tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34491094712261093352024-02-06T20:38:04.305-08:00Clergy In Support Of The Second AmendmentVince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-51913069686857730972020-06-05T13:27:00.002-07:002020-06-05T13:27:47.214-07:00NYT Article Pushes Idea That Guns Cause Suicide - Why They Are Wrong<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/Picture-of-Suicide-AP-640x480.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="240" src="https://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/Picture-of-Suicide-AP-640x480.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Anti-gun rights groups only care about<br />firearms suicides, not actually<br />reducing suicide deaths</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The New York Times recently published <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/health/suicide-guns-firearms.html">yet another article</a> pushing the narrative that owning a firearm increases the risk of suicide. To most people, this seems logical - but I know that the reasoning leading to this conclusion is false. I have a great deal of experience with suicide, thanks to 10 years experience in EMS. As a result, I absolutely know that every study I have ever seen on the issue of guns and suicide is pure bunk, as is this article. Here's why.</span><div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><br /><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1) As anyone who has ever been a first responder knows, the vast majority of so called "suicide attempts" are not in fact attempts to commit suicide.</b></span><div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Never the less, that will be the admission diagnosis. So when is a suicide attempt not a suicide attempt? Answer: <b>When it is done to manipulate someone or as a "cry for help" - and this intent affects the method chosen.</b><br /><br />This is something that I, as an EMT and Paramedic saw all the time. For instance, we would get a call for an "overdose". Arriving at the scene, we would find the person who had overdosed, usually on some over the counter medication. They had then called the person they wished to manipulate and informed them that they had taken pills in an effort to kill themselves. Of course, this person then either rushes over to the overdose "victim" or calls 911. We would arrive and typically find a fully awake patient who now would be placed on a mental health hold due to "attempt suicide". Frequently they would be interacting with the person they called. In many cases they claimed to have taken such a small quantity of pills that it was clear there was no attempt to harm themselves. Of course, everyone goes forward as if the person really wanted to die. We would then transport the person to the county hospital on a mental health hold. They would be admitted as "attempt suicide", method "medication overdose". <b>For every actual suicide attempt I responded to in my 10 years in EMS, I responded to 50 to 100 of these "non-suicide suicide attempts". </b><br /><br /><b>The problem arises when someone does a statistical study for suicide attempts and methods. </b> All of these "non-suicide suicide attempts" are counted as actual suicide attempts that did not succeed. The false conclusion is reflected in the following quote from the NYT article:<br /><br /><i>“Many suicide attempts are impulsive, and the crisis that leads to them is fleeting,” Dr. Miller said. “The method you use largely determines whether you live or die. And if you use a gun, <b>you are far more likely to die than with other methods, like taking pills.</b> With guns, you usually do not get a second chance.”</i><br /><br /><b>That conclusion is written based on faulty information.</b> The vast majority of people who take pills do not want to die. Those who use firearms or other deadly methods do.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><br /><b>2) People chose a suicide method based upon their desire to live or their desire to die.</b><br /><br />The second lesson I learned as an EMT/Paramedic is that people who really want to die choose a method that is quick and sure. They do not want to be found and saved. While the act seems impulsive to those left behind, it has been considered and likely planned for a long time. <br /><br />In the US, where firearms are available, they are frequently chosen. however, they are not the only method of ending one's life quickly. People use rope to hang themselves, they jump from high places and use many other methods.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even the flawed research supports this conclusion. Again referring to the NYT article we learn this on paragraph TWELVE:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">"Another possibility was so-called reverse causation: that many buyers were bent on suicide before they bought the gun. The findings did provide some evidence of that. In the month immediately after first-time owners obtained their weapons (California has a 10-day waiting period), the risk of shooting themselves on purpose was nearly 500 per 100,000, about 100 times higher than similar non-owners; after several years it tapered off to about twice the rate.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">"</span></i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><b>3) The data from the rest of the world completely refutes the article's conclusion.</b></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.explicit.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.bzrTgZmB1eKGw7ZNo4AnZwHaEo%26pid%3DApi&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="296" data-original-width="474" height="199" src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.explicit.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.bzrTgZmB1eKGw7ZNo4AnZwHaEo%26pid%3DApi&f=1" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;"><b>First, the nations that have the highest suicide rates frequently have very low to no legal firearms availability. </b> These nations include </span></span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Russia 26.5 (93% higher than US), </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Belarus 21.4 (56% higher) and </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">South Korea 20.2 (47% higher). Somehow, people in these nations are able to commit suicide at very high rates without access to firearms.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Second, when we compare similar English speaking nations, that widely differ in their access to firearms, we do not see a huge difference in the suicide rates:</b></span><br /><br /><div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">UK (2018) suicide rate of 11.2 per 100k population - firearms in 4% of homes.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">US (2017) suicide rate of 14.0 per 100K</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> population - firearms in</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 45% of homes.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Canada (2017) suicide rate of 11.3 per </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">100k population - firearms in</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 28% of homes.<br /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">(Stats from Wikipedia or other official sources)</span></span></div>
<div>
<br /><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>It is especially notable that Canada has seven times the firearms availability as the UK and virtually the same suicide rate. </b> If firearms are the factor this article claims, Canada's suicide rate should be much, much higher.<br /><br /><b>4) Finally, it is a practical impossibly to eliminate all suicide methods that those who truly wish to die might use.</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.r7IjQKHki3vgIJIViEhM_AHaFI%26pid%3DApi&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="328" data-original-width="474" height="221" src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.r7IjQKHki3vgIJIViEhM_AHaFI%26pid%3DApi&f=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Even this chart from an anti-gun rights source<br />shows that as firearms are made less available<br />suicides do not go down. People simply use<br />other methods.</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the UK the most common method is hanging - yet no one is trying to eliminate access to rope and other cordage. We cannot eliminate access to every high place, or to traffic, or quick acting poisons, and the list goes on. If we are going to reduce the suicide rate in the US, gun control is not the answer. That's why some mental health professionals are <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide">speaking out against the idea</a>.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Why do gun control advocates push gun control as the answer to suicide?</b> Well, as gun ownership and concealed carry have skyrocketed, the murder rate has dropped by 50% and violent crime has plummeted. Their answer has been to push their own "gun death" figure that combines all firearms related deaths. However, about 66% of these deaths are suicides. If people realize that gun control has no hope of reducing suicides, those who are anti-gun rights lose their most powerful argument. <b>That is why they will continue to push this lie.</b></span></div>
</div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-89299560611984001232019-09-13T14:44:00.001-07:002019-09-13T15:41:06.788-07:00How We Can Turn Background Checks Into A Huge Win<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/hr8universalbackground-410x1024.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="320" height="640" src="https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/hr8universalbackground-410x1024.png" width="256" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>We can have HR 8, or we can have<br />a law that is more reasonable AND<br />contains many pro-gun provisions</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Please read this entire post before commenting!</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>1) We must take the background check issue off of the table – and the only way to do that is for us to our own expansion of background checks.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Why must we do this? The answer is simple: HR 8.</b> Bloomberg and his allies will use this issue to push horrible laws that go way beyond background checks. This issue is the most popular gun control law with people who normally oppose new gun laws. Therefore, it is the choice vehicle to “piggy back” everything we hate.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>It is critically important that we understand the level of support for background checks. </b>No, I do not believe that they will do much good. However, this is completely irrelevant. <b>The majority of Americans who support background checks do not support them because they think they will work – they support them ON PRINCIPLE. </b> However, they primarily are concerned about stranger to stranger transactions – not transactions between relatives or others well known to each other. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The greatest danger we face is the passage of an HR 8 like bill – and if Dems ever get control of both houses and the presidency, such a bill will pass. </b> That could happen as soon as 2020. However, getting an HR 8 bill passed would be almost impossible if they have to argue for it on it's merits. <b>They would have to argue that they want to send people to prison for allowing someone to shoot their gun, or transferring a gun to someone they have known for decades.</b> <b>That is not a wining argument. </b> There would be no arguing that they need to close the “gun show loophole”. Will they still try to pass such bills? Sure they will, but they will lose the support of House and Senate members in most swing districts, which will make passage impossible.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Arguing that we should be able to sell a gun to a stranger without a background check is a loser for us.</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Arguing that it should be a crime for me to let you handle my gun or shoot it in the woods is a loser for them.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: 700;">If you think we can win a battle over Bloomberg background checks by educating the public, I suggest you ask the gun owners in Colorado, Washington, Nevada and New Mexico how that plan worked out for them. Clue: It didn't.</span></span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Another argument against expanding background checks is that no enforcement would be possible without a gun registry. However, this is not the case. </b> </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I have no doubt that such an argument</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> would be made by the gun grabbers, but it is unlikely to work.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>First of all, by definition, the purpose of expanding checks to private stranger to stranger transaction is to prevent honest people from selling firearms to prohibited persons. Therefore, it depends upon voluntary compliance. </b> Given the fact the such sales are already a tiny source of criminals firearms, it is clear that most private parties are very careful about who the sell to. Compliance likely would be high.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Second, there are many laws that are equally hard to enforce.</b><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> All drug laws concerning personal use fall into this category. These laws are enforced when the come to the attention of police in the course of their investigations. One way a violator could be caught: A criminal is caught with gun. The cops ask him where he got it. He says he bought it from Mr. Brown without a background check. Cops contact Mr. Brown and ask him if this is true. He says there was a check done at Joe's Gun Shop. From there the cops could refer the case to ATF who would check for a 4473 and bound book entry at Joe's Gun Shop. <b>In short, it's not rocket science.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>2) Just as Bloomberg has used background checks to advance his agenda, we can use the same issue to advance our agenda.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>First, we should start with Manchin/Toomey. We should take a long look at that bill to make sure that it only covers stranger to stranger transactions.</b> Currently, Manchin and Toomey have made it clear that this is the case. The requirement for a check is tripped if the firearm is sold at a gun show or advertized to strangers. Manchin has used the example of posting a card on your church bulletin board as a case where a check would not be required. <b> This exemption is a must.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Second, we should demand that the final Manchin/Toomey bill of 2013 be the starting point. Why? Simple: There are a TON of pro-gun rights provisions in it. </b> For one thing, it allowed purchases in ANY STATE. It also added necessary teeth to the innocent passage provisions of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act – specifically damages if local authorities arrest you in violation of it. Additionally, it made the creation of a federal gun registry a felony that carries a 15 year sentence. This version should be the starting point.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Third, we need to push for more, such as:</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Preemption of state background check laws.</b> With this expansion of the federal program, there is no need for any state background check system. This entire area of law should be completely preempted by the federal government. Furthermore, additional checks serve no further purpose and therefore are clearly unconstitutional.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>CCW license reciprocity. </b>Any state license meeting minimum requirements would have to be honored in any state.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Gun free zone liability. </b> Any location open to the public, including locations where people are admitted by membership with have to either allow some form of lawful carry or provide armed security AND screen those entering the location. If they elect to provide security, then they must also secure the perimeter. Failure to do one of the two options would result in their being fully liable for injuries and deaths resulting from a mass shooting. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>If we could get all of the above, I personally would consider that to be a win.</b></span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-42246527541324293542019-09-03T13:51:00.000-07:002019-09-03T13:51:29.200-07:007 Reasons Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn Any Assault Weapons Ban<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F3073870%2Fimages%2Fo-SUPREME-COURT-BUILDING-WASHINGTON-DC-facebook.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="160" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F3073870%2Fimages%2Fo-SUPREME-COURT-BUILDING-WASHINGTON-DC-facebook.jpg&f=1" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>1) Lower court rulings on assault weapons bans are meaningless.</b> </span> Lower courts are ignoring historical rulings, original intent, two recent rulings of the Supreme Court (Heller and McDonald), and the text of the 2nd Amendment itself. This is why some justices have said that the 2nd Amendment is becoming a 2nd class right. However, this has changed with the appointment of Justice Gorsuch – who has previously voted to overturn such laws. After his appointment, SCOTUS literally took the first gun rights case appealed to the court. Things have definitely changed – and Pres. Trump could very well get another appointment before they would hear an assault weapons case. We should also remember that lower courts were reversed in both Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">2) The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 (in Miller) that in order to be protected by the 2nd Amendment, a firearm had to be a weapon of war. </span></b> Specifically, the court found that in order to be protected, a firearm had to have “value in the context of a militia”. This is the exact opposite of the argument that “weapons of war” should be banned. Lest you think that this is a gun rights view of Miller, Washington DC argued in Heller (2008) that their handgun ban was constitutional because handguns did not have “militia value”. The court rejected this argument by finding that they did indeed have such value.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>3) Any assault weapons ban directly conflicts original intent.</b> </span> There is every indication that a majority of the current court believes that original intent is very important. It is an indisputable fact that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment included the ability of state to quickly raise a militia, and the ability of the people to both deter and respond to any tyrannical and unconstitutional government. The ability to own and possess a viable infantry rifle is essential to this purpose. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">4) The explicit textual reference to militia. </span></b> It's not just the original intent that supports the idea that individual weapons suitable for militia service are protected, the militia purpose is right there in the text!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>5) Basic argument for the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban was rejected in rejected by SCOTUS in Heller (2008).</b> </span> The argument for an assault weapons ban is exactly the same as the argument Washington, DC made in support of their handgun ban: The banned firearm is too dangerous. There is one very important difference: When applied to an assault weapons ban it is much weaker. DC argued in Heller that because handguns are used in 63% of homicides, they are uniquely dangerous and a ban should be permitted. The high court rejected that argument. According to FBI stats, all kinds of rifles are used in less that 2% of homicides. Given that rifles are often weapons of opportunity, the so called assault weapons are likely used in less than 1% of homicides. If the Supreme Court refused to ban the most common homicide weapon, used in 63 times more murders than so called assault weapons the chance that they will ban these rifles because they are uniquely dangerous in nil. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>6) Any “assault weapons ban” fails the common use test established in Heller.</b> </span> If government were to decide what firearms are and are not protected, there would effectively be no 2nd Amendment right. Therefore, in Heller (2008) the Supreme Court established a test to determine what firearms are and are not protected. They reasoned that, when called into militia service, citizens would bring firearms they chose to own for other lawful purposes. Therefore, the court ruled that any firearm commonly possessed for any lawful purpose is protected. So called assault weapons are the most popular firearms in the country, at least 40 million are legally owned in the US. They are used for target shooting, hunting and self defense. Every year they outsell all other rifles. If they are not in common use, no firearm is.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">7) The level of protection SCOTUS will likely assign to the 2nd Amendment right makes an assault weapons ban impossible.</span></b> The statement in the McDonald (2008) that the 2nd Amendment right is “essential to our system of ordered liberty” strongly hints that the high court will assign the highest level of constitutional protection to the 2nd Amendment right: Strict scrutiny. Indeed they could make this determination in the gun case they will hear next Spring. If they do, an assault weapons ban would be impossible. They would have to prove that there is a compelling need to regulate such firearms and that a ban is the least intrusive (upon the 2nd Amendment right) method of addressing that need. That would be an impossible task.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-48568317230384790702019-08-21T13:01:00.000-07:002019-08-21T13:01:28.718-07:00Details Matter: Finding Ways To Reduce Mass Shootings<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As this is written, in the wake of two horrible mass murders involving firearms, we are seeing the same knee jerk proposals and the same response in opposition. <b>I'm writing this in an effort to break this deadlock and help us to actually do something about the senseless mass murders that have become all too common.</b> I will look at the common proposals and offer some alternatives that may be much more effective.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>No one wants mass shootings to continue.</b> Not gun control advocates, not gun rights advocates. No one - least of all the gun rights advocates, because they are a clear danger to the right they want to protect.<br /><br /><b>Before we look at the various proposals, we must recognize that there are constitutional limits that rule out many potential gun laws.</b> For instance, the Supreme Court has taken a handgun ban off of the table, even though handguns are the most common weapon in both mass shootings and murders in general. Additionally, SCOTUS has established a test that all gun control laws must pass. More on this later.<br /><br />So, let's look at some of the most common proposals:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Red Flag Laws are deeply flawed - but alternatives could do a lot of good</span></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.cagle.com%2F12%2F2019%2F08%2F08%2F228530_600.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="600" height="267" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.cagle.com%2F12%2F2019%2F08%2F08%2F228530_600.jpg&f=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">The potential for abuse of Red Flag Laws<br />is great - during the first year of California's<br />law 90% of orders were determined to be<br />unfounded and were lifted after the subject's<br />case was heard.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Red Flag Laws are a step in the right direction in that they focus on dangerous people, rather than just one method of mass murder. However, <b>they are flawed because after finding that the person is dangerous, all that is done is to take away their guns.</b> The flaw in this system can be seen in the very crime that motivated the passage of the first such law. In that case, the murderer used knives, his car and guns to kill people. Had a Red Flag Law been in place, and if it were used, his guns would have been taken away - but he would have been free to murder with his knives and his car. He also would have been free buy a firearm on the black market. <b>It doesn't matter if you are killed with a gun, a truck or a bomb - you are still dead.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />There are, however, better alternatives. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>First, every state should have an emergency mental health commitment law - and police need to be trained to make the most of them. </b> We need to recognize and treat the mentally ill. If need be, they should be confined long term. People committed under such laws can and should lose their firearms rights. Police should have the ability to seize firearms from people thus committed. It makes no sense to say, "This person is mentally unstable and dangerous, but all we are going to do is take the guns they have now." </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Of course, due process must be protected, but this is also doable.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Second, we need to make sure that current laws forbidding subjects of restraining orders, also called orders of protection, from possessing firearms are enforced.</b> Judges should order firearms seizures at the time such orders are issued. While restraining orders are far from perfect, it makes no sense to issue such an order and allow the subject to keep their firearms - or to take their firearms without issuing an order.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Third, we need to make preparing to conduct a mass murder a crime.</b> If two people conspire to plan a mass shooting, they can be prosecuted for conspiracy. The problem with mass shootings is that they are usually a solo crime. We need to make sure that law enforcement has the tools to put those who are actively planning and preparing to commit mass murder away for a very long time.<br /><br /><b>Once we have taken the preceding steps, it is possible that there may be a limited place for Red Flag Laws - but only when the mental health and criminal laws fail </b>- and only if the constitutional right to due process of law is respected. They are not going to work as the primary tool to prevent mass murder.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>We need to adopt the methods used by the Secret Service and those used by domestic intelligence agencies to stop terrorist attacks.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2011%2F05%2F10%2Fsecretservice_sq-916fa4602f4a5f9d0c01a50406fbcc4b619cc9ea-s6-c30.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="200" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2011%2F05%2F10%2Fsecretservice_sq-916fa4602f4a5f9d0c01a50406fbcc4b619cc9ea-s6-c30.jpg&f=1" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The focus here is on detecting the attacks before they happen. </b> This will not stop 100% of them, but it would stop many of them. We need to stop focusing upon the tool that mass murderers use, and make our primary focus detecting and stopping dangerous people. We have not lost a president in over 55 years. Many assassination attempts have been detected and stopped before they ever got close to happening. <b>Applying these methods should enable us to stop mass murders no matter what method they plan to use - and there are many..</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>The greatest risk factor for mass shootings may very well be phony gun free zones, secured by nothing more than a sign</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg28o3slx9-LdgOYC3R0RAI87Bv6lig3zXA7RnK_oo35gRAD7iq6RcNJssELhyphenhyphenroDU6u2DH0ZXxzOMcV4JlNWu4Ho9komZVFNRWYmcpkFp0DCsWT-AvlWIzWrtzhyPBiRowpK7xftCf0ZNW/s1600/gun+free+zone+-+sitting+ducks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="395" data-original-width="480" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg28o3slx9-LdgOYC3R0RAI87Bv6lig3zXA7RnK_oo35gRAD7iq6RcNJssELhyphenhyphenroDU6u2DH0ZXxzOMcV4JlNWu4Ho9komZVFNRWYmcpkFp0DCsWT-AvlWIzWrtzhyPBiRowpK7xftCf0ZNW/s320/gun+free+zone+-+sitting+ducks.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Two places where there have never been a mass shooting: The secure area of an airport and a shooting range -</b> the first because no one has guns except security personnel, and the second because everyone has a gun.