannot be law abiding citizens.  But if they cannot be trusted with the rights of a citizen than why are they out of prison?  This is where the duality of my thought comes in.  I’m in favor of HARD time (more so than when I was younger).  The kind in which you do not get out of for good behavior or copping a plea or getting some bleeding heart justice to think you had it rough so he’s willing to excuse the armed robbery, assault and vehicular manslaughter charge while you were coked up.  

BUT, if you serve your time, and are released back into society, if you cannot be trusted to act accordingly with the full rights of a citizen then what the hell are they doing on the streets?!?!

So, do I think we should eliminate probation and parole? No, one should always be wary of absolutes like zero tolerance policies.  Though, if you want to withhold certain rights during that time then that’s fine because the convict is still serving his time.  But should someone, who has served his time, made whatever amends the state has asked of him be released into society and still denied the rights that everyone else has?

To focus on the Second Amendment directly…if we take the assumption that a convicted criminal is no longer part of the People, at what point, if ever, are they again counted among the People?  And if they are once again part of the People, what right does the state have to infringe upon their Second Amendment right?

 

Law vs Control – Plus a look at an American Despot

Often gun control zealots like to espouse why their ideas are valid.  They try to explain away their disdain for firearms and others freedom to possess behind the straw man of lowering crime.  It doesn’t matter how many times they are factually proven wrong; their gun control measures only work in disarming law abiding citizens thus making it easier for criminals to do their nefarious deeds.

The truth is, the zealots don’t really care about lowering crime.  Oh sure, that’s a nice thing to get out to the people, that and they are just trying to “protect the children”.  But in truth, what they really want is control.  For the high ranking officials and the super rich who buy protection, they wish to maintain control over an unarmed populace.  Easier to subjugate that populace to their will.  

One need look no further than Mayor Michael Bloomberg to see what form a power hungry despot in America would take.  His complete disdain for the Second Amendment goes hand in hand with his utter disdain for the citizens of New York’s free will and ability to choose for themselves.  He has made NYC a fiefdom that has seperated itself away from the rest of New York in regards to gun laws, thus denying his subjects even the limited gun-rights the citizens of the rest of the state have.

But he doesn’t stop there.  He tells his subjects what they must eat, the portions of their food, that new mothers must breast feed their babies, and he even outlaws food donations at homeless shelters because the city can’t verify the salt content.  In his domain, it is better to go hungry than have too much salt.   Here’s a rundown of his autocracy.

Before I digress too much from the main point of this posting, this is about the difference between gun control and gun laws.  The former being the desire of Bloomberg and people of his ilk to control the lives of all the little peons beneath them that they believe can’t take care of themselves…in other words…the people.  

Gun laws on the other hand, ones designed to actually punish criminals for the misuse of firearms in commission of crimes, I am fully behind.  Just like voter fraud and rioting, the use of a firearm in a violent crime is a voiding of a constitutional right and should be punished.  Limiting law abiding citizens the right to bear arms because of the crimes of a few would be akin to banning the right to assemble because of the LA riots back in 1992.

So lets punish those who commit crimes with firearms (and I mean actually crimes, not trumped up BS charges placed on railroaded gunowners) and punish them hard.  In Pennsylvania after passing the house by a vote of 190-7 a bill now awaits approval from the Senate that would make the possession of a firearm by a felon a mandatory 5 year jail sentence and an additional 5 if they use it for a crime.  Also 5 years on straw man purchases and illegal transfers.   

THIS is the kind of gun law that I can sink my teeth into.  And these are mandatory years, not up to the discretion of some coddling “criminals are just misunderstood” bleeding heart judge.  

I appreciate the efforts by state Rep. Todd Stephens, R-Montgomery, in sponsoring this gun law that doesn’t punish or limit law abiding citizens from their Second Amendment rights.

I hope more politicians and states take this viewpoint.  Protect the people by keeping them armed and punish the criminals by keeping them in jail.  

 

The Peoples Champion…

…are the people themselves.

In 2 places this week, from the Capitol of Sacramento to the little village of Corrales, NM the people who believe in Freedom, the Second Amendment and Liberty in general rose up in opposition to a heretofore tone deaf legislative body and demanded that their rights not be infringed.