<br /><br /><b>If a gun free zone is really secured - </b>screening at all entrances, metal detectors, etc. and the perimeter is properly secured, <b>the risk of a mass shooting is greatly reduced if not completely eliminated. If the location is open, but potential attackers know that there is a good chance that potential victims are armed, there is also little chance of an attack. </b> </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Both of these facts are especially true of random public mass shootings where the sick individual simply wants to kill as many people as possible, with little or no regard for who they are.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The problem is not gun free zones per se, it is gun free zones enforced by the "honor system".</b> Posting a sign is very effective at keeping people who are legally armed, such as off duty cops and people licensed to carry, out of the area. Cops and CCW license holders are both extremely law abiding - they are simply not a threat. Keeping these people out of an area does not make that area safer - it makes it more dangerous.<br /><br /><b>It's not just the absence of cops and legally armed citizens that make these areas less safe, it is the fact that mass murderers can see the signs and know that they are unlikely to face any armed opposition for several minutes. </b> The longer it takes for a "good guy with a gun" to arrive the higher the body count - and these sick individuals want to kill as many people as possible.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Gun control groups play fast and loose with the facts on gun free zones. </b> I have looked at literally hundreds of public mass shootings, and the overwhelming majority took place in gun free zones. So, how come gun control groups constantly say this is not true?<br /><br /><b>The FBI considers any shooting with 4 or more victims to be a "mass shooting". Obviously, with this definition, there are many different kinds of mass shootings. </b> They fall naturally into the following categories: Domestic violence, gang shootings, workplace violence, and public mass shootings. Obviously, there is a huge difference between a gang "drive by" and workplace violence. If you mix all of these very different categories together, gun free zones do not appear to be as much of a factor - but <b>if you look at public mass shootings and workplace violence, you discover that well over 90% of these shootings happen in gun free zones. </b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>The most effective way to deter potential public mass shooters is to let them know that they will probably face armed opposition very quickly.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.quotesgram.com%2Fsmall%2F0%2F36%2F454645160-No-gun-control-95716477163.jpeg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="298" data-original-width="300" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.quotesgram.com%2Fsmall%2F0%2F36%2F454645160-No-gun-control-95716477163.jpeg&f=1" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>This can be done with covert armed security, and/or allowing lawful carrying of firearms - and then making sure that potential mass shooters know about it.</b> As mentioned above, the goal of workplace mass shooters and public mass shooters is not to kill "only" one or two people. As if playing a video game, they want to rack up the highest "score" possible. They hope to do this by selecting a location where their victims will not be able to shoot back because they are not armed.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">History shows that these sick individuals plan their crimes carefully. Before they fire their first shot at a potential victim, they have already decided how they want things to end. In the vast majority of cases, the plan is to die. In a much smaller number of cases, the murderer wants to tell their story - which means they want to survive. In only a very small number of cases have they wanted to "shoot it out" with police.<br /><br />Either way, if they want to die or the want to live, as soon as they face another armed person, their ability to control the outcome disappears. If they want to die, they could just be wounded and survive. If they want to live they could be killed. This loss of control causes the murderer to activate their end game plan - meaning that they either kill themselves or surrender. Very rarely will they "shoot it out".<br /><br />The point is that these individuals know going in that as soon as someone else with a gun shows up - it's over. For this reason they try very hard to avoid places that may have armed citizens or off duty cops. For instance, <b>the Colorado theater shooter picked the only theater in the area that was showing the Batman film and had clearly posted "No Guns" signs. </b>There were theaters closer to his home, farther away, smaller and larger. The only reason for picking that theater is that he knew that off duty cops and licensed citizens were not supposed to carry there.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Just as "no guns" signs attract mass murderers, making it clear that potential victims may be armed will likely cause them to look elsewhere. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Expanding background checks will not help - but plugging the holes in the system likely will.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTxFoBwCucISJK-PFCM57kQf3S2nxPurPRh3csf0BlY7jSRgD_qwCMTeoVm5-AEIWAkXwU-FZ_nWl7r8HF0SXzb7QP2A9iVC_oRT3agwHcvR3FMa-N0UYn0IWEvzYGAt_S9iKYESMbs-oo/s400/Where+crimnal+get+guns+bar+chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="355" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTxFoBwCucISJK-PFCM57kQf3S2nxPurPRh3csf0BlY7jSRgD_qwCMTeoVm5-AEIWAkXwU-FZ_nWl7r8HF0SXzb7QP2A9iVC_oRT3agwHcvR3FMa-N0UYn0IWEvzYGAt_S9iKYESMbs-oo/s320/Where+crimnal+get+guns+bar+chart.png" width="284" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For details see <span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><a href="https://2ndamendmentclergy.blogspot.com/2019/02/expanding-background-checks-will.html">Expanding Background<br />Checks Will Accomplish Almost<br />Nothing - There Is A Better Way</a></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Contrary to what gun control groups want you to believe, neither criminals nor mass shooters are getting their firearms via the non-existent "gun show loophole" or via private party sales </b>in which the seller does not know or suspects they could not pass a background check at a dealer. Why do criminals get their guns? For criminals, the most common source is black market dealers. For mass shooters, the most common source is licensed dealers where they pass a background check, either because they have no prior events that prohibit firearms possession - or, and in Sutherland Springs, a conviction or mental health commitment was not reported to the FBI for inclusion in the database. About 1/3 of of people prohibited from owning firearms are not in the system. This means that they will pass a background check at any dealer.<br /><br />We will get to the issue of mass murderers that have no prior record later, but we can prevent prohibited people from buying guns through legal channels by fixing our broken background check system. All courts must be required to report all criminal convictions and mental health commitments to the FBI system. Additionally, juvenile convictions and mental health records must be included. This would have stopped the Ohio shooter from obtaining a gun through legal channels.<br /><br /><b>After Sutherland Springs, a bill aimed at fixing this problem passed,</b> but we will be paying for the broken system for decades to come as criminals and other prohibited persons use the guns they were able to obtained when the system failed. <b>It also remains to be seen if the FixNICS law will produce results.</b><br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Our background check system will be useless until we punish people for "lying and trying"</span></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgunsovertexasradio.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2Fbtoddjones.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="660" height="200" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgunsovertexasradio.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2Fbtoddjones.jpg&f=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Pres. Obama's ATF Director called prosecuting<br />criminals who illegally try to buy guns "a waste<br />of resources".</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This change is directly related to what we just talked about. <b>Lying and trying is when a person who is prohibited by law from owning firearms - for instance because they are and convicted felon or have a history of severe mental illness - walks into a gun store and lies on the form, hoping to slip through.</b> This is exactly what the Sutherland Springs mass murderer did - and as we all know, he slipped through.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The problem here is that these people are almost never prosecuted. </b> Thousands are rejected each year and prosecutions number in the double digits each year. Excuse me for suspecting that when someone who is mentally ill or a felon and they attempt to buy a gun illegally, we should be very, very concerned.<br /><br />Instead, according to <b>Pres. Obama's ATF director, prosecuting prohibited person for "lying and trying" is "a waste of resources". </b> It was not much better under the Bush administration. I have not seen stats from the Trump administration, but I have heard nothing to indicate that things have changed.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The problem here is two fold:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>First, we are missing an opportunity to prevent gun crime or even mass shootings. </b> In some cases these people simply want a gun for self defense, but in many cases they want it so they can commit gun crimes. We are leaving them on the street, where they can access the thriving black market to obtain a firearm.<br /><br /><b>Second, with the prosecution rate so slow, prohibited persons know they are not taking much of a chance by lying in an attempt to slip through.</b> This encourages criminals and the mentally ill to do just that.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Our background check system will continue to be useless until we severely punish straw purchasers</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shotbusiness.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2FSHB0715_NSF07.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="529" data-original-width="800" height="211" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shotbusiness.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2FSHB0715_NSF07.jpg&f=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">The problem with this billboard is that<br />offenders seldom get any jail time,<br />much less ten years.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>A straw purchase is when a person who cannot legally buy a firearm has someone with a clean record buy a firearm for them. </b> This is a crime (felony) for both the straw purchaser and the prohibited person. There is a warning on the federal Form 4473 that everyone buying a firearm at a dealer must fill out - so these people know that what they are doing is highly illegal.<br /><br /><b>So, one would think that these people would be severely punished, right? WRONG.</b> When they are prosecuted - and prosecution levels are low - it is nearly unheard of for for them to serve any time in prison. Until it is well known that supplying a firearm to someone who cannot legally own one will cost you 5-10 years in prison, this will continue.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">History shows that banning so called "assault weapons" will not help (and is likely unconstitutional) - any solution must focus on preventing ANY gun from being used in mass murder.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>When one category of firearm is used in several mass shootings, the knee jerk reaction is to simply ban them. </b> However, people familiar with firearms who have followed mass shootings (like myself) can see the problems with this. The bottom line is that you do not need a semi-auto rifle to kill a lot of people in a public mass shooting. The mass murderer at Virginia Tech (who also slipped through the background check system) used two handguns to kill 33 people. <b>The Santa Fe High murderer used a 12 ga pump shotgun and a .38 revolver in the second most deadly school shooting of 2018.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizIoSQfSgx4prDT7KJPXefJF3wzTWoDStVPWzK5h_sD2cXh8q5HEkG195O7P46ug2kvlrNEhTZYLQfrX-Sy2QWhkAfHCXOQKwGYBOD8e8RCwRcyJy5aWMI28fjUAa5Tmm_nmNmbHZu-V2L/s320/firearms+homicides2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizIoSQfSgx4prDT7KJPXefJF3wzTWoDStVPWzK5h_sD2cXh8q5HEkG195O7P46ug2kvlrNEhTZYLQfrX-Sy2QWhkAfHCXOQKwGYBOD8e8RCwRcyJy5aWMI28fjUAa5Tmm_nmNmbHZu-V2L/s320/firearms+homicides2.png" /></a><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Given this reality, it is easy to see why gun rights advocates don't want to agree to a ban on semi-auto rifles, or AR15s. </b> This is what they see happening: First, so called assault rifles are banned. If by some miracle that ban could actually be enforced, mass murderers would turn to other, less scary looking semi-auto rifles. At that point the cry would go out to ban these rifles. When the killing continues with semi-auto pistols, the call would be, " Ban handguns and the problem will be solved". <b>This would continue until all, or nearly all guns are banned.</b><br /><br /><b>Even worse is the argument that "weapons of war" should be banned.</b> What most people unfamiliar with guns do not know, but gun owners do know is that <b>ALL GUNS are, or have been "weapons of war". So effectively this is a call to ban all firearms, while still sounding reasonable.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The reality is that the AR15 is - by far - the most popular firearm in America. Yet it is seldom used in murders.</b> In fact, 20 times more people are murdered with handguns than with all rifles combined. In fact, more people are murdered with knives, clubs, and bare hands and feet INDIVIDUALLY than with all rifles combined.<br /><br /><b>While lower courts have continued to ignore the clear direction of SCOTUS in the landmark Heller decision, if it is applied, a ban of semi-auto rifles would clearly be unconstitutional. </b> The ruling contains a simple test to determine if a firearm is protected. If a firearm is in common use by the public for ANY lawful purpose, it is protected PERIOD. The AR15 pattern rifle is the most popular firearm in the U.S. - if it is not protected, no firearm is protected.<br /><br /><b>What guns can be banned under Heller? Those that are both unusual (not in common use) and dangerous. </b>Some lower courts have actually interpreted the decision as if it reads unusual OR dangerous. Of course, since all firearms are dangerous, this change allows any firearm to be banned. Furthermore, the very argument in the Heller case was that handguns, as the primary murder weapon in the U.S. and the most common weapon in mass shootings, should be banned. SCOTUS rejected this argument.</span><br />
<b><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</b><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>If Congress passed and Pres. Trump signed a semi-auto rifle ban tomorrow, it would be tied up in the courts for years</b> - and given the makeup of the Supreme Court, would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.<br /><br /><b>It is far wiser to focus upon doing what we can - consistent with the Constitution - to keep dangerous people from getting ANY gun</b> than to pin our hopes upon banning a single type of gun.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">No gun control laws will do any good until we suppress the massive firearms black market - and that will be very, very hard</span></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsiskiyou.sou.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2Fblack-market.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="532" data-original-width="800" height="132" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsiskiyou.sou.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2Fblack-market.jpg&f=1" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>As indicated by the DOJ study referenced above, there is already a huge black market in firearms. </b>If we were to ban the most popular firearm in America, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that a black market will develop. The more restrictive the laws become, the greater the money to be made. We already have been fighting a losing battle with drugs - any firearms ban would be huge plus for the same drug cartels. They have the contacts for guns, they have the smugglers and they will certainly see this as a huge money making opportunity.<br /><br /><b>Remember, we cannot currently control the black market in guns. A ban of the most popular gun in America would be like throwing gas on the fire.</b> Demand will still be there, and criminal organizations will move to meet that demand. Mexico is awash in illegal AK47s from China, North Korea and countless other nations - so meeting the demand would be no problem for them. A mass shooter would be able to buy one as easily as a bag of illegal pot.<br /><br /><b>If we have been unable to control the drug market, why do people think we could control the market in illegal guns?</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>History shows that magazine capacity limits are useless and potentially unconstitutional</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.sportsmansguide.com%2Fadimgs%2Fl%2F6%2F607585_ts.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="200" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.sportsmansguide.com%2Fadimgs%2Fl%2F6%2F607585_ts.jpg&f=1" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">The Parkland mass murderer<br />used 5 round magazines like<br />this - not "high capacity" mags.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Gun control advocates and their friends in the media love magazine bans. Their reasoning is that people will be able to rush the attacker while they are reloading. <b>Of course, anyone with firearms experience knows that how quickly magazines can be changed. </b> After the Parkland mass murders, the media told us that 30 round magazines were used and contributed to the large death toll. Months later we got the official report from the Parkland Commission - and we learned that the murderer had not used 30 round magazines, or 20 round magazines or even 10 round magazines - he used 5 round magazines designed for hunting. Did these smaller magazines reduce the death toll? Absolutely not. <b>Magazine limits are useless in the context of mass shootings.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>They are also - in most cases - unconstitutional, because they run afoul of the common use test.</b> pistol magazines of up to 20 rounds and rifle magazines of up to 30 rounds are, like it or not, in common use and therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment. As with gun bans, lower courts have simply ignored this clear standard - but now SCOTUS is taking 2nd Amendment cases. A ban of such magazines would be held up in court and likely banned. One federal district court has already found California's 10 round limit to be unconstitutional.<br /><br />Could magazines above these capacities be banned? Possibly. The question would turn on that same "common use" standard.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Any gun confiscation would be extremely dangerous, especially in the current political climate</span></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To understand why this reality exists, one has to understand the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and why people still believe it is relevant.<br /><br /><b>The first purpose of the 2nd Amendment, that was explicitly affirmed in Heller, is personal self defense.</b> This is why some federal appellate courts have held that there is a personal right to carry a firearm for this purpose.<br /><br /><b>The second purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the federal government to rapidly raise a large army to meet external threats.</b> Clearly, this is not as important as it once was.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg1.etsystatic.com%2F025%2F0%2F7915758%2Fil_570xN.523768465_jw9d.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="570" data-original-width="570" height="320" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg1.etsystatic.com%2F025%2F0%2F7915758%2Fil_570xN.523768465_jw9d.jpg&f=1" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The third purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the states to rapidly raise an army to restore constitutional government, should the federal government every be taken over by tyrants</b> who acted to establish an extra constitutional government. As much as we would like to believe this is impossible, this is as much of a threat as it was in the 1790s.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The fourth purpose is to enable the people to act to restore constitutional government should both state and federal government be subverted by tyrants.</b> Although it would be much harder to take over both state and federal governments, this to is as much of a threat as it was in the 1790s.<br /><br /><b>The 2nd Amendment is not intended to allow people to revolt because they simply do not like the outcome of an election, or because they disagree with government policies. </b> Such issues should, in a democratic republic such as ours, be settled peacefully.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Finally, the deterrent value of an armed citizenry should not be underestimated.</b> The United States has existed as a democratic republic for over 225 years - longer than any other such nation. Consider the history in Europe, or in the Americas. Democratic governments come and go - because they are frequently overthrown. One of the biggest differences is our right to keep and bear arms. This did not happen by accident:<br /><br />“<b>Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?</b> Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… <b>The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people</b>.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.<br /><br />Dozens of such quotes - from the men who wrote and/or ratified the 2nd Amendment, survive. <a href="http://sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm">Many can be found here</a>.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That said, one more fact makes it clear that the founders wanted privately held firearms to serve as a check on the abuse of government power. <b>The militias existed in the UK at this time too. However, their arms were held by the government </b>(usually in the homes or castles of the elite) and issued only in times of emergency. <b>Why was this done? To keep arms out of the arms of the people - so they would not be able to resist the rule of that same elite class. </b> At that time in the UK only men who owned property could vote. Calling that nation a democratic monarchy would be a real stretch. When considering the issue of personal arms, the founders did not want them held by an elite group of people, or by the government, but by the people. Hence the 2nd Amendment.<br /><br /><b>With all of this as preface, consider how divided we are as a nation.</b> Consider that the left is moving toward socialism at a time when we see a socialist government in Venezuela subverting democracy and oppressing the people. Consider that the people of that nation were forcibly disarmed, resulting in their current helplessness. Consider that tens of millions of people, many of them US Military combat veterans, firmly believe that confiscating firearms unconstitutional and the first step towards tyranny. Consider that over 1/3 of the US population sees a civil war on the horizon. Consider that many counties and even states have declared themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries - indicating that they will refuse to enforce gun laws they consider unconstitutional.<br /><br /><b>Considering all of these scary facts (and I could list more), how long do you think it will be before efforts to confiscate privately held firearms will result in violence?</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-CutiYSUIM1g%2FUohwiql8taI%2FAAAAAAAAjdk%2F4eZTCGvcY3Q%2Fw1200-h630-p-k-nu%2FORIGINAL%2BASSAULT%2BRIFLE.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="800" height="168" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-CutiYSUIM1g%2FUohwiql8taI%2FAAAAAAAAjdk%2F4eZTCGvcY3Q%2Fw1200-h630-p-k-nu%2FORIGINAL%2BASSAULT%2BRIFLE.jpg&f=1" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A little over 244 years ago, the colonies that would become this great nation were deeply divided. People were upset about taxes and the lack of representation. They were upset that they were ruled by a king thousands of miles away. These and other issues resulted in the division - but none of these things started the revolutionary war. What sparked the war was an effort to confiscate the arms of the colonists. This resulted in the citizens militias mustering - including one that mustered on Lexington green. There was a confrontation, shots were fired (no one knows who fired the first) and both sides stumbled onto a war.<br /><br /><b>If you live in a solid blue state, you may find it hard to believe that this could happen again. If you live in a solid red state - and you are at all observant - you know just <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F45%2F21%2F2c%2F45212ceec087cab690c44a92137e5e37--political-freedom-gun-control.jpg&f=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F45%2F21%2F2c%2F45212ceec087cab690c44a92137e5e37--political-freedom-gun-control.jpg&f=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: small;">This is a mainstream (and majority) view<br />in most red states.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