I wrote earlier of State Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco’s unconstitutional bill and his flippant let-them-eat-cake-esque response when legally advised that it was unconstitutional.  Well, apparently coming all the way out to California for the rally that Gun Owners of California (in conjunction with GOA) planned and was estimated to be attended by 2,000 – 5,000 attendees was unnecessary.  For the committee, being flooded with emails, letters and calls finally got the hint.  The GOC’s top lobbyist was called personally by the representative of the committee and was told that Gun Owners had won and that the bill was scrapped for now.

The operative words being FOR NOW. 

Remember this, gun control zealots never really give up, they just wait until our guard is down and then sneak in some bill, or amendment and try to get it passed in the dead of night so that it becomes law before anyone even knows what happened.  Fortunately, with such vigilance by men like Sam Paredes and other gun rights leaders, such nefarious deeds are not left unnoticed.

Sam has worked diligently and relentlessly, to keep the workings of California’s state governement as transparent as possible and continually keeps the citizens and gun owners of California informed.

So, while not the big dramatic march on the capitol showdown that is rife with high drama and visual impact, we still have had a major victory today.  The light has been shone on gun grabbing zealots and they have scuttled under the rocks from which they crawled from.  But remember, they are still there and eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

In another part of the country, in the village of Corrales in New Mexico, the village council tried to pass an ordinance banning the carrying of firearms on all village property.  This would include parks, recreation centers and offices within the village.  The people took action and demanded that this ordinance be voted down and showed up in number at the council meeting.

30 members of the village testified against the ordinance compared to only three who testified in support.  With such a ground swell of support the ordinance was defeated by a vote of 4-2.  I hope come election time the people of Corrales remember Councillor Mick Harper‘s attempt to limit their constitutional freedoms.  But all in all, another great job by an informed and energized group of Americans willing to be heard to defend their liberties.

These are just two cases of the people being their own advocates and making a change for the better.  With the Students for Concealed Carry victories I addressed yesterday I just want to make a point that people who ask “what can I do, i’m only one person?”  Well…when enough “one”‘s get together they can roar loud enough to shake the ivory towers that politicians all too often place themselves in.  That is how a difference is made.

Keep up the good work.

 

To protect the children…

…let us arm the children.

And I don’t mean slapping a six shooter on a toddler but rather a child in the sense that while they are adults in the eyes of the law they will always be children in the eyes of their parents.

Sending your child off to college is often a very emotional time for parents.  I recall my father getting a little misty eyed when he drove me some 500 miles to the University of Pittsburgh and wished me luck.  And it is the role of parents to provide for the safety of their children as best they can.  To that end, I say we should fully support the goals of Students for Concealed Carry.  

Later this fall, in conjunction with SCC I will be traveling to several Universities that have seen crimes committed against a student or students and really delve into what the actual sense of self defense on campus is, and not just what the media tries to prostitute out there in order to appease the gun control zealots.

In the meantime, I would like to highlight some of the successes that the SCC has managed to have in a true organic grassroots movement.

Oregon: Former US Marine and OU student, Jeff Maxwell was arrested for bringing a small derringer onto campus for self protection.  All charges were dropped but Mr. Maxwell was suspended for violation of the school’s prohibition against firearms on campus.  Mr Maxwell filed suit and after litigation the verdict was returned stating that the Oregon University System overstepped its authority and any ban on campus was a violation of State preemption in regards to firearms.

Mississippi: Beginning this year at the University of Mississippi, students can complete an eight-hour course to have a concealed weapons permit, which allows them to carry a firearm on any campus in the state. People wanting to take the course have to be over the age of 21 and must pass a background check to be able to receive the advanced permit.

Wisconsin: With the passage of SB 93 last year decriminalizing a persons right to self defense via concealed weapon, the list of prohibited places did not include college campuses.

Kentucky: Michael Mitchell, a graduate student pursuing his masters in epidemiology at UK and SCC member was fired from his position as an anesthesia tech when it was discovered he legally had a firearm stored in his car.  After taking his case of wrongful termination to the Supreme Court he eventually won

Colorado: In March of this year the SCC won a huge case when the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed a lower-court ruling that a policy on four Colorado state university campuses that banned handguns for everyone but law-enforcement officers was unlawful.

These are big wins with regards to “protecting the children” (that’s what the gun control zealots say they want) and I look forward to continuing to collaborate with the SCC with their mission to make sure that the scope of damage done in places like Virginia Tech are not repeated in the future. I mean, VT has prohibited firearms on campus and did so back in 2007 and we all remember how well that protected everyone.  As I wrote in a previous article gun free zones are just invitations for criminals and lunatics to run amok without fear.