how possible it is.</b> My fear is that efforts to confiscate the very firearms best suited for militia use, could result in this country splitting apart. Think that local authorities in red states will help those confiscating guns for the federal government? Think again. They would be more likely to arrest the feds. Just who is going to do the confiscating? If you are going to get rid of those tens of million of firearms, you are going to have to send the military door to door. How long will it be until many service members desert, rather than take actions they consider completely unconstitutional? An attempt to confiscate this many firearms wouldn't just split the nation, it would split the military. In short, it would be a disaster.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The colonists took a stand that April morning so long ago, because they either had to use their arms, or lose them. Presenting millions of patriotic Americans with that same choice would be incredibly stupid.</b> We must find another way to deal with the profound evil of mass shootings.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-37703633487348854852019-08-17T00:54:00.000-07:002019-08-17T00:54:50.629-07:00The Press And Gun Control Groups Are Lying to You<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTQKbGvODRZ2PLqGafXIkzEA7MWVZipjdH9r3JnIsB1u8Q1K8nxBstckxjbR11ELvdGd_htZzp4OV1e4g67fb1OqQerfswyeEXlY8qlgyJYbRqJaZdNEEYmLSbHuls_JBz621ObqLxgDa5/s1600/Falsehoods+about+firearms+background+checks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1533" data-original-width="1075" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTQKbGvODRZ2PLqGafXIkzEA7MWVZipjdH9r3JnIsB1u8Q1K8nxBstckxjbR11ELvdGd_htZzp4OV1e4g67fb1OqQerfswyeEXlY8qlgyJYbRqJaZdNEEYmLSbHuls_JBz621ObqLxgDa5/s400/Falsehoods+about+firearms+background+checks.jpg" width="280" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Virtually everything you are hearing about firearms background checks from gun control groups and the media is false. Yes, they are lying to you, attempting to pass an oppressive gun bill that would criminalize common legal activities. Let's look at each of these falsehoods:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The House bill simply expands background checks to private sales</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is completely false. This deceitful bill redefines "transfer" from change of ownership to the act of handing a gun to someone - even if the gun never leaves your sight and they hand it right back. If you and I are shooting in the woods, and I let you shoot my gun, we have now both committed felonies. If my adult daughter is being stalked and wants to borrow a gun - even just until the gun dealers open and she can buy one - I cannot lend her one. If you have kids and you want to store some of your guns in my gun safe, a wise precaution, a background check would be required every time you drop them off and every time you pick them up. The list of absurdities goes on and on.<br /><br />Advocates - if their lie about the bill only affecting sales is exposed - argue that they have these problems covered, because there are exemptions in the law. <b>There are three huge problems with their "exemptions". </b> First, they are extremely narrow and complicated - making it very hard to know if your actions are covered by them. Second, the definitions are sometimes left to the courts to decide. For instance, there is a "target range" exception - but what is a target range? A gun club or commercial range? Certainly. My range on my private property? Maybe. A commonly used site in the national forest? Who knows? Third, and worst of all, these exceptions are "affirmative defenses". This means that you can be arrested and jailed and you then have to prove that your actions fell within one of the exemptions. You are literally guilty until you prove that you are innocent.<br /><br />Now, assume that you are a non-gun owner. I invite you to go shooting - but this law is in force. Would you accept my invitation? Probably not - and that is exactly what the intent of this bill is: Make learning and participating in the shooting sports, or learning to shoot a gun for self defense, legally dangerous and frightening.<br /><br />Ironically, there is actually a bill that would simply expand background checks to private SALES. It's the Manchin/Toomey bill, and the Democratic leadership is trying to kill it.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Their is a "gun show loophole" that allows people to by firearms without a background check</span></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>This is completely false. The exact same laws apply at gun shows as anywhere else.</b> Specifically, anyone "in the business of selling firearms" must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), period. There simply is no such thing as a legal an "unlicensed dealer". The vast majority of sellers at gun shows are dealers and must conduct federal background checks. Furthermore, US DOJ studies confirm that criminals almost never buy guns at gun shows. This makes sense given that the number of law enforcement officers, state, local and federal - both on and off duty - at gun shows is huge.<br /><br /><b>So - what in the world is this thing that gun control advocates call the "gun show loophole"? Quite simply, it is an exemption in federal law for "occasional" sales of your own firearms.</b> It simply means that if I want to sell a gun to my neighbor, whom I know well, no federal background check is required. It has nothing to do with gun shows - but calling it that makes it sound worse.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>40% of firearms are sold without a background check</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>This is the lie that will not die.</b> It comes from a study done over 25 years ago. It covered a timeframe of two years, one of which was before the federal background check law took effect! Furthermore, this phone survey simply asked buyers if a background check had been done. Many of these people probably remembered filling out the Federal 4473 form, but didn't know that the dealer ran a background check. Politifact and Snopes have both highlighted these facts. In short, it is garbage research.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, among other things, this lie was used to ram through the Colorado background check law in 2013. Colorado prepared for a massive number of checks - <a href="https://www.dailycamera.com/2014/07/25/impact-of-colorado-law-expanding-gun-background-checks-vastly-overstated/">only to find out that the actual number of private sales was not the 40% they prepared for - it was only 4%!</a></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>You can buy a gun over the internet without a background check</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Yes, you can - but by doing so you and the seller have both committed a federal felony!</b> Unless you hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL), it is illegal to buy a gun and have it shipped to your home. Let me say it again: Internet gun sales like this are already illegal.<br /><br />However, there is a way to legally buy or sell firearms over the internet. Connect to the seller, pay for the gun, and have it shipped to a nearby dealer (FFL). That dealer then conducts exactly the same background check as he or she would conduct if they sold the same gun from their inventory. He or she also is responsible for ensuring that the transaction is conducted in accordance with all state and local laws. Obviously, these transactions would be completely unaffected by any new background check law.<br /><br />Gun control advocates counter that people living in the same area often connect through sites like Armslist and then meet face to face to complete the transaction. However, this is not an internet sale, anymore than a gun advertised in a newspaper is a "newspaper sale". In both cases, they are private, face to face sales.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Expanded background checks would have prevented some mass shootings</span></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Actually, no they would not have done so. </b> <b>In fact, the vast majority of mass shooters actually passed a background check</b>, in some cases because their record was clean at the time, in others because the database did not flag them as prohibited. Many mass shooters used stolen weapons, and still others obtained weapons via straw purchases. However, no public mass shooter I am aware of obtained their firearm(s) via an exempt private party purchase. Obviously gun control advocates do not know of any either, or they would be citing the specific case. They aren't because no such case exists. Their solution to mass shootings would not have stopped even one of them....</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Many criminals obtain their firearms through private sales</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinXb5llU-Szk_R27_M1_Fs6-Su7KgqX9ewrfyC8VcEMVEjrN9Z6mJblqD8G8pd-ibyplGM9kxLJIKHaafi3yvAmwIkCE6xv2xnePbokcL8r8yDQDuVZlj45D5SxBSdUngXqLwzbWGYo1SP/s1600/Where+crimnal+get+guns+bar+chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinXb5llU-Szk_R27_M1_Fs6-Su7KgqX9ewrfyC8VcEMVEjrN9Z6mJblqD8G8pd-ibyplGM9kxLJIKHaafi3yvAmwIkCE6xv2xnePbokcL8r8yDQDuVZlj45D5SxBSdUngXqLwzbWGYo1SP/s320/Where+crimnal+get+guns+bar+chart.png" width="284" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We know this simply isn't true because of a US DOJ study released in January 2019. This study involved interviews with 240,000+ prison inmates who had firearms at the time of their arrest. The facts revealed in this study are devastating to most gun control measures and expanded background checks in particular.<br /><br />As the chart at left shows, the most common source of criminal's guns is the thriving black market, followed by other illegal sources (theft, borrowed from or even rented from another criminal), and straw purchases. Together, these account for 84% of the criminals firearms.<br /><br />Looking at the less common sources, we see that a criminal is four times more likely to obtain a firearm by slipping through the background check system than to obtain a gun via a private party purchase.<br /><br />It is facts like these that cause gun rights advocates to wonder why gun control groups are so focused upon a source that is responsible for such a small percentage of crime guns. Why not crack down on illegal black market dealers, or start really punishing straw purchasers?<br /><br />The most obvious answer is that they want to control LEGALLY OWNED GUNS, not illegally owned guns.. This is what scares gun owners the most.....</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-28369053177606901272019-08-14T12:01:00.002-07:002019-08-14T12:06:02.684-07:00Ten Examples Of Armed Citizens Stopping Mass Shootings<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentClergy/videos/1939195452847672/">View/Share on Facebook</a></b></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0cZlic2b2tg" width="640"></iframe></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-30404635315043084552019-08-07T14:52:00.001-07:002019-08-07T16:28:03.741-07:00WE HAD BETTER GET READY TO MAKE LEMONADE FROM THE COMING LEMONS<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists//haveamagnificentday/files/2013/06/lemonade.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="311" data-original-width="384" height="259" src="https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists//haveamagnificentday/files/2013/06/lemonade.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It looks like we are not going to be able to stop any new gun laws from being passed. IMHO, we need to get smart and see what we can stop and what we can get in return. <b>It will be a smart move for one gun rights group to be working to minimize the damage and even to see what we can get, while the others oppose passage of the bills.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>1) Expanded Background Checks</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Of course, we know that this is nearly useless, but it appears that some expansion is going to pass. <b>Here's how we can both minimize the damage and get some things we want:</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>a) We need to make sure that this is a simple expansion of NICS checks</b> to private sales - not a Bloomberg version.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>b) Since we are going to have a federal background check law - we should push to have this law preempt all state and local background check laws </b>- again, this would be a huge blow to Bloomberg. Our argument is simple and easy to understand: One check is enough. If we get this amendment in the bill, our opponents might even chose to kill the whole bill. Either way, we win. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>c) Since we are going to have a national law, people now should be able to purchase guns in any state.</b> The law requiring state approval for purchases in another state should be repealed. After all, we are going to have the same check everywhere.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>d) We should push for as many common sense exemptions as possible. </b> At a minimum transfers between family members should be exempt, along with transfers to persons holding a CCW license or any form of FFL.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>e) We need to prevent the so called Charleston loophole from being "fixed".</b> This would allow the feds to shutdown all gun sales simply by refusing to approve or disapprove them.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>f) We need to make sure that the NICS system is not turned into a registration system.</b> To accomplish this, we need to make violation of the current ban a felony with severe mandatory prison time. Furthermore, any state AG must be authorized to prosecute violations. This would prevent an anti-gun rights administration from looking the other way.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To accomplish the above, while still attempting to stop anything from passing, we should have one gun rights group pushing these amendments (say SAF/CCRKBA) while other groups (say NRA and GOA) oppose any bill.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>2) Red Flag Laws</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">REMEMBER, EVERY STATE IN THE UNION ALREADY EFFECTIVELY HAS SUCH LAWS</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">They are called restraining orders and they turn the subject of such orders into a prohibited person. After you are served with such an order, cops can, and often do, show up to seize your firearms.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>I am opposed to red flag laws, both because I believe there are better solutions, and because I see a great deal of potential for abuse. </b> Mental health commitments and restraining orders are better solutions. Nevertheless, it appears that the feds are likely to pass a bill that "encourages" states to pass these laws. There are many things we can do to minimize the damage and even to roll back bad red flag laws in the states that have already passed the most agreges versions of them.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>a) All state red flag laws should have to conform to federal guidelines.</b> Failure to abide by such guidelines should result in the loss of federal law enforcement grants.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>b) The model red flag law should narrowly define who can apply for an order. </b> It should be limited to law enforcement and close family. This would do away with state laws that allow basically anyone to apply for an order, greatly increasing the potential for abuse.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>c) Due process must be protected. </b>A hearing should be scheduled within 14 days of the order being issued.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>d) There must be significant penalties for abuse. </b> At the 2nd hearing, the judge must determine if abuse has occurred. In cases where this has happened, the judge shall impose a civil fine AND refer the party who lied to the local authorities for criminal prosecution. Additionally, the party responsible for the abuse must pay all of the subjects legal fees.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>e) Local authorities shall be responsible for the safety and care of any and all firearms in their custody.</b> In the case of damage, loss, theft, or any other form of loss or damage, the agency who cared for the firearms shall repair, restore, or replace the firearm. If this is not possible, they shall compensate the owner for the full retail value.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Again, as with background checks, it would be wise to have one gun rights organization "on the inside" working to get the above included in the bill, while other work to defeat it.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>3) Assault Weapons Ban</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here is where we should, IMHO not give an inch. If the left passes such a law, it will be a disaster for this country. It could even spark a civil war.<br /><br /><b>a) We should oppose such a law in congress, online and in every other way possible.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>b) We must oppose this law in the courts. </b> While background check expansion and red flag laws are probably, in the opinion of the current SCOTUS Justices, constitutional - banning the most popular firearms in the US is likely not. It clearly fails the common use test established in Heller.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Our opponents are hoping that we do not have anyone representing us when these bills are drafted and as they make their way through Congress. </b>They want us to just say no to all of them - because then it will be their version of these bills that pass. We need to be smarter than that. We need to both oppose these bills and work to make them into our versions. These versions can be both more palatable and even advance our own agenda.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-9269747262930818772019-06-21T13:54:00.000-07:002019-06-21T14:04:26.523-07:00Memo To Gun Control Advocates: Be Careful What You Wish For<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As this is written, the NRA is in deep trouble, massively split and facing an uncertain </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTDVdxM_GbYynYjz62B1lPjTvoEjSyEYfWpKUso8NPnY2RN9Otb-qIRca7OeZcFJGdc2vrfwkUAkDvWq9pfI9ocUoBnWorM5YhgUXR6t_3y_4G2PYkZAYkEC8G_0v-Igljr-SSxbSqYS-z/s1600/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-because-you-just-might-13395850.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="242" data-original-width="496" height="155" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTDVdxM_GbYynYjz62B1lPjTvoEjSyEYfWpKUso8NPnY2RN9Otb-qIRca7OeZcFJGdc2vrfwkUAkDvWq9pfI9ocUoBnWorM5YhgUXR6t_3y_4G2PYkZAYkEC8G_0v-Igljr-SSxbSqYS-z/s320/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-because-you-just-might-13395850.png" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">future. <b>Gun control advocates are celebrating - but are their celebrations misplaced?</b><br /><br /><b>To be clear, I hope the NRA can be saved. </b> I fully support <a href="http://www.savethe2a.org/">those who are working to reform and transform it.</a><br /><br /><b>That made clear, the more we learn, the more we see how little of our dues and donations were effectively used to protect the 2nd Amendment.</b> The current NRA is clearly a mirror image of the Washington DC political system: Bloated, ineffective and corrupt.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Just because the NRA ceases to exist, that doesn't mean that its' 5 million members are going to stop advocating for the 2nd Amendment. </b> They are not going to stop voting for pro-freedom candidates, give up their guns and take up knitting. They are still going to advocate for gun rights and they are still going to give their money to the cause.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Other gun rights organizations are mean, lean and clearly more effective. Many are not small either.</b> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GOA-Logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="468" data-original-width="720" height="208" src="https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GOA-Logo.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://gunowners.org/">The Gun Owners of America (GOA)</a> has well over 2 million members, is much more uncompromising than the NRA.</b> It also has a significant record of stopping gun control legislation at both state and federal levels. Indeed, the GOA is well positioned to take the place of the NRA and collect more former NRA members and supporters.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/SAFLogo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="143" data-original-width="368" height="124" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/SAFLogo.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.saf.org/">The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and its' non-profit arm the Second Amendment Foundation</a> have nearly 3/4 of a million members.</b> These groups have been extremely successful for their size, especially in the area of litigation and the courts. Given that the battle for gun rights is shifting to this arena, this group's work becomes even more important, On the political front, this group has been willing to make deals with the other side when they believed it advanced the cause of gun rights. <b>They are in a good position to collect NRA members who might consider the GOA to be too radical.</b><br /><br />In addition to these groups, there are many other "lean and mean" gun rights groups including the <a href="https://www.firearmspolicy.org/">Firearms Policy Coalition</a> and <a href="http://jpfo.org/">Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership</a>. In addition, there are too many state and regional groups to list.<br /><br /><b>The bottom line is simple: The gun rights groups positioned to replace the NRA are actually likely to be much more effective than the NRA.</b> If the NRA fails, it could be a good thing for gun rights in the long run. If the NRA is reformed and continues in a more effective form, that would be a good thing for gun rights in the long run. What would not be good for gun rights in the long run? The NRA continuing as is - but that does not look like it will be likely to happen.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-17757099321028374402019-06-04T21:29:00.000-07:002019-06-04T21:29:35.638-07:00Virginia Governor Calls Lawmakers To Special Session To Push Laws That Would Not Have Stopped The Virginia Beach Murders<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4ZtMWNXsAEDJCT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="485" data-original-width="750" height="256" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4ZtMWNXsAEDJCT.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Northam doesn't have the best record on civil rights.<br />It's no surprise that he has no respect for the 2A.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, the same man who is perfectly OK with allowing babies to die, has called the Virginia legislature into special session to propose laws that would not have stopped the murders that prompted them. His proposals are the typical laundry list that gun rights opponents trot out after every mass shooting. They are:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Universal background checks;</span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A ban on assault weapons, to include suppressors and bump stocks;</span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">An extreme risk protective order;</span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Reinstating the one-gun-a-month law;</span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Child access prevention;</span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Requiring people to report lost and stolen firearms; and</span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Expanding local authority to regulate firearms, including in government buildings.</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> None of these seven proposals would have done anything to stop the horrible mass murders in Virginia Beach. Not one.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Universal background checks</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The killer purchased his guns legally. He even bought suppressor legally - which required a much more exhaustive 8-12 month federal background check, finger prints, local law enforcement notice amd more. This proposal would not have stopped him.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>A ban on assault weapons, to include suppressors and bump stocks;</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The murderer used a .45 Cal pistol. Bump stocks or so called assault weapons were not used. This would not have stopped the murders.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>An extreme risk protective order;</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">OK, this one is a maybe - if they knew his plans, if they seized all his guns and if he didn't go to the black market and buy a gun after his were seized. Or if he didn't build a bomb. You get the idea. If you want to stop a murder, you have to deal with THE WOULD BE MURDERER. You have to get them off the street - and into jail or a mental institution. So, why is it that so many localities want to only deal with the guns and leave dangerous people free to use other means to commit murder?</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Reinstating the one-gun-a-month law;</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Murders like this one are planned far ahead of time - and only require one gun. This law would have done nothing to prevent this horrible crime.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Child access prevention;</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Thanks to over 100 years of safety training - lead by the NRA - child firearms accidents are at an all time low. This obviously would have done nothing to stop the murders. In fact, it could be unconstitutional under the 2008 Heller SCOTUS decision.<br /><br /><b>Requiring people to report lost and stolen firearms</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">How in the world this would prevent mass shootings is a total mystery. It would, as experience has shown, result in charges being filed against people whose guns were, for instance, stolen while they were on vacation - because they "should have known" that their guns had been stolen in a burglary they did not know had happened. Yes, this has happened.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Expanding local authority to regulate firearms</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is a favorite of gun control advocates. Their goal is to create a "patchwork quilt" of local gun laws that would be practically impossible for gun owners to follow. The real goal of this and many of the completely useless regulations pushed by gun control advocates is to make owning a gun legally risky, thus discouraging it. Someone planning a mass murder is not going to be stopped be any of these laws. They will just break them.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Including in government buildings</b><br /><br />This final proposal is the most absurd and dangerous of them all. First, the location where the shooting took place was - you guessed it - a gun free zone. None of the victims were permitted to be armed. So the governor wants to make all government buildings just like the one where the shootings took place, because that will stop future murders.<br /><br />It is also insane in that these people actually think that someone who has already decided to kill as many people as possible is going to walk up to a building with a "No guns Allowed" sign, say "Oh Darn!", turn around and leave!</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Chattanooga-Gun-Free-Zone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Chattanooga-Gun-Free-Zone.jpg" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="225" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">This "No guns allowed" sign didn't stop a mass murderer.<br />He was stopped when when a Naval Officer fired a gun<br />he had illegally carried past the sign.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />Of course, the reality is that mass murderers prefer unarmed victims. That's why the single most common characteristic that unites these horrible murders is their location in places where the lawful carrying of firearms is banned. Virginia's governor thinks that the solution is to create more such places.<br /><br />Obviously, this man knows all of these facts. He simply wants to push the gun control agenda. He is not trying to prevent future mass murders. He is trying to use this horrible crime to pass bills that are on Bloomberg's list - who likely contributed to his campaign.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He has much real concern for potential victim of mass shootings as he does for babies that happen to survive abortions. </span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-21358098125319129492019-05-29T22:30:00.002-07:002019-05-29T23:00:08.084-07:00From Now On, The Gun Rights Battle Will Be Primarily In The Courts<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Could It Be That The Loss Of The NRA Would Not Matter Much?</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://kwtri4b8r0ep8ho61118ipob.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Darmstadter-gun-control-constitutionality.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://kwtri4b8r0ep8ho61118ipob.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Darmstadter-gun-control-constitutionality.jpg" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Increasingly, anti-2A efforts have been centered in the states. </b> Organizations owned and operated by Michael Bloomberg have focused on passing oppressive laws in blue and purple states. One need only consider the draconian laws passed in New York, New Jersey, California and Washington state, as well as those passed in purple states such as Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico to see that the federal battle has been placed on the back burner (for now). With basically unlimited funds, the other side can buy the votes of lawmakers or push initiatives buy purchasing all available media time and simply lying about what is in the measure. This has now happened twice in Washington state. There is no sign that he will stop anytime soon.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>In contrast, exactly the opposite is happening in the red states (which is majority of states). Constitutional carry is expanding and other pro-gun measures are common. </b> This could lead 2A activists in these states to be lulled into a false sense of security. We need to understand the plan our opposition is pursuing. They know that, even if they can get a majority in the House, and gain back the White House, the Senate is going to be nearly impossible for the foreseeable future. So, they have shifted their efforts to the states. Know this: They are already in your deep red state, and eventually they will push their horrible laws in your state.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>This makes the NRA (the national organization) less critical. </b> Clearly, the state affiliates will have a role to play, as will the state affiliates of GOA and independent state organizations. In some states, mostly purple state like Maine, we can stop their bills at the political level. In some states, we can effectively nullify the law in many counties by getting sheriff to refuse to enforce what we (and they) believe is an unconstitutional law.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>In addition to moving the battle to the states, our opponents are attempting to push the constitutional limits of firearms restrictions. </b> The know that outright bans are now of the table, but they are attempting to get as close as possible to an outright ban. One need only look to California to see a huge number of varied restrictions, most of which definitely push constitutional limits. There was little to no chance of stopping these laws politically. After all, one of the worst passed as an initiative by a nearly two to one margin. The only hope for California gun owners is the courts.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue;">
</span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The best chance for stopping Bloomberg is the Supreme Court. </b> While it would be wonderful to get a sweeping decision, striking down most gun laws, this is unlikely. Even if we get the best possible outcome from the current case headed to SCOTUS, we still are likely going to have to fight every gun control scheme the other side can come up with. Sadly, there are still a lot of state and federal courts where the judges simply don't care what SCOTUS (or the Constitution) says - they will uphold gun control laws. We have already seen lower courts ignore Heller and McDonald - so I suspect that they will continue to refuse to correctly apply any future rulings. <b>In short, we are going to have to fight a lot of legal battles, even if we get good rulings from the Supreme Court.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>While the NRA has indeed brought legal action, other gun rights organizations, especially SAF, have more experience and are likely better at it. </b>These organizations are much less bloated and top heavy than the NRA. Their leadership doesn't make millions a year. Contributions to these groups are much more effective. <b>Could it be that the NRA will not be the nation's leading gun rights group going forward - and that the replacement will be even more effective?</b></span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-54567716446945201562019-05-27T16:50:00.000-07:002019-05-27T16:52:19.676-07:00Trump Names Generally Pro-Gun Rights ATF Director<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b2257ddf9f9486a7dee734a098092c2d35523dfa/c=15-0-315-400/local/-/media/MountainHome/2015/01/04/B9315734674Z.1_20150104125723_000_GOK9J342R.1-0.jpg?width=534&height=712&fit=crop" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="712" data-original-width="534" height="200" src="https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b2257ddf9f9486a7dee734a098092c2d35523dfa/c=15-0-315-400/local/-/media/MountainHome/2015/01/04/B9315734674Z.1_20150104125723_000_GOK9J342R.1-0.jpg?width=534&height=712&fit=crop" width="150" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The White House said President Trump <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/27/trump-atf-pick-chuck-canterbury/">would nominate Kenneth Charles "Chuck" Canterbury</a>, currently president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, to head the BATFE. It's being vacated by Thomas Brandon, who is retiring. Some research indicates that he could be a generally pro-2A director.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here's what I found:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Vocal 2A supporter:</b> “I want no mistake to be made,” Canterbury testified. <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/27/trump-atf-pick-chuck-canterbury/">“I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment." </a></span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) for 16 years</b>. <a href="https://lancasteronline.com/national-fraternal-order-of-police-takes-aim-at-nfl-gun/article_f81b7e8e-9904-11e5-91b9-ef8a78c0b783.html">Opposed NFL's no guns for off duty officers policies.</a> </span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110616/political-report-one-on-one-with-chuck">Believes that law enforcement should protect the 2A rights of law abiding citizens.</a></b></span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130115/the-tiahrt-amendment-on-firearms-traces-protecting-gun-owners-privacy-and-law-enforcement-safety">Opposed making firearms trace data public</a>.</b></span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.fop.net/CmsPage.aspx?id=148">Supported the Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act</a> </b></span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="http://www.dontlie.org/quotes.cfm">Supports increased enforcement the laws prohibiting straw purchasing.</a></b></span></li>
<li><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.fop.net/PAC/BillsOpposed.aspx">Opposed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act</a></b></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Those are the facts here are my thoughts:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><b>In regards to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act</b>, in my opinion, this bill was never intended to pass. It was a case of massive overreach that was doomed from the start. At the time, we likely could have gotten the bill through the Senate <b>If it had contained minimum training and background checks standards.</b> The lack of these is exactly why the Fraternal Order of Police, which Canterbury heads, opposed the bill. It also gave Democratic Senators in pro-gun, pro-carry states cover to oppose the bill. Sure, it gave House members the ability to say they voted for it, but that is all. Had we accepted reality and including a training and background check standards, we would have reciprocity today.<br /><br /><b>In regards to everything else, he is light years better than any other BATFE director in the recent past, perhaps ever.</b><br /><br />What are your thoughts?</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-16758359659539722102019-05-17T13:54:00.001-07:002019-05-17T13:54:48.240-07:00Why Wayne LaPierre Needs To Resign Or Explain Why He Won't Do So<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/craynra.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/craynra.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Lt Col Allen West and others have called<br />for LaPierre's resignation</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I really wish that there were not real, significant problems at the NRA. Unfortunately, there are VERY real problems. Demanding that they be addressed is not anti-NRA. - it is what we need to do to save the NRA. There are at least six good reasons for us, the membership, to expect LaPierre to resign. No one is saying that Wayne LaPierre has not done many great things in defense of the 2nd Amendment. He has. However, as a leader, he has unquestionably failed in at least five ways:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1) Ackerman MacQueen PR firm (AckMac)</b> - no matter whom you believe, it is clear that huge problems exist. After all, the NRA is suing them. These problems happened on LaPierre's watch. They have been going on for years (AckMac has been the NRA public relations firm since 1981). This alone should have caused him to do the right thing and resign.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>2) Running expenses through AckMac to increase his compensation package.</b> It appears that LaPierre <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/722960414/as-leaks-show-lavish-nra-spending-former-staff-detail-poor-conditions-at-nonprof">ran $200k+ of clothing expenses through AckMac</a>, who then billed the NRA. He did this while making a salary well into six figures. There are also tax questions here. His job does not qualify him to receive clothing tax free. If he did not pay taxes on the value of the clothing, AckMac, the NRA and LaPierre could all be charged with tax evasion.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>3) La Pierre's huge salary, and salary increases, while the NRA work force was taking compensation cuts and NRA income is down.</b> If the NRA was thriving, perhaps LaPierre's one million dollar plus compensation package would be justified. However, it is inexcusable for him to be making this much money while the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/722960414/as-leaks-show-lavish-nra-spending-former-staff-detail-poor-conditions-at-nonprof">NRA's employees have lost their retirement plans and NRA income is down</a>. A real leader -and I have worked under someone who did this - would slash their own salary and do everything they could to help those working under him, who could ill afford pay cuts.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>4) Carry Guard - Stabbing firearms instructors in the back. </b> The first huge issue with the Carry Guard program is that the NRA decided to go into the firearms training business in competition with existing firearms instructors who were, prior to this, some of the NRA's greatest promoters. This move, clearly approved by LaPierre, was both underhanded and shortsighted. Now these instructors are likely to promote the GOA or SAF, or worse yet, no 2A organization at all.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>5) Carry Guard - an inferior insurance product.</b> The NRA came up with a demonstrably inferior insurance plan, on that requires you to pay all your expenses out of pocket and then get reimbursed if and when you are found not guilty. In contrast, <a href="https://ccwsafe.com/">CCW Safe</a> sells plans that cover all of your expenses, including all legal fees and expenses, bail bonds, and one million in liability coverage - all of which require zero out of pocket. Yet the NRA leadership prostituted the NRA's good name buy tell members and others that the coverage was "the best available", when it clearly was not.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>6) Carry Guard - Insurance license disaster.</b> Sadly, that's not the only problem with Carry Guard. The NRA was literally so incompetent that <a href="https://www.thelegaladvocate.com/feature/class-action/story/nra-being-investigated-for-selling-insurance-without-a-license">they failed to obtain the proper licenses to sell insurance</a> in several anti-gun states. This resulted in the NRA suing the insurance underwriter in an effort to blame them. It also resulted in New York (and perhaps other states) opening investigations into the NRA. This alone is more than enough for the membership to expect LaPierre to resign.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>So, there you have it. Six reasons why we should expect LaPierre to resign. </b> Too bad he does not appear to have the integrity to do so - or to publicly explain why he should not. He needs to do one or the other. The future of the organization depends on it.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-90686781788479096592019-05-15T12:32:00.000-07:002019-05-15T12:32:21.625-07:00The Democratic Plan To End Gun Rights In America<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://img.timesnownews.com/story/1557926118-kamala_harris_reuters.jpg?d=600x450" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="600" height="240" src="https://img.timesnownews.com/story/1557926118-kamala_harris_reuters.jpg?d=600x450" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Just in case you had any doubts about the commitment of the Democratic party to ending gun rights in the US - turning gun ownership into privilege - consider today's news. In fact, Kamala Harris made the two statements below in the same day, in the same exchange with reporters. Funny how every news outlet except Fox was careful not to report them in the same article:<br /><br /><b><br /></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Step one: Flip the conservative majority on the Supreme Court by expanding its' size with liberal members who do not care what the constitution says</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They would likely first eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, then they would only need a simple majority and the presidency to expand SCOTUS. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/kamala-harris-supreme-court">From Bloomberg:</a></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br /><b>Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said Wednesday she’s open to expanding the U.S. Supreme Court,</b> accusing Republicans of creating a “crisis of confidence” in the nation’s highest court.'</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“I am interesting in having that conversation," the California senator said in Nashua, New Hampshire, in response to a question about whether she favors adding as many as four seats to the court. "I’m open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court.”</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Step Two: Create a case that would enable SCOTUS to reverse Heller/McDonald</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/kamala-harris-ban-imports-assault-weapons-1324581">From Politico:</a><br /><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br /><b>Harris — a former career prosecutor who appears intent on owning the gun issue in the crowded primary — said if Congress fails to pass stricter gun laws in her first 100 days as president, she would act on her own.</b> She floated executive orders requiring near-universal background checks on gun sales, closing the so-called "boyfriend loophole," reversing the Trump administration's move to allow fugitives with outstanding arrest warrants to buy guns, and repealing a law that prevents victims from holding gun-makers and firearms dealers liable for their losses.<br /><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Result: A reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment that eliminates any personal right to keep and bear arms.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The bottom line: If Democrats ever gain both houses and the White House, the 2nd Amendment is effectively gone and any and all gun laws and bans would be permissible.</b><br /><br />It's a simple plan that is completely feasible. It would also tear the nation apart. God help us if it succeeds.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-48575287118191615942019-05-13T14:40:00.002-07:002019-05-13T14:44:50.423-07:00How Much Would A "Buy Back" Of Semi-Auto Rifles Cost?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Modern-Sporting-Rifle-AR15-Patriotic-Flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="600" height="180" src="https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Modern-Sporting-Rifle-AR15-Patriotic-Flag.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">The cost of confiscating semi-auto rifles would<br />be massive - could the money be better spent?</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Cost likely would exceed 2/3 of the US DOJ's yearly budget</span><br /><br />The first thing we must recognize is that if the government wants to seize these firearms, they would have to pay for them.</b> So, setting aside the huge constitutional issues what would such a program cost?<br /><br /><b>The first step in estimating the cost is estimating the number of such weapons. </b> The AR15 has been the most popular firearm in the US for a long time. Then there are AK47s, Ruger Mini-14s and other guns such as the M1 Carbine. Gun control advocates like to downplay the number of guns involved - while constantly expanding the kinds of firearms defined as an "assault weapons". No one knows how many semi-auto rifles exist that take detachable magazines are out there - but they have been made for over 100 years. A realistic estimate would be 30-40 million, but it could be even more.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>So, if compliance is high, what would such a program cost? </b> Well, if the average value of these firearms is $600.00 (a conservative estimate), then the math looks like this:<br /><br />30,000,000 x $600.00 = $18,000,000,000.00<br /><br /><b>Yep, a realistic estimate of the buy back cost of these firearms is 18 Billion Dollars.</b> Add on to this the cost of administering the program, running ads to inform the public, disposing of the firearms, defending the law in court and who knows what else - and <b>the cost could easily be over 20 billion dollars. </b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>For perspective, the entire budget for the U.S. Department of Justice (FBI, US Marshals, ATF, prosecutors, etc.) is about $31 billion.</b></span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </b><a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/nz-semi-automatic-and-assault-rifle-buyback-will-cost-up-to-200-million_2846916.html" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tiny New Zealand's program may cost them 200 million.</a><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">After doing my own estimate, I discovered that other researchers </span><a href="https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-a-gun-buyback-program-costs-taxpayers-to-get-5-to-10-millions-assault-weapons-off-of-the-streets" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">have arrived at a similar number</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (20 billion). </span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All of this to eliminate a category of firearm that is involved in less murders than knives, clubs and bare hands/feet INDIVIDUALLY.</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><b>This raises a logical question: Would this money be better spent on other efforts? </b> Imagine what we could do with 18 billion dollars. We could likely harden every school in the country or massively expand mental health services or provide more school resource officers or train school staff to protect their students - or some combination of the above. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Even if you are a gun control advocate, you should be able to see better ways to spend that much money. </b> We could fix our broken background check database so that it actually contains everyone who legally cannot buy or own a firearm. We could prosecute more people who buy guns illegally. We could increase funding for the ATF and implement a "Project Exile" like program nationwide. This program imbeds ATF agents in local police agencies so they can bring federal charges against criminals caught with guns. Since federal time is usually served far from home, this is a major deterrent that has been proven to greatly reduce the number of criminals carrying guns. This would save far more lives than buying back millions of semi-auto rifles.</span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div>
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;">Banning semi-auto rifles is simply not the best way to spend 20 billion dollars if you want to save lives. There are many other efforts that would be much more effective.</span></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-85914607252374186242019-05-10T11:40:00.000-07:002019-05-10T11:41:30.068-07:00Rasmussen Gun Poll Reveals Three Disturbing Facts For Gun Rights<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*KVchBt4iH98mXL0V.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="362" data-original-width="800" height="144" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*KVchBt4iH98mXL0V.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The poll summary <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/social_issues/americans_don_t_trust_feds_on_gun_control_but_less_wary_of_federal_gun_licenses">can be found here</a>.<br /><br /><b>Fact #1: 48% of American Adults favor a mandatory federal license for all gun owners.</b> (39% oppose, 13% undecided)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Fact #2: A majority of Americans do not believe a license requirement will reduce gun crime.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Fact #3: A majority of Americans do not trust the federal government with gun laws.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I see three major takeaways from this poll:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>First, nearly half of Americans are in favor of licensing (and likely background checks too) ON PRINCIPLE. </b> They do not care if it has any effect on crime or not. They simply believe a license should be required because guns are dangerous and if we require a license to drive a car, we should require one to own and operate a firearm. Proving that there is no benefit will not change their minds. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Second, no matter what SCOTUS says, a near majority of Americans do not believe that gun ownership is (or should be) a civil right.</b> They view it as a privilege. This is not good news.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Third, support for gun rights is a minority opinion. The fact that only 39% oppose gun owner licensing is disturbing. </b> It indicates that there is little to no support for gun rights outside of gun owning households. THIS IS WHY SO MANY GUN CONTROL BALLOT MEASURES ARE PASSING.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Looking ahead IMHO, this is what we should do:<br /><br />1) A primary focus should be legal action. We are unlikely to stop any gun bills from passing in many states.<br /><br />2) We should make every effort to keep gun initiatives off of state ballots - because they are likely to pass.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3) We should seriously consider writing and lobbying for a simple expansion of NICS checks to private SALES only. Family transactions should be exempted. We should combine this with a federal preemption of laws regulating the sale and possession of firearms.<br /><br />Why should we do this? Several reasons:<br /><br />Background checks will be expanded eventually, given these poll numbers. If we don't write the bill, the gun grabbers will.<br /><br />Passing such a bill would prevent Bloomberg from "piggybacking" massive restrictions on his "background check" bills and initiatives. (He has already done this in several states and will certainly continue to do so.)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This tactic would turn Bloomberg's own lies against him. He would be forced to oppose a background check expansion bill and to admit that the laws to lobbied for in so many states actually DO go far beyond background checks on sales. It would be hard for Bloomberg and other gun control advocates to sell the idea that state background checks are needed in addition to federal checks.</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-76743994098502585452019-05-09T11:20:00.002-07:002019-05-09T11:23:29.660-07:00Would The Loss Of The NRA Doom The Pro-Gun Movement?<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Over the past week, I have read a lot of articles in the general press covering the "crisis" in the NRA. The tone in most of them was, "The NRA is in deep trouble and when it falls, it will be the end of the pro-gun political movement." Without accepting the fall of the NRA as a fact (we are, thankfully, far from that point), are they right? If the NRA vanished tomorrow, would the fight for gun rights come to an end?<br /><br />The answer to that question is: ABSOLUTELY NOT. Here's why:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>1) The NRA Is Far From The Only National Gun Rights Organization - It May Not Even Be The Most Effective One</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Gun_Owners_of_America_Logo.svg/1200px-Gun_Owners_of_America_Logo.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="200" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Gun_Owners_of_America_Logo.svg/1200px-Gun_Owners_of_America_Logo.svg.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While the NRA is certainly the largest gun rights group in the US, it is not the only one. In fact, the NRA has experienced a great many defections to other gun rights groups in the last 15 years. The two largest groups are the <a href="https://gunowners.org/">Gun Owners of America</a> (GOA) and <a href="https://www.saf.org/">Second Amendment Foundation</a>/<a href="https://www.ccrkba.org/">Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms</a> (SAF/CCRKBA).</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Membership figures can be somewhat misleading, as they do not indicate just how active people are in the gun rights political and legal fight.</b> The NRA claims about 5 million members (and I believe them). However, the average NRA member is likely less involved than members of either GOA or SAF. The NRA is better known and, at least until now, likely the first organization someone getting involved in the political fight for gun rights would join. <b>Additionally, the NRA is much more than a </b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/SAFLogo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="143" data-original-width="368" height="124" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/SAFLogo.jpg" width="320" /></a></b></span></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>political organization.</b> The NRA issues safety standards, trains and certifies firearms instructors, operates a huge shooting range complex in New Mexico and operates two large firearms museums.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>In contrast, GOA and SAF are exclusively involved in the gun rights battle. </b> While neither are as large as the NRA, they are not small groups. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_Americas">The GOA has 2 million members</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_Foundation">SAF/CCRKBA has at least 650,000 members</a>. In my opinion, both organizations are much more efficient than the NRA. Both have mch smaller budgets, but are very effective. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNmAd_MRMQxCOfQUn2yEIc2FZ2fFELs0eAgP9HFhBWBnmaR0AgOw" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="210" data-original-width="225" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNmAd_MRMQxCOfQUn2yEIc2FZ2fFELs0eAgP9HFhBWBnmaR0AgOw" /></a><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The GOA is very involved in monitoring legislation, in Washington and in most states.</b> They do a good job of alerting gun owners to legislation they believe should be defeated or supported. In this regard they are at least as effective as the NRA, and significantly less likely to compromise. If the NRA disappeared tomorrow, the GOA would almost certainly experience a sharp increase in membership. After all the 5 million NRA members are not going to stop opposing gun control if the NRA folds.<br /><br /><b>In contrast, SAF/CCRKBA is much more focused on legal action.</b> In fact, they have won many more cases than the NRA has - with a much smaller budget. Politically, they are slightly more likely to support some gun laws that contain both restrictions on and expansion of gun rights - especially when the proposed law is a net gain for gun rights. </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>In addition to these two groups, there are many small national and state organizations,</b> such as <a href="http://jpfo.org/">Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership</a>, the <a href="https://www.firearmspolicy.org/">Firearms Policy Coalition</a>, <a href="https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/">Calguns</a>, etc. If the NRA were to fold, these groups would also likely see </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0641/1971/files/FPC-Logo-black-OL_720x.png?v=1524614202" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="257" data-original-width="720" height="114" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0641/1971/files/FPC-Logo-black-OL_720x.png?v=1524614202" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">an increase in membership and funding. This would result in a somewhat greater focus of resources at the state and local level.<br /><br />So, in spite of the hope of those opposed to gun rights, "taking down the NRA" would not end the battle over gun rights.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>2) There Are Many State Organizations As Well</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are gun rights organizations in every state. Consider those in the nation's most populous state, California:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thecalgunsfoundation/sites/2/meta_images/original/calguns-logo_2x.png?1476994850" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="216" data-original-width="560" height="123" src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thecalgunsfoundation/sites/2/meta_images/original/calguns-logo_2x.png?1476994850" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/">The CalGuns Foundation</a>.</b> Calguns is a very active organization focused on gun rights in the most populous state. It has a strong online presence and has wide range of members and supporters drawn from every demographic group in the state, from liberal LBGT people to conservative Christians. Calguns is active on both the political and legal fronts.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/crpa-logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="48" data-original-width="150" src="https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/crpa-logo.png" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://crpa.org/">The California Rifle and Pistol Association</a></b> (CRPA), founded in 1875 is affiliated with the NRA, but is separately incorporated, which means that even if the NRA were to vanish this group (and all the other state affiliates) would still be around.