I’m all for protecting the children…so let’s give them the tools to protect themselves.

 

The Many Shades of Mitt Romney

I wish the Mitt Romney was more like Paul Ryan in regards to the Second Amendment.  As I wrote previously, Rep. Ryan has been a constant and trusted vote for the Second Amendment and I feel confident in him in such regards.  The top of the ticket, on the other hand, in regards to figuring out his stance on gun rights, is like trying to capture a shade in the dark.

While as Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney was atrocious in regards to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Here is the following measures that were passed or supported by Gov. Romney:

1994: backed 5-day waiting period on gun sales.  Find common ground with pro-gun & anti-gun groups. (Jan 2012) 2002: I will not chip away at MA’s tough gun laws.  2008: “Lifelong” devotion to hunting meant “small varmints”.  2002: My positions won’t make me the hero of the NRA.  GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”.  Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban.  I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes. (Dec 2007) Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police. (Dec 2007) Compromise MA gun bills were net gain for gun owner. (Aug 2007) Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban. (May 2007) Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)

So one has to ask, what do you believe in Gov. Romney?  I mean, you’re a NRA lifelong member…big whoop…so is Michael Moore.  Also, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  Its nice that you git dem varmints but that surely does not supplant a tried and true voting record for the 2nd Amendment.  Plus you cannot support a gun ban AND still be for the Second Amendment.  That’s a compromise that will not fly.

I, GOA, the members, and the readers are really curious about where you stand on these issues.  I know that we have sent you numerous copies of our survey to see where you stand on these issues and it is our hope that you go ahead and fill them out.  Your running mate has happily returned his to us in the past.  I’ll be happy to tell everyone where you stand on the issues when you return yours…else I’ll just keep pointing out your record as Gov. of Massachusetts.

Its my hope, that with such a strong pro gun running mate selection that you have finally made your decision on where you stand.  

 

We didn’t land on Hussein Barack, Hussein Barack landed on us

Or at least he will if he is re-elected.

I have often heard from those who plan on voting for Obama this fall, that he has not moved for any gun control measures, that he is not against guns and that he is not a threat to the Second Amendment.

All of which are false.  And I can prove it.

First of all there are the obtuse reasons.  The fact that his Attorney General Eric Holder in 1995 is quoted as saying “we need to brainwash people against guns”.  This from the same Attorney General who has stonewalled congress in regards to the Fast & Furious scandal that was reportedly a scheme to promote gun violence in order to pass new gun control measures.

Then there are the words of the President himself who said, while on the campaign trail in 2008, of Pennsylvanians that “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion”.  Well, as a Pennsylvanian myself I will tell the President this, I cling to my religion because I am faithful, I cling to my guns because I am an American.  If that makes you bitter Mr. President, I think the issue lies with you.

Now for his voting record.  While it is true that he has not overtly passed any legislation against the Second Amendment in his first term a look at his past will show that he is a consistent and constant believer in the disassembling of that right.

Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008) Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008) FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008) Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008) Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008) 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007) Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007) Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004) Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998) Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

So, on the quick rundown of votes and quotes above.  He respects the Second Amendment but also feels that any town or city can completely ban firearms.  That’s like supporting the First Amendment…as long as no one says anything.  He has consistently backed the banning of firearms.  Wanted to allow the bankruptcy of the firearm industry by allowing frivolous lawsuits and just to top it off, limit the purchasing of firearms to one a month.  He has a track record of being anti gun long before he became President and when he doesn’t have to worry about re-elections he will show his true colors once more.

But as I think about it, he didn’t even wait to get re-elected before he starting making his move.  As he told told Sarah Brady in regards to gun control when he dropped in on a meeting to “fill [them] in that is very much on his agenda.”  

Obama: “I just want you to know we are working on it.  We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

If you are wondering what “under the radar” means, I would wager a guess that it has something to do with submitting American sovereignty to the United Nations  

Other under the radar type moves.  Lets take a look at his Supreme Court nominees.  Both Justice Kagan and Sotomayor, in testimony before congress flatly claimed that they believed in the Second Amendment.  Sotomayer even said she would follow the precedent set by Heller…that lasted until she voted against McDonald. 