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSN9DQH2JeS_NjgoZhtk7tRLjRsVSqdv5FIzu4-tDnMYc_xuUzs" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="224" height="200" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSN9DQH2JeS_NjgoZhtk7tRLjRsVSqdv5FIzu4-tDnMYc_xuUzs" width="199" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The <a href="https://www.gunownersca.com/">Gun Owners of California</a>, is the state affiliate of the GOA. Again, this organization would be unaffected by the collapse of the NRA - except, perhaps, an increase in membership and funding.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That's the situation in California - and it is typical. Most states have at least an NRA affiliate and a GOA affiliate - and often additional groups, all of which would still be around if the NRA were to disappear. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>3) Technology Has Transformed The "Gun Media"</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the 1970s, the NRA and a few monthly "gun magazines" were the only communication outlets informing pro-gun rights activists. While these outlets still exist, a great deal has changed in the last 40 years. NRATV and the NRA's publications are far from the only media outlets that are pro-2nd Amendment and keep pro-2nd Amendment voters informed. In fact, other outlets, unconnected to the NRA, are far more popular in the firearms community. Here is a brief overview. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Radio/Podcasts</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In addition to local firearms radio shows, a national, weekly, three hour radio show - <a href="https://guntalk.com/"><b>Gun </b></a></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.americanrifleman.org/wp-content/uploads/Webcontent/images/2010-6/201061811739-gun-talk_logo_2010_m.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="199" data-original-width="354" height="111" src="https://www.americanrifleman.org/wp-content/uploads/Webcontent/images/2010-6/201061811739-gun-talk_logo_2010_m.jpg" width="200" /></a></b></span></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Talk</b> - <a href="https://guntalk.com/news/shows/tom-greshams-gun-talk-radio-adds-three-new-stations">airs on more than 220 stations</a> each week. In addition, Gun Talk has a strong online presence, including making every broadcast available as a <a href="http://guntalk.libsyn.com/">podcast</a>. In addition there are a great many other gun rights podcasts. This site <a href="https://player.fm/podcasts/Gun-Rights">lists 42 of the most popular</a> - but there are hundreds more, some of which are quite popular. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>YouTube/Online Video</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.gunlaserguide.com/wp-content/uploads/best-gun-channels-on-youtube.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="392" data-original-width="800" height="156" src="https://www.gunlaserguide.com/wp-content/uploads/best-gun-channels-on-youtube.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">hickok45 has over 4 million subscribers</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Gun channels are huge on YouTube.</b> Here are some of the most popular: </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45/videos">hickok45</a> </span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(4,160,934 subscribers), </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/ratedrr">FullMag</a> (</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2,406,907 subscribers), </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/Iraqveteran8888">Iraqveteran8888</a> (</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2,158,370 subscribers), </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIOGCEG14rj9GpIFhszkWoQ">Edwin Sarkissian</a> </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(1,864,081 subscribers), <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrfKGpvbEQXcbe68dzXgJuA">Forgotten Weapons</a> (</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1,194,427 subscribers), <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNEZ7cqaZzYLeyWfTkelkEA">TAOFLEDERMAUS</a> (</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1,179,776 subscribers), <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre">Military Arms Channel</a> (</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">940,510 subscribers), </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir">Colion Noir</a> </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(864,203 subscribers), <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/sootch00">sootch00</a> (</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">827,028 subscribers), </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/nutnfancy">nutnfancy</a> (</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">795,559 subscribers), </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> and </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/22plinkster">22plinkster</a> (</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">539,830 subscribers). There are many, many more. When you look at these numbers, it's easy to see why YouTube is resisting pressure from anti-gun rights groups to ban gun channels. They have, however, continued to put more and more restriction on them.<br /><b><br /></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>However, should YouTube kick all gun channels off of their platform</b> - a move that would cost them millions of viewers - <b>these gun channels are ready. </b> They have another platform up and running: <a href="http://full30.com/">Full30.com</a>. Many of these channels have been uploading content to this site for well over a year - and informing their YouTube subscribers of this. Even if YouTube drops the hammer and bans gun channels, they will not go away.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; clear: both; color: blue; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: center; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"></span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; orphans: 2; padding: 6px; text-align: center; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/full30-1024x422.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="800" height="131" src="https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/full30-1024x422.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px; padding-top: 4px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Should YouTube ban gun channels, content<br />creators already have an alternative site</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Online Publications</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/themes/ammoland-wp/assets/images/ammoland-logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="70" data-original-width="325" height="68" src="https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/themes/ammoland-wp/assets/images/ammoland-logo.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Ammoland is only one of many websites<br />covering stories of interest to gun owners</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In addition to video and podcasts there are many gun websites which cover stories of interest to the firearms community - including gun rights. These include <a href="http://guns.com/">Guns.com</a>, <a href="https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/">The Truth About Guns</a>, <a href="https://www.ammoland.com/">Ammoland</a>, and <a href="https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/">Personal Defense World</a> are some of the most popular.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Social Media</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In addition to all of the above resources, there are many social media pages and accounts that, in addition to their own content, provide links to all of the above online resources. So far, most - if not all - online social media sites permit the sharing of pro-2A articles and videos. Should they be stupid enough to ban pro-2A resources, users will simply move to one of the competitive platforms that would love to have the users.<br /><br /><b>Consider our own little Facebook page (Clergy in Support of the 2nd Amendment).</b> It has 2170 followers. This means that when a link or a story is shared, it goes out to 2170 people. Multiply that be several hundred, if not several thousand similar pages, and it becomes apparent that in a few hours information critical to the gun rights fight can reach millions in a few hours.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion:</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Would losing the NRA be a huge blow to the gun rights cause? Absolutely. Would it end the fight - <b>NO WAY</b>. In fact, it is possible that several much more efficient groups would experience a dramatic increase in membership and funding. <b>Anti-gun rights groups should be careful what they wish for.</b></span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-38428712433812246822019-04-16T13:26:00.001-07:002019-04-17T12:06:26.343-07:00Why Banning AR15s Is Useless, Unconstitutional and Dangerous<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I fully realize that the title of this post may seem absurd to many readers. That said, I firmly believe that anyone who considers the following facts with an open mind will reach the same conclusion - even if they wish the facts allowed a different conclusion. Let's look at the facts.</span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Banning AR15s would be useless</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The above is proved by the following facts:<br /><br />1) There are <a href="http://knowledgeglue.com/just-how-many-ar15s-are-out-there/">at least 6 million AR15s in private hands</a> (likely many more).</b> In addition, there are tens of millions AK47s and other semi-auto rifles. Yet less than 2% of homicides are committed with any kind of rifle. <a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls">Less than handguns, or knives, or clubs, or bare hands </a><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls"><img border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="429" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizIoSQfSgx4prDT7KJPXefJF3wzTWoDStVPWzK5h_sD2cXh8q5HEkG195O7P46ug2kvlrNEhTZYLQfrX-Sy2QWhkAfHCXOQKwGYBOD8e8RCwRcyJy5aWMI28fjUAa5Tmm_nmNmbHZu-V2L/s320/firearms+homicides2.png" width="274" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">According to <a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls">FBI Stats</a>, Homicides Involving<br />
Any Kind of Rifle Are Very Rare. The Number<br />
Involving AR15s Is Even Smaller</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls">and feet INDIVIDUALLY. </a> <i>No matter how scary they look, or how effective they may be when used in warfare, they are simply not common murder weapons.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>2) They have been used on only <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/">13 mass murders in the last 15 years</a></b> - less than one per year.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>3) Mass murders <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/">are usually committed with handguns</a></b>. You simply do not need a rifle to kill unarmed people across the room. Banning AR15's will simply not stop mass shootings, or even slow them down. Don't believe me? Do what I did: Research what weapons were used in mass shootings.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>4) At close range, the most dangerous weapon is not a rifle, it's a shotgun. </b> The common, pump action shotgun can fire buckshot that blows fist sized holes at close range. When it spreads out at longer range, can both more easily hit a moving target and hit more than one person. For these reason both the military and police have used shotguns for close range fighting for over 150 years.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjC0KzZASKu9WWDsDBFmtopYG4QJAalr9SJCa7O3C1n2rLnatMDqcVQU8XBTYwqJmCS3g40DJUWoIvbTjrabHZafKx1gz7j_WoBLcu8u4j-le_yZM2R4AFQ0M4yl5MBsUUIpZijjslvddN/s1600/mass+shootings+weapon+types.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="390" data-original-width="486" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjC0KzZASKu9WWDsDBFmtopYG4QJAalr9SJCa7O3C1n2rLnatMDqcVQU8XBTYwqJmCS3g40DJUWoIvbTjrabHZafKx1gz7j_WoBLcu8u4j-le_yZM2R4AFQ0M4yl5MBsUUIpZijjslvddN/s320/mass+shootings+weapon+types.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Even When Looking Just At Mass Shootings,<br />Handguns Are By Far The Most Common<br />Firearm Used (<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/">Source</a>)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>5) If AR15s and other mass shootings were banned, mass murderers would simply turn to other weapons </b>or obtain them on the black market, <a href="https://2ndamendmentclergy.blogspot.com/2019/01/official-us-doj-report-devastates-gun.html">already the source of 43% of firearms owned by criminals</a>. They might actually decide to use shotguns, which are more dangerous.<br /><br /><b>Consider the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_High_School_shooting#Shooting">Santa Fe High School shooting</a>, the second-deadliest school shooting in the United States in 2018. </b> <b>The mass murderer used a pump-action Remington Model 870 shotgun and a .38-caliber revolver to kill </b>10 people and wound 14. He did this in spite of a very fast response by law enforcement (less than 3 minutes), including one officer who was at the school. Had he been allowed to continue killing for as long as the Stoneman Douglas High School murderer was, the death toll would have likely been as high.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF4M6HwYW_LcLmBDNjPV0Dzic3wVnFu3oa-tNj5bdThjEq8FxJ7IdtWwukpLgIP8csUE0zxPZ4auwcm8LSsMZVdT5oKRjKChhlcJbVtZMFHnHiohIUBOlamJiAXkhECR-j61LO5poSEyr8/s1600/870+and+revolver.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="571" data-original-width="1600" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF4M6HwYW_LcLmBDNjPV0Dzic3wVnFu3oa-tNj5bdThjEq8FxJ7IdtWwukpLgIP8csUE0zxPZ4auwcm8LSsMZVdT5oKRjKChhlcJbVtZMFHnHiohIUBOlamJiAXkhECR-j61LO5poSEyr8/s400/870+and+revolver.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">The 2nd Worst Shooting In 2018 Was Committed With A<br />Shotgun And a .38 Revolver - Not An AR15</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Pump shotguns were also used in the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Capital Gazette shooting</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (5 dead) and </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Navy Yard shooting</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (12 dead). At this point no one is seriously talking about banning pump shotguns - in fact even Joe Biden has come out against this.</span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><b>If AR15s were banned, and not available on the illegal market (an impossibility), shooters would simply turn to handguns (constitutionally protected) and/or shotguns (also constitutionally protected).</b> There is no difference in the death toll when these firearms are used. Banning AR15s would accomplish nothing</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Banning AR15s would be unconstitutional</span></b><br /><br />AR15s (and other semi-auto rifles) are clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment. To understand why this is, you need to have some understanding of the SCOTUS decisions AND firearms. Many who confidently state that they are not protected have never read the SCOTUS decisions. They are relying on small portions which - having read the whole decision more than once - I know to be pulled completely out of context. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unless SCOTUS decides to completely ignore the rules set forth in the Miller (1939), Heller </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(2008)</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> and McDonald (2010) decisions - as lower courts have done - these firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Let's look at the three current Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment right:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">First, we have the Miller decision (1939).</b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> The background on this case is that in 1934, the first federal gun laws were passed. Among other things, many firearms thought to be both especially dangerous and unusual, were heavily regulated and subjected to very high taxes upon transfer. Additionally, anyone wishing to purchase such weapons were subjected to a stringent background check. In addition to machine guns and other weapons, short barreled shotguns (commonly called "sawed off") were subjected to this regulation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Shortly after the new law took effect, a known criminal (Miller) was caught in possession of a short barreled shotgun while traveling between states. He this was charged with illegal possession and transportation. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case. However, Miller died before the case was heard - but the DOJ continued the case, even though no defense was presented, at least at oral arguments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In 1939 SCOTUS handed down its' decision. They essentially sidestepped the whole issue of personal vs. collective right by pointing out that a short barreled shotgun had no value in the context of a militia. It is important to recognize that this decision only addressed what weapons were protected - not, as mentioned, the issue of personal vs. ""collective" rights.<br /><br /><b>So, what kind of weapons did they say were protected? Simple: Weapons with military value. No military value, no 2nd Amendment protection. </b>Clearly, this completely invalidates the argument that "weapons of war" are not protected. Just the opposite is true. In reality, all firearms types in common use have been used as weapons of war - so banning weapons of war would result in all firearms being banned. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">SCOTUS did not address the 2nd Amendment for another 69 years.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://image.slidesharecdn.com/districtofcolumbiav-100420165354-phpapp01/95/district-of-columbia-v-heller-9-728.jpg?cb=1271782522" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="546" data-original-width="728" height="300" src="https://image.slidesharecdn.com/districtofcolumbiav-100420165354-phpapp01/95/district-of-columbia-v-heller-9-728.jpg?cb=1271782522" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>In 2008, the high court issued the Heller decision. </b> Dick Heller was employed as a security guard at a government building in Washington DC. He actually carried a firearm while on duty, but was not, under D.C. law, allowed to keep a firearm at his home for personal defense. In fact, the District of Columbia banned all new handguns and forbade any firearm being kept in functional condition - they had to be kept disassembled. He sued the District in order to be able to register his handgun and keep it available for self defense.<br /><br />Obviously, the case was accepted by SCOTUS and Dick Heller won. However, the decision, written by lifelong hunter and shooter, Justice Scalia, covered much more than just the matter of handguns - it sketched out a great deal of the overall 2nd Amendment right.<br /><br /><b>First, it is important to recognize that D.C. argued aggressively in favor of keeping their ban on handguns. </b> They made the argument that handguns are used in 62% of homicides, and that therefore the ban should stay. They also argued that people didn't need <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://nationalinterest.org/sites/default/files/styles/desktop__1486_x_614/public/main_images/765432z.png?itok=aZBo018k" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="800" height="212" src="https://nationalinterest.org/sites/default/files/styles/desktop__1486_x_614/public/main_images/765432z.png?itok=aZBo018k" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Even though handguns are clearly the most<br />dangerous firearms SCOTUS ruled they are<br />protected by the 2nd Amendment</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
handguns for self defense - they could use shotguns, or even rifles. <b>Handguns are very dangerous and not needed. Does that argument sound familiar?</b> It should, it is exactly the argument made against the AR15 - except that rifles are used in less than 2% of homicides, and so called "assault rifles" are used in less than that. Therefore, the argument for banning handguns is much, much stronger than the argument for banning AR15 and other similar rifles. <b>The high court completely rejected this argument and ruled the handgun ban to be unconstitutional. If handguns - the weapon of choice for both criminals and mass shooters - cannot be banned, than it is clear that semi-auto rifles such as the AR15 also cannot be banned.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>That's not all. A basic rule set forth in Heller is that the people decide what guns are protected - not the government, </b> If the government could decide what arms are protected, the 2nd Amendment would protect nothing. People called into militia service brought such firearms as they chose to possess for lawful purposes. Therefore, any firearm commonly possessed by people for ANY lawful purpose (self defense, target shooting, hunting, collecting) is protected, period. <b>This has since been accurately called the "common use" test.</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxYHbDaXaqiOhvhImr_Q30REIiEoCzbMkbgQg08sPAefO6GnUCBXHyL8Aq5ZgCZ7XbBY-UgFU4Fvk5pQGZG' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In this excellent video from Khan Academy,</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">two constitutional experts explain how the</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2nd Amendment has always protected a</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">personal right</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Additionally, SCOTUS, after reviewing all data related to the passage of the 2nd Amendment,</b> similar provisions in state constitutions passed in the same era, and rulings related to the same, <b>concluded that the 2nd Amendment right is a personal, not collective right.</b> This is simple common sense. Had the authors only been concerned with the ability of states to arm and organize militias, they could have simple stated that the states had the right to organize and arm militias. If they wanted to restrict the right to militia members, they could have simply limited that right to militia members. They did none of these things. Instead, the court decided, strangely enough, that when the 2nd Amendment said "the right of the people", it meant the right of the people.<br /><br />Why did the founders protect the right of the people to possess arms? Consider this quote from Alexander Hamilton:<br /><br /><i>"<b>If the representatives of the people betray their constituents</b>,<b> there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense</b> which is </i></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2_n9tre6M-yX758GgAjHjuySHImG2cZrUdfqIPPt2gy_Wvud_Q3w3YbOWRIXbRCiICZpzSAl3yu0RCJHELvB4Zn4SkqjNHerwzamlk4468OUHKeVUGFVYU-tmlyKpuEcNaaKcxJUYFtQ_/s1600/hamilton+on+2A.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="278" data-original-width="381" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2_n9tre6M-yX758GgAjHjuySHImG2cZrUdfqIPPt2gy_Wvud_Q3w3YbOWRIXbRCiICZpzSAl3yu0RCJHELvB4Zn4SkqjNHerwzamlk4468OUHKeVUGFVYU-tmlyKpuEcNaaKcxJUYFtQ_/s320/hamilton+on+2A.jpg" width="320" /></a></i></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. <b>The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."</b></i><br /><br /><b>Hamilton is not advocating for rebellion against the Constitution, he is saying that the last safeguard against an unconstitutional takeover of government by tyrants is an armed citizenry</b>. Thank God, this provision has never been needed, except as a deterrent. One can argue that no one has tried to overthrow our constitutional government because of the many obstacles to such action, including a massively armed citizenry. More on this later.<br /><br />In the follow on case to Heller - McDonald (2010), the City of Chicago was sued since they had exactly the same law. The issue was "incorporation" - was the right enforceable against <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://chicagogunsmatter.org/images/people/otis-mcdonald-thehighroad-200px.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://chicagogunsmatter.org/images/people/otis-mcdonald-thehighroad-200px.jpg" data-original-height="150" data-original-width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Otis McDonald fought for<br />the right to legally own a<br />handgun in Chicago</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