So, with a record of voting for and supporting extreme gun control measures, with the appointment of 2 anti gun Supreme Court justices, the appointment of an Attorney General who believes they must “brainwash people to turn against guns”, the promotion of a treaty that would give up American Sovereignty for worldwide gun control, and for his casual and utter disdain for gun owners in general, can anyone honestly believe, that without having to be re-elected that President Obama, in his second term, will not be the terror to the Second Amendment that he is so eager to be?

 

Romney get your gun…

…or in this case your hunting, skinning, butchering (in a good way), polish sausage making, Second Amendment defending running mate, Paul Ryan. 

With the announcement of Paul Ryan as Romney’s running mate I decided to take a day or two and let the hullabaloo quiet a bit before I weighed in with any commentary.  Now that I, and the nation, have had a couple of days to digest the news I figured I would delve into Ryan’s street cred in regards to the Second Amendment. 

First and foremost, Rep. Ryan’s rating from GOA is an A.  Simply put, he is a strong pro-gun voter and philosophically sound.  But lets get into the meat and potatoes of what that means.

Rep. Ryan voted for the prohibition of lawsuits against gun manufacturers for misuse of their weapons.  How anyone could have voted otherwise is beyond me.  It would be like suing Toyota because someone driving a Prius hit me while drunk after too many apple-tinis.  The only people who supported the right to sue the manufacturers were those gun control zealots looking to bankrupt and ultimately eliminate gun manufacturers in the US.

Rep. Ryan voted down similar measures in 2003 and 2005

In 2007 he voted to ban gun registration and the trigger lock law in Washington DC.  Considering the absolutely flawed logic that gun registration laws are anything other than the governments attempt to control the populace is ridiculous.  Gun registration has never prevented a crime but it HAS led to confiscations.  And i’m not using the same ole Hitler, Stalin, Amin talking points, I’m looking right at you New Orleans.  Confiscations of law abiding citizens happened RIGHT here in America at a time when those people needed protection more than ever.  Having Rep. Ryan as a stalwart against registration of firearms is a very good thing.

Rep. Ryan also co-sponsored the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act that would, much like a drivers license, allow law abiding citizens who are permitted to carry in one state to legally carry in all other 49 states.  This is a great way to bypass tyrannical despots like Mayor Michael Bloomberg who all but outlawed the carrying of weapons by average people in NYC (also telling them what to eat, how big their portions should be and all the other un-American nanny state nonsense his highness likes to decree)  Being a born New Yorker, lets just say I am not a fan.  But being a Pennsylvanian I have my LTCF and its just silly that my drivers license can drive me across the country to California no problem but I need to check a law book with every state i enter to make sure I am legally allowed to have my .45 on my hip.  This is a great piece of legislation that Rep. Ryan not only supports but took the leadership role in co-sponsoring.

A few more pro-gun votes that Rep. Ryan made regarded the allowing of civilians to reload spent military small arms ammunition.  So much brass keeps the prices down.  A vote against is really just a vote to keep the price high for law abiding reloaders.  Rep. Ryan also looking out for the wallets of gun owners with his support of the Collectible Firearms Protection Act which would allow M-1 Garands and Carbines to be repatriated to the US from overseas without having to jump through hoops and pay through the nose with State Department approval.

All in all, I find Paul Ryan to be a phenomenal pick by Mitt Romney, who, if we are being honest with ourselves really needed one.  If included in Romney’s think tank when President, I fully believe that Vice President Paul Ryan will definitely voice his Second Amendment beliefs and shift the conversation in a positive direction for us.  A crucial point with regards to any Supreme Court nominations that may arise.

Mitt Romney needed a star for his VP pick…and he found Orion.

Hmmm…i think i just did something there…O’Ryan the hunter!  Trademarked!

 

 

 

They fear what they do not know

That has been my experience in regards to people unfamiliar with firearms.  This seems especially true with women.  Coming from the North East I have had to deal with a great many people who have been so bamboozled and brainwashed by the constant and relentless attack on firearms that they think that the inanimate object will just jump up and start spitting bullets at them.

But, thankfully im charming as hell and can usually convince even the most hardened heart to at least join me at the range once.

Note: One should always have a healthy respect for firearms and the harm they can contribute to if not respected.  Much like one should respect a car but realizes that if you drive 120mph drunk that its not the cars fault if you hurt or kill someone.

Anyways, back to the range.  I have not once…not EVER brought some gun fearing liberal, novice or even the occasional gun grabber (the bad kind) to the range and after the first few shots not have them turn and look at me with this euphoric grin of pure delight.  I even had a friend of mines Girl friend nearly crying out of fear when she picked up my .45 to nearly crying out of enjoyment and fun after firing a few rounds.