state and local government, or just the federal government? <b>SCOTUS decided that the 2nd Amendment restricted all levels of government - and that, "it is essential to our system of ordered liberty".</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />So, let's review. In Miller, Heller, and McDonald SCOTUS decided that:<br /><br />1) The 2nd Amendment right is a personal right that belongs to the people</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2) In order to be protected, the weapon must have military value</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3) All weapons in common use by the people are protected</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">4) The right restricts all levels of government - federal, state and local</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">5) The right is essential to our system of ordered liberty</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finally, we must address the section that gun control advocates constantly quote:<br /><br />"<b>Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited</b>. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, <b>the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.</b> Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , <b>nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms</b>"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. <b>We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.</b>”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, let's review what Heller says can definitely be regulated by government:<br /><br /><b>1) The carrying of concealed weapons. This DOES NOT mean that that government can ban all carrying of firearms.</b> It does likely mean that government may ban open carry or concealed carry - but not both. In contrast to the 1800's, today most governments would prefer concealed carry over open carry because such carry causes less concern by the public. (Out of sight, out of mind). It also means that if open carry is allowed (which is the case in many states), state government can require a license for concealed carry. This is completely irrelevant to the issue of AR15s. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>2) The possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.</b> This is current federal law, and the law in most states. Again, this is not relevant to AR15s.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>3) The carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.</b> Since AR15s are not usually not carried in public, this doesn't apply either.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>4) The commercial sale of arms.</b> In other words, government can license dealers - again, not relevant to the issue of AR15s and other semi-auto rifles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>5) Dangerous and unusual weapons.</b> The reference to Miller is a clear indication that what SCOTUS has in mind here are short barreled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, etc. that are controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Still, SCOTUS provides a test. <b>Government may ban or regulate weapons that are dangerous AND unusual. </b> Please note that the wording is not "dangerous or unusual". I mention this because lower courts have actually applied Heller in this way, which is obviously wrong. All firearms are dangerous - so if courts are allowed to misapply Heller in this way, the 2nd Amendment would - once again - protect nothing. <b>Are AR15s dangerous? Absolutely. Are they unusual? Absolutely not. In fact, they are the most popular firearm in the country.</b> In spite of this, lower courts have ruled that the Ar15 is unusual and upheld bans on the basis that they are not common. Take a trip to any rifle range and you will discover how common they are. Unless SCOTUS reverses itself, these lower courts are simply wrong.<br /><br /><b>AR15s passes every test required for constitutional protection - therefore banning them is unconstitutional.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Banning AR15s would be dangerous</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many people outside the U.S., and too many inside the U.S., simply cannot understand why gun confiscation would be dangerous. The reason is simple: <b>Like it or not, in this country, </b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwUKxp8hMLOZ2qozSREgoQ2SazlUF0sT6oWpqGY3zjbHuHzrEjnm8lKG0GqdYMd44zJijoX8-QW-5Vt_hsiEijc86gRZXZOXltfiumKQY7Ls_9H2o8a3IbZq_IEieyrqxVbkldwNZTIFHn/s1600/judge+nap+on+2A.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="185" data-original-width="151" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwUKxp8hMLOZ2qozSREgoQ2SazlUF0sT6oWpqGY3zjbHuHzrEjnm8lKG0GqdYMd44zJijoX8-QW-5Vt_hsiEijc86gRZXZOXltfiumKQY7Ls_9H2o8a3IbZq_IEieyrqxVbkldwNZTIFHn/s320/judge+nap+on+2A.jpg" width="260" /></a></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>firearms ownership is strongly associated with freedom.</b> In 2013, shortly after Sandy Hook, a Rasmussen poll found that <b><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny">65% of Americans saw the right to own firearms as an important safeguard against tyranny</a>.</b> You may think that this opinion would be less common among the 50-55% of Americans who do not have firearms in their home - and you would be correct. <b>57% of people in non-gun owning households hold this opinion.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When did this opinion take root in American public opinion? Although the right of free Englishmen to own firearms was well established in the American mind almost from the beginning of English settlement, <b>the strong association with freedom was forged on April 19th 1775 - when British troops left Boston to seize firearms from people who held the "wrong" political views.<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i1.wp.com/theimaginativeconservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Lexington_Pyle.jpg?ssl=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="516" data-original-width="800" height="206" src="https://i1.wp.com/theimaginativeconservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Lexington_Pyle.jpg?ssl=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Revolutionary War began when British<br />troops attempted to disarm citizens at<br />Lexington - confiscation would likely<br />have the same effect today</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b>Another major factor in play is that this association between gun rights and the preservation of freedom is much stronger in the mid-west, mountain west and south. We don't have to guess as to the danger of forced gun confiscation, because we have already had at least one close call. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>In 2016, a veteran living in Northern Idaho was contacted by federal agents who said that they would be coming out the next day to collect his firearms.</b> His crime? He had consented to have someone else manage his finances. The veteran could have just surrendered his guns, but instead, he called some friends who called the local sheriff.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/New-Mexico-Second-Amendment-Sanctuary-Counties-from-NM-Shooting-Sports-Assn-502.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="585" data-original-width="522" height="320" src="https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/New-Mexico-Second-Amendment-Sanctuary-Counties-from-NM-Shooting-Sports-Assn-502.jpg" width="285" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Opposition to more gun laws is not limited to<br />individuals - local government and local<br />law enforcement are already resisting</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The next morning, the local sheriff - backed up by over 100 armed citizens - stood in front of the veteran's home.</b> The local media, include Spokane TV stations, were also there. The sheriff made it clear that of ANYONE tried to take the man's guns, the best outcome they could expect would be to end up in his jail. Fortunately, those tasked with the seizure were made aware of the situation at the man's home and decided it wasn't worth it. They called the sheriff to tell him they were not coming. The man kept his firearms. However, it is obvious that <b>had those agents showed up and attempted to take those guns, the potential for a firefight between local citizens/law enforcement and federal agents would have been very high.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Since then, we have seen resistance to gun laws and potential gun laws increase.</b> More and more sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun laws and more and more counties are declaring themselves "2nd Amendment sanctuaries". Furthermore, we have seen several states enact restrictions on semi-auto rifles like the AR15 - including registration <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/8_720.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="748" data-original-width="750" height="319" src="https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/8_720.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Most gun owners and many non-owners see<br />confiscation of AR15s and other semi-auto<br />rifles as just the first step towards tyranny </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
requirements. By <b>comparing sales and registration figures it has been determined that compliance with a registration law is less than 30% -sometimes far less.</b> <b>It is obvious that they are failing to register because they believe (with good reason) that registration is the first step towards confiscation.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, let's consider what would happen if semi-automatic rifles like the AR15 were to be banned. <b>After the initial "grace period" is over, just how would this law be enforced? </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Well, the federal government could simply do nothing and depend upon local government to report violations they encounter in the course of their work.</b> This would be totally ineffective because tens of millions of these rifles would remain in civilian hands. Furthermore, as with immigration, local law enforcement cannot be forced to enforce federal law. In fact, in many counties, they have refused to enforce state laws. The banned guns likely would continue to be used in a few mass shootings.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>So, eventually, federal agents would eventually be tasked with figuring out who might have these firearms and going out to seize them. </b> They likely would have a second grace period, in hopes that a few raids and arrests would result in more voluntary surrenders.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://qph2.c7.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0e0fb404b4d7d89e81a00adf196b7bae.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="382" data-original-width="602" height="203" src="https://qph2.c7.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0e0fb404b4d7d89e81a00adf196b7bae.webp" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Given the division in our nation today, another<br />civil war would be much, much worse than the<br />first........</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>How long do you think it would take before a major firefight erupted? My guess is that it would be a matter of days. Once that happens, we all lose </b>- because nothing good would follow. Many federal agents would likely refuse to carry out more raids. Many local law enforcement agencies would stand with their citizens against what they would view as oppression. Governors would demand a halt to raids in their state - and some would likely make it clear that this was not a request. <b>Many would see the raids as the evidence that tyranny had actually begun, since they view the confiscation efforts as a clear violation of their rights.</b> The only real option left to those wanting to seize these firearms would be the use of the military. <b>In the current political environment, with America more divided than at any time since the civil war, the chances that a second civil war could be triggered would be high. Once that happens, everybody loses. </b> <b>There would be no winners.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As I stated earlier, an ban of AR15s would be dangerous. In fact, dangerous would likely be an understatement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, these are the facts. You may not like them, you may wish they were different, but this does not make these facts magically disappear. They cannot simply be ignored.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>I think it is very clear that a ban of AR15s and other semi-auto rifles would be a complete disaster for America.</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-53079425934519920272019-04-08T13:32:00.000-07:002019-04-09T18:25:04.902-07:00Maps Show How Rapidly "2nd Amendment Sanctuaries" Have Spread In Western States<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dozens Of Counties Are Refusing To Enforce New Gun Laws</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />A massive movement in support of the 2nd Amendment and in opposition to gun control measures pushed by Michael Bloomberg and his merry band of billionaires is sweeping through several western states. As usual, the media has largely ignored these developments.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The following maps, several from the excellent site <a href="http://gunrightswatch.com/">Gun Rights Watch,</a> clearly show how far opposition to these new, bought and paid for laws, has spread.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">New Mexico</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU33TvseyE9p1wJLnQNxc51xWet-fUVdtjGRtugioe44kWux1sRwlbnjmOSU5ccP04XulyzCINzru-tqJWwtL958vltzjJR6S3rdC8tg1CuZA_eORl9ZjG0W9SDcjjFFfKsC4Mk-5DTAP_/s1600/new-mexico-counties.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="750" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU33TvseyE9p1wJLnQNxc51xWet-fUVdtjGRtugioe44kWux1sRwlbnjmOSU5ccP04XulyzCINzru-tqJWwtL958vltzjJR6S3rdC8tg1CuZA_eORl9ZjG0W9SDcjjFFfKsC4Mk-5DTAP_/s400/new-mexico-counties.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In New Mexico, either through formal action by their county government, or a pledge by the county sheriff, only two counties in the entire state will enforce Bloomberg's new law.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Colorado</span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyDSWux2yPNQXNIbmer81SPKwHKUnVWrz1GrI-LpNc4IIUpYg8lzbCN3sYF9qwfxj3nfWCvWEzLwPU4bkpDFEZsiQvbK54epZIh-RVoxyF3NcjMG6eCxu4aOBkVGRFUQzpHg0QVcHBRdMi/s1600/Colorado+2nd+Amendment+Sanctuary+Counties.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="584" data-original-width="740" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyDSWux2yPNQXNIbmer81SPKwHKUnVWrz1GrI-LpNc4IIUpYg8lzbCN3sYF9qwfxj3nfWCvWEzLwPU4bkpDFEZsiQvbK54epZIh-RVoxyF3NcjMG6eCxu4aOBkVGRFUQzpHg0QVcHBRdMi/s400/Colorado+2nd+Amendment+Sanctuary+Counties.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Counties in red have passed 2nd Amendment sanctuary measures.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Colorado has faced a great deal of resistance to Bloomberg's bought and paid for gun laws since 2013, however the passage of a so called "red flag law" has caused many counties to go on record as refusing to enforce these laws.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Washington</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvkiGX6z8RuqOGXsiTBPWu8q2LeMesx0e-IRc_eD9tvIZgQhc-Cln76pi6C8VDdR1ytGi6U3HJhYKnY35ICRRLOVcMlqyX4KPHylgRGCOLDTqB262irB6sp000XoFXa3K_0RBpWCdgFpaO/s1600/Washington+Counties+sheriff+not+enforcing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="971" data-original-width="1200" height="322" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvkiGX6z8RuqOGXsiTBPWu8q2LeMesx0e-IRc_eD9tvIZgQhc-Cln76pi6C8VDdR1ytGi6U3HJhYKnY35ICRRLOVcMlqyX4KPHylgRGCOLDTqB262irB6sp000XoFXa3K_0RBpWCdgFpaO/s400/Washington+Counties+sheriff+not+enforcing.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When Washington passed the deceptive I-394 initiative, many sheriffs simply refused to enforce it. However, the passage of I-1639 has caused sheriffs in 24 counties to formally go on record as being unwilling to "actively enforce" both initiatives. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Nevada</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8rl_7z8fO_10iEpilioC_rSaIXb-YjxJJBmppjyrdlAZWVxsj6AkS1SewMRjQl0UOKZd-Xy63Rmfevn95bzQp1fnsfxsG_InrEHYdC-aH4VkdJBvB25VeEOsZ_kCBiyiVtC7PQcCdjUT-/s1600/nevada-county-map.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1125" data-original-width="750" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8rl_7z8fO_10iEpilioC_rSaIXb-YjxJJBmppjyrdlAZWVxsj6AkS1SewMRjQl0UOKZd-Xy63Rmfevn95bzQp1fnsfxsG_InrEHYdC-aH4VkdJBvB25VeEOsZ_kCBiyiVtC7PQcCdjUT-/s640/nevada-county-map.png" width="425" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">After the passage of a typical Bloomberg law, most counties in Nevada rose up in opposition. The new law appears to be effectively nullified in most of the state, through a combination of action by sheriffs and county governments.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Oregon</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD4U7-mZoFeDTlbg-Y2zT9MtysSjvgpDAVzIzzJAw45zyklOHVgGNguph8-5cHs6GcJlFBaMO4Xb7mq1oz-Vlty4dfPT4r5jXe8rR5Ke1MalIqo3KQGz2QyptQ_jN7hGH8EH5RLTpJmpCZ/s1600/oregon+county+map.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="801" data-original-width="954" height="335" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD4U7-mZoFeDTlbg-Y2zT9MtysSjvgpDAVzIzzJAw45zyklOHVgGNguph8-5cHs6GcJlFBaMO4Xb7mq1oz-Vlty4dfPT4r5jXe8rR5Ke1MalIqo3KQGz2QyptQ_jN7hGH8EH5RLTpJmpCZ/s400/oregon+county+map.gif" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The sanctuary movement is just beginning in Oregon, in response to the mere threat of a Bloomberg law. If a law is actually passed, chances are many more counties will join those above.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Sources:<br /><a href="http://gunrightswatch.com/">Gun Rights Watch</a><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_Sanctuary">Wikipedia</a></span></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-14269551433767986242019-04-02T11:41:00.000-07:002019-04-09T18:25:25.454-07:00Over 80% Of Deceptive Study's "Child" Gun Deaths Are Teenagers, Including Adults<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Only 2.1% are actual child accidents</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>83.4% of the "child" gun deaths are 15 to 18 year olds</b></span></div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvUvLsN6zjFfKg-SEj5g_qLDauvTuIRXni_worMlr0VCUuSAISRGsNYhrg4LEu3TIhe97Ju6oGcUWvPGHuuoBAvq0tz64hyqiQmosbdeNbM_UK1-V8FhU_jozVBAkImHoQD864Min4glbQ/s1600/Most+childern+aren%2527t+really+children.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvUvLsN6zjFfKg-SEj5g_qLDauvTuIRXni_worMlr0VCUuSAISRGsNYhrg4LEu3TIhe97Ju6oGcUWvPGHuuoBAvq0tz64hyqiQmosbdeNbM_UK1-V8FhU_jozVBAkImHoQD864Min4glbQ/s200/Most+childern+aren%2527t+really+children.png" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Florida Atlantic University (FAU) <a href="https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/firearm-deaths-study.php">has done a "study"</a> that is nothing more than some deceptive number crunching of US government stats.</b> It likely took one person less than a day to complete it. It's very clear that the goal was to create some alarming numbers to push a gun control agenda.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhESXYEhJ_cOJS9vd4xvgDrgRrA6SjjT833CY7S1dCHEZA5RSRNo_PZRDIpHOEFBJb3DpwgsIM6QaxTNX1mfJQzhWSKQguqtmlfZ-zvX9-eFYvuHpvOeSLvC8wQvCWxKvPL3vbcFqrEZuTV/s1600/Accidntal+death+rate.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="297" data-original-width="430" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhESXYEhJ_cOJS9vd4xvgDrgRrA6SjjT833CY7S1dCHEZA5RSRNo_PZRDIpHOEFBJb3DpwgsIM6QaxTNX1mfJQzhWSKQguqtmlfZ-zvX9-eFYvuHpvOeSLvC8wQvCWxKvPL3vbcFqrEZuTV/s200/Accidntal+death+rate.png" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The document was produced with one purpose in mind: A headline that would promote gun control. When the average person thinks of gun deaths among children, they usually think of accidents. </b> <b>The truth is that the number of children killed in firearms accidents is extremely low.</b> Crunching numbers on US population and gun ownership results in an estimate of 50 million gun owning households. Over the 18 years of the study, accidental deaths of 5-14 year olds averaged 49 per year. This is less than one death per one million gun owning households. Although every one of these deaths is tragic, this is an impressive safety record.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In reality, a closer look at these number calls in to question the idea that they support further restrictions on firearms. Let's look at each of these six identified categories individually:</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Deaths Among 15-18 Year Olds</b></span></div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR6uiuogBXa-c0Z_KDJGX_zGqV1HmocUsDzTNnxI1Gz1xBePgIUvKB2N9NOVOIfHTcLjKIXPRN3kLDuXSVZ6cn4j-nXXrVEzN-iXEhuikUGKZUF-lm49rNzJClja2LkQaVGYs2RZ1YMn3O/s1600/15-18+year+olds.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR6uiuogBXa-c0Z_KDJGX_zGqV1HmocUsDzTNnxI1Gz1xBePgIUvKB2N9NOVOIfHTcLjKIXPRN3kLDuXSVZ6cn4j-nXXrVEzN-iXEhuikUGKZUF-lm49rNzJClja2LkQaVGYs2RZ1YMn3O/s320/15-18+year+olds.png" width="320" /></span></a><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Homicide 62.3%</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>(20,247 deaths - Avg 1,125/year)</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>These deaths are nearly all a result of some kind of gang or drug related criminal activity - mostly in the inner city. </b> The idea that gun control will deprive these young criminal of firearms is absurd. <b>I have challenged gun control advocates to provide one concrete example of a nation that had a severe, gang related crime problem and solved it with any kind of gun control. No one has ever provided even one.</b> One need only look to Mexico, Jamaica, Brazil or Venezuela for examples of nations that have strict gun</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />control and a much greater crime problem than the US. In fact, these nations have </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">seen gun violence soar after gun control was enacted.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM63AjSfZ4d-qf8gJz15o1fDYv7oAHxOFfdUjO487dQuqan4W8g8V96e9aObN9lDvHRKh0YS0nPUPIQWinc-Bw8zgmLeqod6J04UEn70eiJEP_CC2TvLzkOb0kPdHRDw-xjuq72BdOF6_T/s1600/latin+america+gun+control+failure.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="327" data-original-width="460" height="452" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM63AjSfZ4d-qf8gJz15o1fDYv7oAHxOFfdUjO487dQuqan4W8g8V96e9aObN9lDvHRKh0YS0nPUPIQWinc-Bw8zgmLeqod6J04UEn70eiJEP_CC2TvLzkOb0kPdHRDw-xjuq72BdOF6_T/s640/latin+america+gun+control+failure.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Every One Of These South and Central American Nations Has Strict Gun Control<br />Every One Of These Nations Has A Much Higher Homicide Rate Than The US<br />Every One Of These Nations Has A Greater Gang Problem Than The US</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Suicide 32.9%</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>(10,688 deaths - Avg 594/year)</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2VDlctV48voD_wYSg_b6VRYdYT74appynQA16Ept_KHYqoOCvD1C6y2W2JMMEqkev0o-LiKFCL_q4bY_fbEHq48nTmIg774uMzfmMHrqn1DAQKVS5TbpcGf9IGCWmfIgEl16_cZPn89LM/s1600/suicide+Canada%252C+UK+and+US.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="353" data-original-width="401" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2VDlctV48voD_wYSg_b6VRYdYT74appynQA16Ept_KHYqoOCvD1C6y2W2JMMEqkev0o-LiKFCL_q4bY_fbEHq48nTmIg774uMzfmMHrqn1DAQKVS5TbpcGf9IGCWmfIgEl16_cZPn89LM/s200/suicide+Canada%252C+UK+and+US.png" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Gun control advocates love firearms suicides - because they can combine them with murders and call them "gun deaths" which most people think means firearms homicides. <b>If gun control reduces suicides, than the suicide rate in the UK (firearms in 4% of homes) should be much lower than that in Canada (firearms in 28% of homes) or the US (firearms in 45% of homes). However this is not the case </b>- these three English speaking countries have nearly identical suicide rates. Sure, the methods vary, with hanging being the most common method in the UK, but the rates are very close. This real world data completely disproves the notion that gun laws can reduce suicides.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Accident 3.5%</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>(1,121 deaths - Avg 62/year)</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As with children, an accidental death rate of only 62 per year in a population of 360 million is very low. In comparison, <a href="https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers">2,734 teenagers ages 13-19 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2017</a>. Since the death toll was greatest for 17 year olds, it's clear that many, if not most, of these deaths were in the 15-18 year old age range. Even if only 50% of the deaths were in the 15-18 age range, the traffic death rate is 20 times greater than the accidental firearms death rate.</span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Deaths Among 5 To 14 Year Olds</b></span></div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Accident 12.8%</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>(830 deaths Avg 46/year)</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGBx6rBSXonhC0EGdQBUnX4la-0lnxR__RkK0i2T0Wla96OpnW7efHPU0kjzR_Ji92N-KIqrEdPUGPbmO1Cy5NYR8bDRGGk_d179PwjlCIzXYJPge_Wi49ogPhOHp7Q6C3MmUrpzF5H87h/s1600/1+in+114.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="353" data-original-width="445" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGBx6rBSXonhC0EGdQBUnX4la-0lnxR__RkK0i2T0Wla96OpnW7efHPU0kjzR_Ji92N-KIqrEdPUGPbmO1Cy5NYR8bDRGGk_d179PwjlCIzXYJPge_Wi49ogPhOHp7Q6C3MmUrpzF5H87h/s200/1+in+114.png" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As noted above, this is an exceptionally low accident rate, given the large number of American homes containing firearms. In fact, given that the population of children 5-14 during this time <a href="https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-population-by-age-group#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/62,63,64,6,4693/419,420">averaged about 40 million</a>, the rate of accidental death works out to be about .12 deaths per 100,000 children. The overall death rate for children 5-14? <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm">13.7 per 100,000.</a> <b>Simple math reveals that, in spite of nearly half of American homes containing firearms, less than one death in 114 in this age group is the result of a firearms accident.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Suicide 29.6% percent</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>(1,912 - Avg 106/year)</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While suicides are tragic at any age, they are especially tragic in this group. While logic indicates that most of the suicides in the 5-14 age groups involves the older, adolescents in this age range, CDC simply does not publish this data. As with older suicides, firearms are only one method available to them. Additionally, <b>in contrast to adult suicides, firearms are not the most common method - suffocation, which likely includes hangings, is now the most common method used - making it clear that even if we could eliminate firearms completely, they would likely just choose another method. </b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
</span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSM4faGS3HlJtMRNVCn1tsG4KoGBrnBI_9uFoBaL-z0u8tuNSoBQOwFAyVuE5qKlHjgr77Gk3tqfO2dre-arudTkgTGT8sap21AjuaZNKk2YqzYxUC-RUK71j5_8_koWFwjoUAHsLj9tBx/s1600/5-14+suicides.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="709" data-original-width="935" height="483" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSM4faGS3HlJtMRNVCn1tsG4KoGBrnBI_9uFoBaL-z0u8tuNSoBQOwFAyVuE5qKlHjgr77Gk3tqfO2dre-arudTkgTGT8sap21AjuaZNKk2YqzYxUC-RUK71j5_8_koWFwjoUAHsLj9tBx/s640/5-14+suicides.png" width="640" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Most Suicides In This Age Group Do Not Involve Guns</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Homicide 54.8% percent</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>(3,545 - Avg 197/year)</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Here we face the same issue as with suicides - the age range of 5-14 includes small children at the low end and adolescents at the high end. </b> Younger victims, sadly, are, in most cases, likely to have been victims of adults, even parents. Adults do not need a firearm to kill a young child. At the older end of the age range, where there is a good chance that most of these deaths took place, gang activity is likely to have been a critical factor. As we have previously seen, gangs who want guns will get them. Through many have tried, no nation has ever controlled gang violence with gun control.<br /><br /><b>So, when you look past the headlines, when you examine each category, the idea that these very real problems can be solved with more gun control laws simply falls apart. More than this, the deceptive nature of this so called "study:" is exposed.</b></span></span><br />
<br />Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-18360797999020768842019-03-15T20:39:00.000-07:002019-03-20T09:06:06.649-07:00Gun Laws More Restrictive Than The 2nd Amendment Allows Failed To Stop New Zealand Mass Murder<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/images/dspArticle/leadImage/NZ%20Firearms%20laws_B28C0AA0-4807-11E3-A7A7005056A302E6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/images/dspArticle/leadImage/NZ%20Firearms%20laws_B28C0AA0-4807-11E3-A7A7005056A302E6.jpg" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="630" height="162" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>Reliable Local Media Reports Attack At Second Mosque Stopped When Someone Returned Fire</i></span></div>
</div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3449109471226109335#laws">Jump To Details Of New Zealand Gun Laws</a></b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>New Zealand's gun laws read like an American gun control advocate's wish list - yet they failed to stop this despicable crime.</b> At this point we do not know exactly what kind of weapon was used, but some reports indicate that a fully automatic machine gun was used. These weapons are virtually banned in New Zealand. We do not know where or how the weapons used were obtained. Until we know how this evil excuse for a person obtained the firearms, common sense should indicate that we not jump to any conclusions.<br /><br />Edit: Current information indicates that the subject in custody legally owned the firearms used in the attack. This means that authorities not only granted this man the highest level of firearms license, but failed to revoke it. <b>Given the extensive background checks that are <i>supposed </i>to be done before such a license is issued, serious questions should be asked. </b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Carl DeMaio, Chairman of Reform California, put it well, “New Zealand has the kinds of gun control laws that liberals propose for the U.S, but laws don't ban EVIL and HATE. Evil and hate only combated by what we teach our children and how we treat each other.”</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>I say, "Amen to that!" Whatever our differences, mass murder is simply unacceptable. </b> We all should pray for all those affected, and we should indeed seek ways to prevent these attacks in the future. That said, the root problem is hate. Even if firearms were completely unavailable, other weapons, such as explosives - which are easier to make than you think - could and have been used. However, if we focus upon identifying and stopping the person bent on carrying out such attacks, the attacks can be stopped no matter what the intended weapon is.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>We also should consider that armed civilians can stop such attacks, and indeed may have done so in this case. </b> Politico reports that, "The second attack took place at the Linwood mosque about 3 miles away. Mark Nichols told the New Zealand Herald that he heard about five gunshots and that a worshipper returned fire with a rifle or shotgun." This person may not come forward because a New Zealand firearms license does not allow you to keep a firearm for self defense or defense of others.<br /><br />Additional information: <b>It appears much more certain that the second attack was ended when the attacker(s) were faced with armed resistance.</b> from the </span></span><span style="color: blue; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">New Zealand Herald:<br /></span><br />