After a few shots do they think everyone has the right to a machine gun?  No.  But the dangerous aura that has been propagated by the gun control zealots is shattered forever.  They may not be ready to join Gun Owners of America but they surely aren’t as eager to see guns taken out of my, or any law abiding citizens hands.  I even have taken a few from the range to the gun shop to pick up some pistols that very same day.

So my advice to you, if you have that friend, co-worker, dating companion or family member that has that irrational fear of inanimate objects, take them to the range and shatter their preconceived notions.  They may not march on the Capitol with you to defend the 2nd Amendment, but they may just understand where you are coming from.

 

Hang together or we’ll all Hwang separately

In case you haven’t heard, respected Attorney, President-elect of the New Haven Bar Association and carry permit holder Sung-Ho Hwang was arrested for attending a movie while carrying a firearm in New Haven CT.

The only problem is that there was absolutely NOTHING illegal with what he did and therefore should not have been arrested at all.  In fact, he wasn’t charged with anything relating to a firearm but rather “Breach of the peace”.  Feel free to read that as “contempt of cop”.

The fact that Mr. Hwangs action of self-protection so riled up the Chief of Police Dean Esserman that he ordered the officers to arrest Mr. Hwang when they would have otherwise let him go after discovering he possessed a Conneticutt carry permit are so vile and nauseating Chief Esserman should make himself sick.  It is my hope that a lawsuit against the PD and the Town are filed immediately because such strong arm tactics in the suppression of citizens rights should not go unpunished. Of course, can you expect any less from a cop who cut his teeth in New York City? http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/police/divisions/ChiefDivision.asp

This bias and baseless arrest is only furthermore encouraged by the Mayor of New Haven John DeStefano Jr. who stated in reference to Mr. Hwang right to carry his firearm for protection: “The point I’m making is, sometimes just because something is legal doesn’t make it right”.

Thats the mayor saying just because you are allowed to protect yourself in the “Murder Capital of Connecticut” doesn’t mean you should, even if you are leaving a movie theatre at 1am.

Mayor DeStefano further sited his own ignorance with the fallacy that, you can’t yell fire in a theatre therefore you shouldn’t carry a gun in one either.  He might have had a point if Mr. Hwang was waving his gun around and making a spectacle but he wasn’t.  By the Mayor’s rationale, we should just cut out everyone’s tongue to make sure no one yells out “FIRE” in a movie theatre…and if there happens to be a fire, oh well.

Now, in reference to the title of this post I hope Mr. Hwang will forgive the play on his name.  The point I am making is that we, as gun owners and gun carriers must stick together and not allow the thuggish violations of our rights to continue by elected or appointed officials.  If we do nothing while innocent people like Mr. Hwang are railroaded then one day when we are on the wrong side of some local despots shit list, there will be no one there for us.

If you live in New Haven CT (or if you just want to voice your opinion) please feel free to contact Mayor DeStefano MayorDeStefano@newhavenct.net and let him know that just because you CAN vote for him, doesn’t mean you should or will :o)

 

Who says you can’t fight city hall?

Or in this case the Capitol.  The people are taking to the streets to oppose SB249.

With a groundswell of support for gun rights, gun owners and those who believe in the Constitution have decided to take back government with a good ole fashioned rally at the Capitol in Sacramento.  Details can be found here

If you are in the area or if you can make the trip I ask that you give a little time to a good cause.  Politicians often find themselves isolated in their ivory towers because their constituency are too busy earning a living to keep them in check.  But sometimes, when politicians have lost their way it is imperative that the people stand together and demand acknowledgment of their grievances.

If they cannot hear us from way up in their tower than we must shake the very ground with our voices and our feet.  I invite anyone who can to the State Capitol next Thursday, August 16th 2012  to help oppose this unconstitutional gun ban and confiscation.

Good Job to all who have contacted Senator Yee with their disdain for this bill.  Keep up the pressure!

 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety…

…deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Ben Franklin 1759

I decided, after seeing that I have some readers currently in the United Kingdom,  to hearken back to Mr. Franklin because I believe a snapshot of America’s future can be seen across the pond if we do not listen to his words.

After a pair of shootings in 1987 and 1996 the UK passed 2 Firearm Acts criminalizing the possession of of most firearms with an exception for antiques and black powder revolvers.  Think about that, from tragedies that could have been avoided with armed resistance, Parliament decides to fulfil the dream of American Gun Grabbers and outlaw practically every handgun.   Of course, this must mean that crime is non existent in the UK.  I mean, if no one has guns then no crime can happen right?

But that is not the case.  Lets take a look at the numbers:

In the UK you are 133% more likely to be a victim of assault than in the US

In the UK you are 125% more likely to be a victim of rape than in the US

And while the US may have roughly twice the number of crimes than the UK we are also nigh 6 times as populated so our chances of being a victim of crime is much less.

But what about firearm crime.  Funny thing, their ban didn’t eliminate it.  But what it did do was raise another weapon of crime.  Knives.

In 2006 England and Wales had a population of roughly 58 million people while the US had in excess of 300 million.  Without including Scotland, the UK had over 163,000 knife crimes.  On a whole the US had less than 400,000 firearm related crimes.  Break that down to and the UK had 1 knife crime for every 355 people.  The US on the other hand had 1 firearm crime for every 750 people.

Now the numbers are making sense.  Take away a citizens right to defend themselves and cowards need only a knife  to rape and assault at will.  A girl by herself has no way to defend herself against a large knife wielding attacker.  A couple walking through the park cannot defend themselves against a pack of knife wielding muggers.  The UK likes to poke fun at the US with our “wild west” ways but I say, at least we have not forced our populace to live in a time of mob rule where packs of thugs can impose their will by sheer number upon the innocent.

And what of those with a shotgun who wish to protect their home?

Ask Tony Martin of Norfolk, England who killed a burglar and wounded another when they were in his home.  Initially sentenced to LIFE in prison for murder, eventually appealed down to manslaughter serving 3 years.  3 YEARS for defending your life and your home.

This is the kind of world the gun control Politicians and zealots want in America.  The feel good legislation that gives up essential liberty for the pretense of safety will eventually deny us both.

The politicians get to be protected on the taxpayers dime while we, “the peons” are forced to deal with their good intentions.

 

Wasn’t expecting this…

While looking at the stats for this blog I noticed that I have had a couple of visitors from overseas.  Not sure if they are Americans abroad or foreigners curious about Americas Second Amendment but either way I thank you for visiting.

If you are a member of the US Armed Forces I, as well as everyone at GOA, thanks you for your service and we are honored by the sacrifices you have made.  

If you happen to be an Olympic Athlete representing America in the London Games may I wish you all the best of luck. We are all proud regardless of medals won or honors bestowed so long as you handle yourself with dignity and class.  But if you happen to have some precious metal around your neck that’s good too!

To any foreigners who may be curious let me say this.  The right to keep and bear arms for protection from threats both foreign and domestic, from attack and from tyranny, is not an American right alone.  It is a universal right bestowed upon us by our creator or whatever greater power you ascribe to.  We Americans just happened to have the foresight to spell it out. If you prefer to be citizens of your country instead of a servant to it, speak up, be heard and fight for your rights.

With all that being said, if you are in another country please feel free to comment, I am rather curious to hear from you.

That goes for all my domestic readers as well.  Especially if there are some 2A infringements in your state that you’d like some light shed upon.  

As our forefathers said, we must stand together or we shall most certainly swing separately.

 

The Legislation is Unconstitutional? Take us to court

Thus is the sentiment of State Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco.  The California lawmaker has proposed legislation looking for a problem.  In case you haven’t heard of SB 249, if passed it will ban AR style rifles that currently need a tool of some sort in order to detach the magazine.  Colloquially known as the bullet button, with SB 249’s passage will make all kits that detach the magazine illegal as well as the weapons.

Not only will it be illegal to even have these kits in your possession but you will be required to turn them in without any compensation.  Some of these rifles can be priced in excess of $4000.  With the passage of SB 249, California will not only be further infringing on the Second Amendment but will be in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment which states that the government cannot seize property without giving just compensation.

When California’s General Legal Counsel brought the unconstitutionality to the attention of Senator Yee, his response was for the opposition to take him to court.

That is the American Legal Process that Senator Yee believes in.  The, “We’ll pass anything we want and just waste the peoples tax dollars on litigation”.  The hope being that the bank account at his disposal (your tax dollars) will bankrupt the opposition.