<i><span style="color: blue; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">'A second shooting happened at a mosque in the Linwood area of the city. </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">One Friday prayer goer returned fire with a rifle or shotgun. </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Witnesses said they heard multiple gunshots around 1.45pm. </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">A well known Muslim local chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off. </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">He was heard telling police officers he was firing in "self defence".'</span></i><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>New Zealand's laws are much more restrictive than US Federal laws, most state laws - and in many ways more restrictive than laws in states like New York and California. </b> However, I predict that no matter how these firearms were obtained, gun control advocates will use this horrible</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> attack to justify more restrictive laws in New Zealand and the US.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b></b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b></b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="laws">New Zealand Gun Laws:</a></b></span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>There is no civil right to own a firearm in New Zealand.</b> There is no law similar to the 2nd Amendment.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>All firearms owners are required to be licensed.</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Applicants for a firearm licences must pass a background check</b> of criminal and medical records. Factors like mental health, addiction and domestic violence are considered.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Police have the discretion to deny a license to anyone whom they believe to be unfit. </b> They need not justify their opinion before denying the person the legal right to own ANY firearm.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>A valid reason must be established for firearms possession. </b> These include sport/target shooting, hunting and collecting.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Self-defense is not considered a valid reason for firearms ownership.</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Safe/secure storage laws are in effect.</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Ownership of military style semi-automatics requires a special license </b>(one of the highest levels of licenses). A typical gun license does not permit you to own such firearms.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>In addition, each one of these "military style" firearms must be registered.</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Pistols also require the same level of highly restricted licenses.</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
</span><br />
<hr />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Sources:</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Zealand#Firearm_licence">Wikipedia</a></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47584603">BBC</a></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/new-zealand-terrorism-second-amendment-gun-control-gun-crime-islamophobia-1364392">Newsweek</a></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/mosque-shooting-new-zealand-1222408">Politico</a></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213039">New Zealand Herald</a></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-52597586430881139692019-03-05T23:55:00.000-08:002019-03-20T09:31:03.105-07:00The Background Check Bait and Switch<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.fudzilla.com/media/k2/items/cache/16099225a8e485df229d6a81c314265b_XL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="750" height="240" src="https://www.fudzilla.com/media/k2/items/cache/16099225a8e485df229d6a81c314265b_XL.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Why Today's Background Checks Are Much More Than You Think</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>And Why So Many Law Enforcement Agencies Won't Enforce Them</b></span></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><b>Federal background checks on sales at licensed firearms dealers have been the law of the land for over 20 years.</b> Known as the National Instant Check System - or NICS - the system usually lives up to its name, with a typical check taking less than an hour, frequently less than 30 minutes. Given that the experience of most gun owners has been fairly positive, even many gun owners favor expanding it to private sales, as do many of those who have only heard about the system. <b>Compared to the laws in places like California, it's not a bad system.</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When states and congress consider expanding background checks, NICS is what comes to people's minds. It's what they know. <b>Proponents constantly reinforce this idea by describing their proposed laws as, "A simple expansion of background checks to private sales." HOWEVER, THIS IS A BALD FACED LIE, DESIGNED TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC.</b><br /><br /><b>In reality, all background check laws passed or proposed in recent years go way beyond NICS.</b> They are ALL written by lawyers working for New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and they are not only designed to fool the public, they are designed to entrap gun owners. Consider the following:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1) <b>All of these laws redefine the term "transfer" from transfer of ownership, to the act of handing a firearm to another person. </b> A background check is literally required to let another person hold a gun, even if it never leaves your sight.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/file/H9imLkxW8D7/Washingtons%20I-594%20Visual.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="655" height="195" src="https://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/file/H9imLkxW8D7/Washingtons%20I-594%20Visual.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Unfortunately, these laws have now spread way beyond Washington</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This means that, under current Washington law, if you come to my home and <b>if I show you one of my firearms - if I safety check it and hand it to you, you look at it hold it for a moment, and you hand it back, we are both now felons.</b> Why? Well the first "transfer" - when I handed you the gun - is a misdemeanor. However the second "transfer" - when you handed it back - is a felony.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />2) If they could, the anti-2nd Amendment forces behind these laws would not allow any exceptions, however to get these laws enacted - either by initiative or by lawmakers - they have to allow some. <b>The problem with exceptions is that they are an affirmative defense. This means that if you are arrested, you must prove your innocence</b> by proving that one of the exceptions applies. In places where these kind of laws have been on the books for a long time, abuses are VERY common. People are arrested and then have to spend tens of thousands defending themselves by proving one of the exceptions apply, even though the arresting officers knew you never broke the law.<br /><br /><b>3) The exceptions ALWAYS fail to cover all of the legitimate and innocent reasons why someone might handle or have custody of another person's firearms.</b> Space does not permit listing all of the problems with every bill that has been proposed or enacted, so <b>I will list the problems with just one: Washington state's I-394.</b> This law makes all of the following crimes, and in many cases, felonies:</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Hunter Safety Classes - </b>The requirements for these classes are set by national and international agreements. One of the requirements is that the students must handle a representative sample of firearms so that they understand how to safely operate them. <b>Under I-394, now Washington state law, the teacher and all the students commit felonies by doing this.</b><br /><br /><b>Storage of firearms at a friend or relative's home - </b>It makes a lot of since for parents to store their firearms at a friend's or relative's home who does not have children. In fact, the state of California even recommends this. Under the I-394 Bloomberg law, every time you drop off a firearm, or pick one up, a trip to the gun store and a background check (which is not free) is required. Failure to do so is a crime, making this wise precaution completely impractical - or a crime.<br /><br /><b>Sharing firearms while target shooting - </b>There is an exception for doing so at an "established range". The problem is that "established range" is not defined. Clearly, a commercial range with a business license qualifies, but what about a private range on someone's farm? Target shooting is permitted on millions of acres of public land in the West. Does a site on public land that is legally and regularly used for target shooting qualify? In short, many of the places commonly used for target shooting are likely not covered by the exemptions - making really hard to introduce a friend to the world of shooting. (Maybe this was the idea?)</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Lending of firearms - even in an emergency. </b> It's 9pm, and one of your friends has just received a credible threat to his or her life. They are knowledgeable in regards to firearms, but do not own one at the moment. They would like to borrow one of yours until they can buy one the next day. It would be a crime to lend one to them. There is an exemption that gun control advocates point to - but it requires the threat to be eminent. This means I cannot lend him the firearm unless the person who made the threat is standing outside his house, so clearly this exemption is worthless.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/New-Mexico-Second-Amendment-Sanctuary-Counties-from-NM-Shooting-Sports-Assn-502.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" data-original-height="585" data-original-width="522" height="320" src="https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/New-Mexico-Second-Amendment-Sanctuary-Counties-from-NM-Shooting-Sports-Assn-502.jpg" width="285" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">As of this writing, 22 of New Mexico's<br />33 counties have gone on record as<br />refusing to enforce the state's new<br />Bloomberg authored gun law</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>PROVISIONS LIKE THOSE ABOVE, ARE WHY SO MANY SHERIFFS AND OTHER POLICE AGENCIES HAVE REFUSED TO ENFORCE THEM. It is also why counties across the West - in WA, OR, CO, NM and now NV - have declared themselves to be "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" that will not enforce these laws, which are likely unconstitutional in whole or in part.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Every one of the laws Bloomberg pushes is a little bit different, but all of them - including the recent bill that passed the House of Representatives - have highly deceptive provisions like those above. All of them redefine the term "transfer" to mean handing or giving a firearm to someone, often even if the gun never leaves your sight, All of them are very, very different than the current federal NICS background check law - and therefore <b>NONE OF THEM ARE SIMPLE EXPANSIONS OF CURRENT BACKGROUND CHECKS TO PRIVATE SALES. THAT OFT REPEATED STATEMENT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. IT'S SIMPLE BAIT AND SWITCH.</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you like this content, please consider subscribing to our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentClergy/">Facebook feed</a>!</span></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-38522221008718382822019-02-07T18:29:00.000-08:002019-02-07T18:29:05.729-08:00Expanding Background Checks Will Accomplish Almost Nothing - There Is A Better Way<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>DOJ Study Shows Expanding Background Checks Would Not Affect 98% Of Criminal Gun Sources</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://easttexasreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Untitled-2-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="160" src="https://easttexasreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Untitled-2-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Democrats are pushing an expansion of<br />background checks - even though this would only<br />affect 2% of criminal firearms acquisitions.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The number one priority of gun control advocates is to expand the current background check system to private sales. This seems reasonable, and many members of the public also think that this is a good idea. It does seem, at first thought, that expanding background checks reduce criminal's access to firearms, however this is certainly not the case.<br /><br />So, how can I say with confidence that expanding background checks to private sales will accomplish little to nothing? Well, to start with, there is US Department of Justice research that proves it.<br /><br />On 1/11/2019, the US DOJ <a href="https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_154736898928915&key=85c9d184606007f6213dcc7b2912250c&libId=jqu3e2jh01015ahb000DAiaqoyccy&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetruthaboutguns.com%2F2019%2F01%2Fchris-heuss%2Ffelons-feinstein-and-facts-how-criminals-get-and-use-their-guns%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bjs.gov%2Fcontent%2Fpub%2Fpdf%2Fsuficspi16.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fthegunfeed.com%2F&title=Felons%2C%20Feinstein%20and%20Facts%3A%20How%20Criminals%20Get%20and%20Use%20Their%20Guns%20-%20The%20Truth%20About%20Guns&txt=here">released a study</a> based on interviews with over 240,000 inmates of state and federal prisons. One of the primary goals of the study was to identify the source of any guns they possessed at the time of their arrest. The result proves that gun control advocates are barking up the wrong tree. The study revealed that the source of criminal's firearms are:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTxFoBwCucISJK-PFCM57kQf3S2nxPurPRh3csf0BlY7jSRgD_qwCMTeoVm5-AEIWAkXwU-FZ_nWl7r8HF0SXzb7QP2A9iVC_oRT3agwHcvR3FMa-N0UYn0IWEvzYGAt_S9iKYESMbs-oo/s1600/Where+crimnal+get+guns+bar+chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTxFoBwCucISJK-PFCM57kQf3S2nxPurPRh3csf0BlY7jSRgD_qwCMTeoVm5-AEIWAkXwU-FZ_nWl7r8HF0SXzb7QP2A9iVC_oRT3agwHcvR3FMa-N0UYn0IWEvzYGAt_S9iKYESMbs-oo/s400/Where+crimnal+get+guns+bar+chart.png" width="355" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here are the details starting with the most common sources:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><br /><b> </b></span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://news-cdn.softpedia.com/images/news2/Chinese-Mobile-Black-Market-Activity-is-Booming-465004-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="609" data-original-width="450" height="200" src="https://news-cdn.softpedia.com/images/news2/Chinese-Mobile-Black-Market-Activity-is-Booming-465004-2.jpg" width="147" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The black market<br />supplies 43% of<br />criminal's guns</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">1) The Black Market 42%</b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><br />This source consists of street dealers in firearms that intentionally sell to people who are prohibited from possessing firearms. They are not going to do background checks on their buyers, no matter what laws are passed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>2) Other Illegal Sources 27%</b><br /><br />This category includes being given a firearm by a family member or friend (who knew it was illegal for them to have a gun), guns bought from other criminal associates, stealing a gun themselves and guns rented from others (yes, criminals actually can and do rent guns from other criminals). Clearly, none of these sources are going to obey a background check law either.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>3) Straw Purchases 15%</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This illegal source involves at least two people committing felonies under current law. First someone with a clean record goes to a licensed gun dealer, lies on the background check form (felony #1) stating that they are the "actual buyer" of the firearm. They then transfer the gun to their disqualified friend (felony #2), who is the actual buyer. They could also be charged with conspiracy (felony #3). That actual buyer commits felony #4 by receiving and possessing the firearm, and is also guilty of conspiracy (felony #5). Note that a background check is passed in all these cases - fraudulently passed, but passed never the less. Again, expanding background checks will have zero effect.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrva3wuO-Rd2K2icyxDBTPqM9_8TKzCRhi1GNLw_LJ9PMST_Q0GrJuZWWNH19kpZDh-JUeLijrmOVDgoeoakvAyETRoBK0X-JIz08oEB4J7i_CoSMz6ygocXEZJDrKMiRNYvMeYf4JAW4x/s1600/4473+straw+purchase.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="116" data-original-width="1083" height="67" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrva3wuO-Rd2K2icyxDBTPqM9_8TKzCRhi1GNLw_LJ9PMST_Q0GrJuZWWNH19kpZDh-JUeLijrmOVDgoeoakvAyETRoBK0X-JIz08oEB4J7i_CoSMz6ygocXEZJDrKMiRNYvMeYf4JAW4x/s640/4473+straw+purchase.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The first question on the required makes it clear that buying a gun<br />for anyone else is a crime.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>4) Purchases From Licensed Dealers 8%</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Every one of these transactions included a federal background check. Some of these purchases took place made before the criminal committed their first crime, they thus passed the check. That said, many, if not most, of these purchases involved criminals slipping through the background check system. The problem is that as many as 1/3 of prohibited persons are not in the system - meaning if they go to a dealer, lie on the form and have a one in three chance of walking out with a gun. Even though this involves committing a felony, they have little to lose, This crime is prosecuted in well under 1 in 300 cases. Pres. Obama's ATF Chief testified before congress that prosecuting such "lying and trying" crimes was "a waste of resources". Never mind that prosecuting such crimes might deter criminals from trying to slip through. The problem here is not the lack of background checks, it's a badly flawed database and lack of enforcement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheIKtjgDtw9-cys1pWJptohT3KeHkCxx2lNcn_-s-pwOAJB8m-TUeH5hCu7YbsSpoEfkyIdOokN1VqXGJRNElOxjjpLwKhFTH3h9XNSAJpPx_z0vOddTBOizqkao7riByw9uPjmeFaWJ9h/s1600/4473+felon.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="1344" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheIKtjgDtw9-cys1pWJptohT3KeHkCxx2lNcn_-s-pwOAJB8m-TUeH5hCu7YbsSpoEfkyIdOokN1VqXGJRNElOxjjpLwKhFTH3h9XNSAJpPx_z0vOddTBOizqkao7riByw9uPjmeFaWJ9h/s640/4473+felon.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Felons and others prohibited from owning firearms can simply lie in answering the question above (a felony)<br />and if they are denied they are almost never prosecuted. Why do it? Simple - they have a good chance of slipping through.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>5) Other Sources 6%</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This was a catch all category for sources that did not fit into any other category.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>6) Private Party Purchases 2%</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">These purchases were made legally, from a private party who did not know that the person was prohibited by law to own or purchase firearms. <b>This 2% is what gun control advocates try to sell as the whole problem.</b> Fix this "loophole" and guns will not get into the wrong hands. Yeah, right.........<br /><br />It should be obvious to everyone that even if ALL of these purchases could be eliminated and NONE of these criminals who were stopped from buying guns from private parties turned to other sources for their guns (totally impossible), the largest impact on gun violence would be 2%. That is within the margin of error of most studies. It would be effectively unmeasurable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Of course, this DOJ survey shows that there are lots of other sources criminals could and likely would turn to. Few if any criminals would be stopped from accessing firearms.</b> </span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Why Do So Few Criminals Get Guns From Private Sellers?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i2.wp.com/democratic-erosion.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/private-gun-sales.jpg?fit=600%2C250" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="600" height="133" src="https://i2.wp.com/democratic-erosion.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/private-gun-sales.jpg?fit=600%2C250" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Evidence is that most private sellers are very<br />careful about whom they sell firearms to.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The answer is as simple as it is controversial: Most gun owners are very law abiding. They therefore do not want to sell guns to criminals. They know it is a crime to knowingly sell to a criminal or other prohibited person - and that they could be prosecuted even if they unknowingly do so. <b>Even more significantly, most gun owners do not want to supply a firearm to a criminal. As a result, most private sellers are extremely careful whom they sell to.</b><br /><br />I recently posted a "poll" on the Clergy in Support of the 2nd Amendment Facebook page. The poll asked if responding gun owners would use the NICS background check system if it were made available to private sellers on an optional basis (not required by law). Over 800 gun owners responded, with 60% saying that they would use the system when they could not establish the person's non-prohibited status in another way.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The comments were more interesting than the survey itself.</b> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many people simply said they never sold any of their guns. Others said that they could usually clear buyers without doing a check. Examples of how this could be done include the buyer presenting a CCW license, a federal collector's license, or law enforcement credentials. Another way is simply having known the buyer well for a very long time. Many private transfers involve close friends or family. I have had people comment on the page that if they have ANY doubt about someone they are selling a gun to, the tell them that the need to go to a local licensed dealer and have a check done. If they refuse, then the seller has their answer and they refuse to sell to them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><b>Another factor is that - contrary to what gun control advocates say - very few guns are sold in private sales.</b> It is much more common for guns to be passed down to family than to be sold. Family members know each other well, and again, most gun owners are very law abiding, and those that are not, are not going to be stopped from breaking the law because you pass another one.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The problem of gun violence is much more complex than gun control advocates would have you believe. </b> As in Brazil, Mexico, and Jamaica, passing new or even highly restrictive gun laws will not reduce the death toll and may even make things worse. Making background checks mandatory on private transfers will accomplish little - and will accomplish nothing that simply making the system available on a voluntary basis will accomplish. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>A Better, More Practical, Way To Impact Gun Violence</b><br /><b><br /></b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://s.hdnux.com/photos/21/10/73/4493053/5/920x920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="511" height="200" src="https://s.hdnux.com/photos/21/10/73/4493053/5/920x920.jpg" width="127" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Gun control splits<br />America</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No matter what side of the gun debate you are on, you surely know how difficult it is to pass gun control laws. <b>What if there was a way to do far more than mandating background checks on private sales, without passing any controversial new laws? Well there is: The actual enforcement of current laws.</b> The truth is that we do not lack laws, the problem is a lack of enforcement. Passing more laws that will not be enforced will accomplish nothing,</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
So what can be done? A great deal actually, starting with these things:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>1) Imbed BATFE agents in local law enforcement - implement Project Exile nationwide</b><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWyPykF1h57j1obDyr3IB5llSwgY11H6tgorVtuxAGqY1Hsc-_" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWyPykF1h57j1obDyr3IB5llSwgY11H6tgorVtuxAGqY1Hsc-_" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>A billboard - part of Project Exile</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Well over half of all gun violence takes place in urban areas, much of it gang and/or drug related. Embedding ATF agents in local law enforcement has been proven to reduce gun crime by discouraging the carrying or firearms by drug dealers, gang members and other criminals.<br />
<br />
Why does this work? Well, these, mostly young, criminals expect to go to prison at some point. They have friends there, they have visited friends there and they expect that when they go to prison they will have their moms, their girlfriends and their children visiting them on a regular basis. In all but the largest states (CA, TX, etc) if they are sentenced to state prison, they will be within driving distance of home, family and friends. Federal prison is a different story. They likely will serve time far away in another state.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVgU_X0KjAgLFQqoryUmkkl7M3JD0klN7_Z6Ux-mHT8bSrAZcf" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="154" data-original-width="328" height="150" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVgU_X0KjAgLFQqoryUmkkl7M3JD0klN7_Z6Ux-mHT8bSrAZcf" width="320" /></a>In the pilot projects such as Project Exile, they only had to send a few of these criminals to federal prison before the number of drug dealers and gang members carrying firearms dropped. Clearly, this will not prevent all murders - but it can reduce the number of unpremeditated murders.<br />
Those ATF agents can get them prosecuted for federal gun crimes - and that is something they fear. If they are sentenced to federal prison, they could end up serving their sentence thousands of miles away. This is where the project gets its name and why it works.<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/gun-surveyq8-1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/gun-surveyq8-1.gif" data-original-height="390" data-original-width="505" height="247" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Most line police officers believe that going after</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">illegal gun dealers will reduce gun violence.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(Police One survey of 70k active duty officers)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>2) Investigate and prosecute illegal gun dealers</b><br />
<br />
<b>By "illegal gun dealers" I mean people who make lots of money intentionally selling guns to people they know are not legally allowed to buy them. </b> According to that DOJ study 43% of criminal's firearms are obtained from such people. Imbedding ATF agents in local law enforcement will provide the leads that would lead, after investigations, to many such arrests. Then we must actually prosecute these people and send them to prison.<br />
<br />
<b>3) Arrest and aggressively prosecute people who buy guns for prohibited persons</b><br />
<br />
<b>After illegal dealers, the next most common source of criminals firearms (15%) are "straw purchases".</b> In a straw purchase, a criminal or other prohibited person finds someone with a clean record to buy a gun for them at a dealer. This is illegal - and you are required to certify under penalty of perjury that you are not doing this on the application form to buy a firearm. To erase all doubt, the form actually warns you that doing this is illegal and tells you, if you are to STOP. Yet, thousands of times every year, people lie on the form, buy a gun, walk out of the store and hand it over to a criminal who could never buy it from a licensed dealer themselves.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/478888/file-2690197414-png/blog-files/dont-lie-lg.png?w=1080" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="575" height="121" src="https://i0.wp.com/cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/478888/file-2690197414-png/blog-files/dont-lie-lg.png?w=1080" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">A poster for the joint ATF and NSSF (gun industry<br />association) program to discourage straw purchases.<br />Unfortunately prison time is almost unheard of.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Both the gun industry and the ATF have worked hard to tell people that this is a serious crime - but it will not be reduced unless we start prosecuting people and sentencing them to serious time in prison.<br />