To all freedom loving Californians, those who believe not only in the 2nd Amendment but also in the 5th, and all other enumerated rights that Senator Leland Yee would shred in order to satisfy his own inane sense of self worth, you need to oppose this bill.  Stand up and be heard.  Contact Senator Yee  http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/contact  and politely explain why his brand of unconstitutional tyranny will not be tolerated.

You must be heard now…lest you have no voice later.

If you want to help or donate go http://www.gunownersca.com/ and read more on SB 249, sign a petition, be heard.

And to help ensure such legislative malfeasance doesn’t occur in your state, join or donate to GOA today

 

Equality in all things but rights

An interesting title no?  I was just pondering an idea about the idea of equality.  Often, the opponents of the Second Amendment liken keeping and bearing arms to that of driving a car.  They erroneously try to compare a God given right to that of a state sanctioned privilege.  They say things like, you have to pass a test to get your license to drive and you have to register your car and there are speed limits you must adhere to so it limits the kind of car you can have.  Therefore you should have all those restrictions on the Second Amendment as well.

Well, thats just bull.  That is as much apples to oranges as one can hear.  Let’s go with an apples to apples comparison and just imagine how the majority of gun control zealots would react.

Lets treat the First Amendment, specifically the right to free speech, like many states treat the Second.

Words are dangerous things.  They have inspired riots, revolutions, hate crimes, heinous acts of genocide and other travesties against humanity.  As such, “reasonable” restrictions on the right of free speech should be levied.

If someone wants to speak out openly on a matter they must be tested.  They must be able to read and write with precision, they must also take a test proving they understand the topic they are discussing.  These tests are of course, government run and a fee associated with them must be paid.

Secondly, because dangerous people must not be allowed to cause trouble with their speech a background check must be done to make sure no disqualified individuals are allowed to speak.  Also, a fee will be administered to all in order to cover the costs (Not too fond of the 4th amendment either apparently)

Thirdly, because some words are most volatile than others those words will be banned on a state by state basis, and if the state does not ban them then a huge fee will be imposed by the Federal government and special enhanced background checks will be done.  More fees will of course be levied.

Fourthly, one must register with the government every time they want to speak out on a new topic and that topic must be government approved and sanctioned.  A fee for registration will be levied.

Finally, if the government decides that the right to free speech is no longer important and has lost its relavence in today’s society, the government will look over the registration of those who enjoy speaking their minds and come into their houses, most likely at night when that person is sleeping, and cut out their tongues, and cut off their fingers so that free speech will no longer be possible.

THAT, is an apples to apples comparison of how  FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS are treated with equality.  I wonder if the gun grabbers of the world who espouse all their non-sense would like to live in a world where their right to speak is treated like our right to defense.

I wonder if they even realize how the 2nd is really the only protection to the 1st.

 

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

While talking to a Californian friend of mine we began talking about Californian regulations and laws.  Regulations that hurt small businesses, laws that infringe upon personal freedoms, rules that drive people to emigrate to freer states and commonwealths.

I used to believe that gun control advocates were just misguided souls who falsely believe that trading essential liberty for temporary security is a worthy endeavor.  That their intentions were pure, that they wanted less gun violence in the world.  I used to entertain the idea that knee jerk reactions in calling for gun control to tragedies was just a process in which otherwise good people dealt with trying to assimilate something so terrible.

While I think that some people who naively support gun control measures are actually following that ideology, I have come to believe that the majority of the gun control advocates and activists are really just freedom hating thugs.  Hmmm…perhaps that’s not entirely accurate.  They hate the freedom of others.  Since they don’t wish to be burdened with their own self protection they will strive to deny it to others.

The hypocrisy is foul and the stench that emanates from Mayor Bloomberg (with his 15 man 24hour armed security detail) and any other government official who advocates gun control while safely guarded on the tax payers dime is obscene.

But its not just governement officials that I am speaking of.  I have met many hateful people full of vitriol who have told me that since they don’t want the responsibility of having a gun they don’t see the need why anyone should.  These are often times the same people who think that small businesses should bear the burden of saving the planet, or funding a school’s art program as they tax them out of existence.  That people should be free to do and think as they like…so long as they agree with them.  These people never owned a business or better yet never wanted the responsibility of owning a business so why should they know or care how their selfishness cripples others who actually want to do something possitive int he world.

So I find that the gun grabbers of the world are populated with elitists who are rich or priviledged enough to afford their own protection service on their dime or the taxpayers, and those who don’t want the responsibility of protecting themselves so they feel like pulling down the right of anyone else to do what they won’t.

Maybe gun control started out with the best intentions to take guns out of the hands of criminals, but with its complete and utter failure to do that, the only reason that gun control advocates have for continuing the fight is for the complete repeal of the Second Amendment.  

Fortunately, we are now seeing the gun control crowd for what they really are and it is time to fight even harder against their insidious plans.  A law abiding American without the ability to have a gun is a hell indeed and makes freedom an impossibility.  

 

But what can you really do?

I was speaking to a friend of mine the other day in Pittsburgh and while he is a homeowner with a home defense gun he doesn’t believe in the the bearing of firearms actually making a difference.  His reasoning behind this?  He never sees it in the news of someone who stopped a tragedy because he was armed.

My friend is an intelligent man, an engineer, a man of science but his statement just dumbfounded me.  I had to explain to him that 2 things stop real world self defense stories from being told by the national media and neither of them have anything to do with the examples not existing.  First, media tends to not like guns.  You can see this on how often the inanimate objects are villified and demonized…as if a Glock .40 just decided to one day hope up and go on a crime spree.  Secondly, national media is all about ratings and they will inflate, exploit and sensationalize anything in order to get those ratings.  A madman on a killing spree?  HUGE ratings.  A guy bringing a gun to a movie theater wounds one before he’s stopped by an armed moviegoer?  Not really what they are looking for.

So I decided to give you all some local reporting and some video evidence that supports the idea that legal gun owners not only CAN but often times DO stop tragedies before they happen.

Enjoy

Grocery Store in Wisconsin

In a bank, OH

Clerk shoots robber in the face

Victim saves self from mugger in PA

 

 

Gun Control is like a force field…but life isn’t a movie

If you have ever watched Science Fiction movies; Star Trek, Dune, Independence Day etc. you are familiar with the concept of force fields.  They are the often invisible barriers that keep out dangerous things, be they attacks from weapons, smaller ships looking to infiltrate an area or just random space debris so the hull of your space ship doesn’t get ripped open.

I like to compare gun control to these force fields, along the same lines that I compare them to a child hiding under their blanket so the boogeyman won’t do them harm.  Force Fields are not real, they are an illusion of make believe and to put trust in a fictional construct to keep us safe from real danger is like that child hiding under their blanket when an actual predator is in the room.

I often times hear that gun control measures are to keep people feeling safe.  I’m not sure about you but I would rather BE safe than simply FEEL safe.  Of course this brings me to the Cinemark Movie Theaters corporate policy of not allowing firearms into their theater.

It has long been understood by those with common sense that such “feel good” gun control measures don’t actually solve anything, it just breeds the environment that allows mass murder to flourish in.  Think on it for a moment.  You are a regular citizen and you see a little “No Firearms” sign on the door of the movie theater.  You don’t want to make waves and you want to play by the rules so you go back and place your firearm in the car.

Now imagine you are a criminal or a complete sociopath.  You see the same sign.  What do you do?  You chuckle to yourself as you realize how easy the evil you are about to do is going to be.

But for some reason, gun control advocates and businesses that they have bamboozled, think that this is a good measure against gun crime.  “As long as people feel safe”.

I think its the height of naivete to think that an imagined force field, generated by a sticker on a door, is going to protect anyone.  And I think we have witnessed too often why these “Criminal enabling zones” must be abolished.  I know some say, “what could someone with a gun do?”  I’ll tell you what they won’t do, they won’t huddle in an aisle and wait to die.  With the means to protect themselves, maybe they don’t make it out of the situation, but at least they are given a chance.  Relying on an imaginary force field doesn’t provide the same. 

 

Its not dark yet, but it’s getting there…

Welcome.  My name is Tony Oliva and I am the Director of Media Relations for Gun Owners of America.  This blog, like GOA itself, is dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment from those who seek to undermine the US Constitution as well as the individual liberty of all Americans.

Have no doubt, gun grabbers and gun control activists both domestically and among the United Nations have every intention of denying law abiding US citizens the right to self defense.  In their pursuit of denying the 2nd Amendment they will have little qualms in trashing the 1st, 4th, 5th and any other enumerated right they need to in order to accomplish their goals.

Help the GOA stand against those who would seek to deny your rights.

Join today: http://gunowners.org/store/new-membership

If you’re all ready a member please continue your support:

http://gunowners.org/store/contribute