<br />
<b>4) Aggressively prosecute criminals and other prohibited persons who like on the background check from in an attempt to illegally buy guns through legal sources.</b><br />
<br />
<b>5) Fix the broken background check database</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Why? Four times more criminals get their firearms through gun dealers - with background checks - than from private parties who don't know they are criminals<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaRTH_MHot1-7J5mkBPiv-ujbt5W21_WxDBXbHA_9ioOHKHEwPMcEF807i5cBH3jT2eSWg0M2xTKGUAnsGbXJ1xdhkue8x4R8SaEU29OnA8NVN8b91xiG2ka-Go0KKE-FuCE00Ic1Nika8/s1600/FixNICS_2017-Act-350x350.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="350" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaRTH_MHot1-7J5mkBPiv-ujbt5W21_WxDBXbHA_9ioOHKHEwPMcEF807i5cBH3jT2eSWg0M2xTKGUAnsGbXJ1xdhkue8x4R8SaEU29OnA8NVN8b91xiG2ka-Go0KKE-FuCE00Ic1Nika8/s200/FixNICS_2017-Act-350x350.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">The gun industry supported<br />the 2017 FixNICS act, but<br />There is more work to be done</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>The first problem is, that when a convicted felon walks into a gun store, lies on the form and the National Instant Check System rejects them, there is almost no chance they will be prosecuted. </b> I actually did the math a few years ago and the chances of prosecution was less than 1 in 300. Not surprising given that Pres. Obama's BATFE head stated before Congress that such prosecutions are, "a waste of resources". In other words, it's policy to almost never prosecute criminals who try to buy guns.<br />
<br />
<b>The huge problem with this policy is that it allows criminals a free bite at the apple. They can walk into a gun store and try to buy a gun. </b> Most of the time they will be turned down - but as many as one in three felons and severely mentally ill prohibited persons are not in the database. These people will slip through and walk out with a gun.<br /><br /><b>This is exactly how the Sutherland Springs mass murderer got his guns</b> - he simply was not in the system. Had the database been accurate, he would have been turned down. However, if he was not prosecuted, he simply could have bought a firearm from an illegal source. What should have happened was a rejection, followed by an arrest. Had this happened, 26 people would be alive. When criminals attempt to buy guns illegally at a gun dealer it is never a good sign. We need to act when this happens.<br />
<br />
<b>That leads right to our second problem: The background check database is flawed because too many government agencies (largely courts) simply do not report all their convictions and mental health commitments</b>. Both the NRA and the gun industry association (NSSF) have been working hard to increase reporting, but there is still a great deal of work to do. If the system is to so any good at all, the database must be accurate. <b>Gun control groups seldom talk about the problems with the database, because it tends to undermine support for expanding background check to private sales. </b>Never mind that fixing the database would prevent far more criminals from getting guns.......<br />
<br />
<b>6) Make the background check system available to private sellers on an optional basis</b><br />
<br />
As outlined above, most sellers are very, very careful about who they sell guns to. Those who are not, will not do background checks even if they are mandatory. However, in my informal survey, 60% of responding gun owners said they would use such a system when they could not establish a person who is not prohibited via another method (knowing them well, law enforcement credentials, carry licence, other firearms related license, etc). The vast majority of the remaining 40% simply never sold guns or only sold them to people they knew really well. If fact, for most gun owners, making the NICS system easily available would make selling an occasional gun easier.<br />
<br />
<b>Finally, in regards to background checks, as Professor Adam Winkler - who is pro-gun control - has said we must be realistic about what background checks can do.</b> At best, background checks can only force people to turn to illegal sources. Therefore, if we do not work to suppress the illegal sources, background checks are useless. <b>Since the illegal market can never be completely controlled, we will never be able to prevent every criminal or other prohibited person who wants a gun from getting a firearm. No nation has achieved this and we will not be the first.</b><br />
<br />
So, there are six things that we can do, right now to reduce gun violence - none of them are controversial, most require no new laws. We just need to use the laws we have in a much wiser way.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</span></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-81136089185292145142019-01-24T16:56:00.000-08:002019-01-24T16:56:24.093-08:00Why This SCOTUS Case Will Be Definitive For Gun Rights In America <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://asoldiersperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2nd-amendment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://asoldiersperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2nd-amendment.jpg" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="550" height="164" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The question before SCOTUS is simple:<br />"Does the 2A apply outside the home?"</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">IMHO, most people do not understand why the Supreme Court takes some cases and refuses to take others. An understanding of the process leads to the conclusion that this case will be huge.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>First of all, it takes four of nine justices to vote to hear a case.</b> In the case of gun rights cases, it is possible that the high court may have passed on some cases because one or more justices simply did not want to be forced to address the issue. Justices are human, and I believe that SCOTUS has passed on the various carry cases in hopes that the political branches would settle the matter of carry outside the home. <b>Given the current division of the court, it only takes one or two such justices to cause the court to refuse to hear an appeal.</b> It appears that this was indeed the case with 2A based appeals, since an appeal was indeed accepted as soon as Justice Kennedy was replaced.<br /><br /><b>The conclusion is clear: At least four of the nine justices already believe that the 2A right likely, or certainly, extends outside the home.</b> This means that, at most, we need to hold on to these four justices (likely Neil Gorsuch, </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas) </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">and pick up just one more. This justice could be Chief Justice </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">John Roberts (who ruled with the pro-2A majority in both Heller and McDonald) or even - though less likely - Justice Scalia's hunting and shooting buddy, Justice Elena Kagan. Since the case will not be heard until next fall, it is possible that another conservative, pro-2A justice could join the court before then. All in all, we are in very good shape.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Second, SCOTUS can only hear a few cases each year.</b> They are able to accept less than one in a thousand appeals. <b>Given this reality, they do tend to accept cases that appear "clean" - meaning that the decision they reach will settle a matter of controversy</b> and give clear guidance to lower courts. This is why a split in rulings between appellate courts greatly increases the chances that SCOTUS will accept a case involving the issue.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Currently, there is split between appeals courts as to the 2A right outside the home.</b> If it does extend outside the home, then government may not prohibit all forms of carry. They MAY be able to restrict concealed carry, or open carry, but not both, The anti-gun movement is fearful that a SCOTUS ruling will not go their way - this is why they have not appealed the cases they have lost in the courts of appeal. Their fears are well founded.<br /><br /><b>The case SCOTUS has accepted is indeed a "clean" case. The issue is simple: Does the 2nd Amendment right extend beyond your front door. </b> If it does, than NYC certainly cannot prohibit someone from transporting their firearm outside the city for lawful purposes. If they rule that it doesn't, then the 2A will be effectively neutered. <b>Additionally, if the 2nd Amendment right extends outside your home, then it must be legal to carry a loaded functional firearm for self defense</b> because this is the core right that has already been ruled to exist inside the home in both Heller and McDonald..</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nlxoHuf5o-g/hqdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nlxoHuf5o-g/hqdefault.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">If the high court rules that the 2nd Amendment<br />must be accorded strict scrutiny, most laws in<br />states like CA or NY will be overturned.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>In addition to likely deciding the issue of carry, there is a very good chance that <a href="https://2ndamendmentclergy.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-next-big-second-amendment-question.html">the matter of "scrutiny" will be decided</a>. </b> Right now, most 2A cases are decided using the middle standard of constitutional protection (intermediate scrutiny). This is usually by mutual agreement because this is the lowest level of protection the 2A could possibly be accorded. While we have won many cases using this lesser standard, what we really want is strict scrutiny. If SCOTUS were to rule that this is the standard of review, then lower courts would be forced to apply the following test to all gun laws that come before them:<br /><br /><b>1) Does this law address a compelling need? This is a very high bar to clear.</b> "Compelling need" means that government has no other choice but to act. Clearly, some - but by no means all - gun laws could pass this first test.<br /><br /><b>2) Does this law address the compelling need in the least way that is least intrusive upon the right in question?</b> For instance, a a court might conclude - rightly or wrongly - that a background check law does address the "compelling need" to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the severely mentally ill. Does this mean that California can impose a background check, complete with 10 day wait and registration? Absolutely not - because the check can usually be completed in minutes. Waiting periods and registration are additional burdens that simply are not required to meet that compelling need.<br /><br /><b>Very few gun laws are going to pass this test, that's why Slate ran this headline: "<a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html">The Supreme Court Is Preparing to Make Every State’s Gun Laws Look Like Texas’</a>"</b> Slate is right - if we win this SCOTUS battle, that very well could be the outcome. We can only hope, pray and support those bringing the case - because we could be playing for all the marbles.........</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-1090920804775977272019-01-17T20:04:00.002-08:002019-01-17T20:52:37.615-08:00No, There Is No Law Against Gun Violence Research<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsnC-rCS7RbtMOJZeCMC08sPOBRhMpnkM_KNysVsXNDL6OofiEr1Pm5BUxDBICcoVbXun5AlzZedbQESBKZ1w6bwDiiqEiHXE5NMd8pV5XeVgKuRgQ6cpG5nxpWngzlqQmgG9Vf6RPwA9t/s1600/US+homicide-rates+1885-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Yet Again, Gun Control Advocates Are Lying To The Public</span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicNPeWZfjbvDDZoXeryeJhEFQsQ_SJF2z5GjDnOT-6Fw1zgyh5UfrmH8Sd4kLlKVFfILVrN0QPanoqGDdH_x_SnBJhX3vkMvxWzBx2PWPj5Qm27Bs-u0lw0iuTiMMiA5Q5f0fXjZRQNmvB/s1600/2013+CDC+gun+study.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicNPeWZfjbvDDZoXeryeJhEFQsQ_SJF2z5GjDnOT-6Fw1zgyh5UfrmH8Sd4kLlKVFfILVrN0QPanoqGDdH_x_SnBJhX3vkMvxWzBx2PWPj5Qm27Bs-u0lw0iuTiMMiA5Q5f0fXjZRQNmvB/s1600/2013+CDC+gun+study.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="790" data-original-width="750" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicNPeWZfjbvDDZoXeryeJhEFQsQ_SJF2z5GjDnOT-6Fw1zgyh5UfrmH8Sd4kLlKVFfILVrN0QPanoqGDdH_x_SnBJhX3vkMvxWzBx2PWPj5Qm27Bs-u0lw0iuTiMMiA5Q5f0fXjZRQNmvB/s320/2013+CDC+gun+study.jpg" width="303" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />Today, in the publication Education Week, an article was published <a href="https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/10/31/we-are-willfully-ignorant-about-ending-gun.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mrss&cmp=RSS-FEED">an article</a> arguing once again, that the CDC is forbidden to do research on gun violence. This is an outright, downright lie. They say that we are willfully ignorant on the subject.<br /><br /><b>Willfully ignorant? That describes literally every gun control advocate I have ever met</b> - starting with the fact that THERE IS LOTS OF RESEARCH GOING ON RIGHT NOW!!!!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That's right, tons of research is being done from a gun control perspective, from a gun rights perspective, a gun control perspective and from a law enforcement perspective. THIS INCLUDES US GOVERNMENT RESEARCH AND SOME OF IT HAS INDEED BEEN DONE BY THE CDC! </span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsnC-rCS7RbtMOJZeCMC08sPOBRhMpnkM_KNysVsXNDL6OofiEr1Pm5BUxDBICcoVbXun5AlzZedbQESBKZ1w6bwDiiqEiHXE5NMd8pV5XeVgKuRgQ6cpG5nxpWngzlqQmgG9Vf6RPwA9t/s1600/US+homicide-rates+1885-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="375" data-original-width="600" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsnC-rCS7RbtMOJZeCMC08sPOBRhMpnkM_KNysVsXNDL6OofiEr1Pm5BUxDBICcoVbXun5AlzZedbQESBKZ1w6bwDiiqEiHXE5NMd8pV5XeVgKuRgQ6cpG5nxpWngzlqQmgG9Vf6RPwA9t/s400/US+homicide-rates+1885-2012.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Plenty of real data exists on gun violence,<br />the problem is gun control advocates don't<br />like it.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>In fact, Pres. Obama, post Sandy Hook, ordered the CDC to study this very issue. This study was buried. </b> You will never hear a gun control advocate reference it. Why? <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#3bc7149d299a">One of the primary conclusions was that defensive gun use by citizens was "common" and that additional studies of defensive gun use was needed.</a> Opps, we can no longer use that study, let's demand another one.<br /><br /><b>Now, to be clear, there is a ban on using federal funds to conduct studies <i>the purpose of which is to advocate for gun laws.</i></b> Impartial studies are not banned and have been conducted many times since the law was passed. <i>In other words, gun control advocates are complaining that biased, agenda driven studies cannot be done with federal funds.</i><br /><br /><b>Just last Friday (1/11/2019), the FBI released a study that has been in the works since 2016.</b> They spoke to nearly 250K prisoners who had a gun when they committed the crime that put them in prison. They asked them where they got their guns. Here are the results:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirXrviu9mqgdppl8aQ__3K9EnynLOaWZwdAdGpSHomoYh2HfC38BtxKIoUvSDXeabEplop4nQEtoFDkjmHMaUJQnC7EX00kAV_AHwsFLi85cL7NYOXxdFnoGy1Cq9AT6-I5SFgaCxm8b82/s1600/where+criminals+get+guns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="694" data-original-width="750" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirXrviu9mqgdppl8aQ__3K9EnynLOaWZwdAdGpSHomoYh2HfC38BtxKIoUvSDXeabEplop4nQEtoFDkjmHMaUJQnC7EX00kAV_AHwsFLi85cL7NYOXxdFnoGy1Cq9AT6-I5SFgaCxm8b82/s320/where+criminals+get+guns.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Breaking the 10% from legal sources:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">8% were purchased from licensed dealers</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2% were purchased from private parties</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Gun shows? They were the source of 0.8% of criminals firearms. Not 8%, 0.8%.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The implications for gun control advocates are devastating. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>First, this proves that there is already a robust black market in firearms. </b> Gun control advocates will say that these firearms were once in the legal market. This may be true now, but experience from many countries that have enacted gun control proves that the black market will find other sources, just as the black market in drugs finds other sources. Additionally, what will happen to the 300-600 million firearms currently in private hands? Many of them will end up in the black market.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Second, the 27% that are otherwise illegally obtained are mostly people knowingly giving or selling firearms to criminals who are their friends</b>. This is already a federal felony. However, there is nearly know enforcement of this law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Third, the 15% that are straw purchases can only be stopped if we actually punish people who do this.</b> Jail or prison time is almost unheard of for this offense. Again, no new law needed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, after all of this, <b>we get to the legal marketplace - where only 10% of the firearms were obtained. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>80% of the crime guns from this segment we purchased from dealers - WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS.</b> This involves felons and other prohibited persons "lying and trying", in hopes they are not in the system. About 1/3 of the time they slip though. No new law required to fix the background check database - something the NRA and the gun industry have been pushing for years. No new law required to prosecute the criminals who try to buy guns through legal channels - but Obama's ATF director told Congress that such prosecutions were "a waste of resources".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>20% of this segment, 2% of the total, came from private sales. Not 40%, 2%.</b> Not my opinion - FBI data. Even within this 2% some sales were done with background checks because several states require this. So, the so called "gun show loophole" is relevant in maybe 1.5% of criminal;s firearm purchases.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Gun shows? 0.8 % came from a gun show - but again, many of these illegal buyers had to pass a background check because most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers.</b> Their sales are conducted exactly like those at their stores - background checks, forms and records.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The problem is that gun control advocates focus 100% of their efforts on the 10% of sales to criminals that are done through legal channels.</b> They ignore the 84% that we know already come through illegal channels. It is reasonable to conclude that if the legal channels are completely closed by their efforts, the illegal black market will simply provide what these people want. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Finally, I can point to several nations where implementing gun control far beyond what the 2nd Amendment possibly allows was followed by drastic increases in gun crime </b>(Jamaica and Brazil to name just two). I'm still waiting far an example where gun control decreased gun violence. Not suicides, gun violence against others.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Don't bother pointing to nations that have strict gun laws and low violent crime or murder rates. I can point to nations with high gun ownership rates that have low crime rates, Neither proves anything. Association does not prove causation. <b>What you need is an example where violence, or even just gun violence, went down after gun control was enacted.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm waiting........</span>Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3449109471226109335.post-58495824926940142262019-01-13T01:07:00.000-08:002019-01-13T19:56:12.267-08:00Official US DOJ Report Devastates Gun Control Arguments<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Criminals Most Common Source Of Guns Is Black Market - Gun Shows Account For Only 0.8% Of Total</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij-zdd7cjj1ZtFIKDES1RzYNS6ZRR74VotD-rxUyBUEGJasfL7ZcB_cEy3EIE7aCDmrtMKmm2DgcT876mtXdLyO9Kn-adaT_NZSBNJ9kV2GyFBJoO-ArsMafOlHVh05WttX3IIMJfy2yIJ/s1600/where+criminals+get+guns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="694" data-original-width="750" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij-zdd7cjj1ZtFIKDES1RzYNS6ZRR74VotD-rxUyBUEGJasfL7ZcB_cEy3EIE7aCDmrtMKmm2DgcT876mtXdLyO9Kn-adaT_NZSBNJ9kV2GyFBJoO-ArsMafOlHVh05WttX3IIMJfy2yIJ/s320/where+criminals+get+guns.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics has released the results of an extensive study of the sources of guns owned or possessed by criminals. There study can be downloaded <a href="https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_154736898928915&key=85c9d184606007f6213dcc7b2912250c&libId=jqu3e2jh01015ahb000DAiaqoyccy&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetruthaboutguns.com%2F2019%2F01%2Fchris-heuss%2Ffelons-feinstein-and-facts-how-criminals-get-and-use-their-guns%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bjs.gov%2Fcontent%2Fpub%2Fpdf%2Fsuficspi16.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fthegunfeed.com%2F&title=Felons%2C%20Feinstein%20and%20Facts%3A%20How%20Criminals%20Get%20and%20Use%20Their%20Guns%20-%20The%20Truth%20About%20Guns&txt=here">HERE</a>. The study, that involved extensive interviews with over 245,000 inmates of federal and state prisons, who possessed or used a firearm at the time of their crime, confirms what gun rights advocates have been saying for years: Criminals can easily obtain firearms via illegal means.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What follows is a list of the various sources.<br /><br /><b>The most common source was the black market, accounting for 43.2% of firearms owned at the time the prisoner committed their crime.</b> This confirms exactly what gun right advocates have said for decades - if criminals want firearms, a black market will develop to meet that demand. This has been the case in many nations, including Brazil, that soon will end its highly restrictive gun laws. Jamaica is yet another example, as is Mexico.<br /><br />The fact that so many guns are already being sold on the black market strongly suggests that if legal gun sales were stopped tomorrow, and guns were outlawed, criminals - or anyone who wanted a gun badly enough to break the law - would simply turn to the black market. In addition to domestic firearms, just as with drugs, guns would be smuggled in from other nations.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The next source for criminal's firearms were "straw purchases", accounting for up to 15.4% of the total.</b> Unfortunately, those who did the study did not specifically ask about straw purchases (where someone with a clean record lies in order to buy a gun for a criminal). That said, they did have categories for "Gift/purchased for prisoner" (10.8%) and "Brought by someone else" (4.6%) - both of these would likely constitute straw purchases. Such purchases are a felony, but those convicted almost never get prison time.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Next we come to other illegal sources at 27.8%</b> Obtained from family or friend (purchased, rented or borrowed) constitute was the most common source at 14.5%. Theft directly by prisoner came in at 6.4% Found at location of crime/victim - another form of theft registered at 6.9%</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Finally, we come to legal channels at 10.3%. </b> <b>That's right, only about 1 in 10 firearms owned by criminals is obtained directly through legal channels. </b> Remember, that while these channels are legal, the purchase likely was not. The bulk of these purchases (7.5% of the total or 3/4 of the legal channels total) were from licensed dealers - meaning that they were either purchased prior to any felony convictions, of more likely, the just decided to try, knowing that their chances of prosecution are tiny. The next most common was pawn shops (1.6%) - which if the buy or sell guns must be licensed and conduct background checks just like other dealers. This means that they had to pass a background check here too. This was followed by gun shows at 0.8% (most sellers at gun shows are dealers and must also do checks - but some of these were surely private sales). The last category in this total is "flea markets" where all the sales are private. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Other (did not fit any category</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">) totaled 5.9%</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Note: Because some criminals had guns from multiple sources, the total is somewhat higher than 100%.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">How This Study Devastates The Case For More Gun Control</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This study invalidates the case for more gun control is by showing that most firearms owned by criminals are obtained illegally - and that nearly half the time, they come from an already established black market. This presents two huge problems for gun control advocates.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>First, gun control efforts, by definition, seek to limit the legal market. This severely limits the potential effectiveness of any gun control effort.</b> Consider that if all the firearms purchased by criminals directly though legal channels could be eliminated - a practical impossibility - 90% of crime guns would be missed. Additionally, should this source somehow be completely eliminated (again, an impossibility) criminals would simply turn to one of the other sources. This alone proves that gun control laws simply cannot accomplish what their advocates promise.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Second, this report highlights just how absurd typical gun control measures are - as well as how those advocating for them ignore the facts. </b> Consider how many battles have been fought over gun shows. Again and again, studies like this one have established that gun shows simply are not a major source of crime guns - yet gun control advocates continue to tell people that they are and work hard to shut them down.<br /><br /><b>Consider also the number one priority of gun control advocates, what they falsely call closing the "gun show loophole". </b> What they really want is to require background checks on all private sales or transfers. Again, they focus upon a tiny silver of the 10% of criminal's firearms that are obtained through legal channels (it appears that private sales are responsible for under 2% of criminal's guns). It is impossible to have any significant impact by focusing upon a tiny silver of the problem.<br /><br /><b>Third, this study shows where we should focus any efforts to prevent criminals from getting guns. </b> They are, in order of priority:<br /><br /><b>1) Shutting down illegal dealers. </b> We are not talking about legal dealers who mess up some paperwork, we are talking about people who intentionally sell to prohibited persons, such as felons.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>2) Prosecuting straw purchasers, and sending them to prison.</b> Not only are people who illegally buy guns for prohibited persons frequently not prosecuted, when they are, they do usually do not do prison time. If our laws are to have any positive effect, this must change.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>3) Fix the broken background check database. </b> This will have the least impact, but it still should be done.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">These three measures will not stop criminals from getting guns, Experience shows that nothing will do that. However, they have much great potential than any of the measures pushed by gun control groups.<br /><br />I have no illusion that gun control advocates will change goals in light of this report. Their efforts are not aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, they are aimed at disarming the law abiding. My hope is that those who read this will come to understand their real agenda.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.com0