Saturday, July 11, 2009
So are they just looking for an easy 'win' on a bill that is destined to die or is there actually some sort of momentum on this thing that's managed to bypass everyone's attention?
Friday, July 10, 2009
We need your help to stop dangerous legislation now pending in the U.S. Senate that would force our communities to permit dangerous individuals from other states to carry loaded, hidden handguns in public. We need you to call your two U.S. Senators right away and tell them to oppose this measure.The bill in reference is S. 845 which has 22 co-sponsors as of June 20th. Note that Josh refers to CCW holders as 'dangerous individuals' even though he's statistically more likely to commit a crime than a licensed carrier.
He gives two good reasons to support the bill.
o The bill, S. 845, would dramatically increase the number of individuals carrying concealed handguns in public in your state.And conveniently gives a date:
o S. 845 would require states to recognize concealed carry permits that are issued by other states.
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on S. 845 as early as Monday, July 13.
Thanks for the heads up Josh. It's appreciated.
H/T to Kaveman for the forward.
This is news. He should have gotten wall to wall coverage, 1.4 million dollar memorial services, and parades.
Not a has-been pedofile.
H/T to Irons in the Fire.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
One point is that he shouldn't have had the chance to make this choice in the first place as our elected Senators should have had enough courage to maintain their original opposition to him after Rep. Bobby Rush (D, IL-1) played the race card to get him seated.
Another is that the odds are we're going to end up w/ another turd anyway. Rumors are that the Illinois Dems are pushing current AG Lisa Madigan (a NON-signatory to theChicago AG Amicus Brief, and a supporter of the DC Handgun Ban) to run for the seat and I suspect the state Republicans will hold up to their moniker in choosing an opposing candidate.
Ah well, we still have another year and a half of the crap sandwich that are our Illinois Senators before the next election.
They're not really upset though because they originally thought it would cost about $4 million.
Bread and Circuses.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
"Brady does not advocate banning guns."
Wouldn't it be more effective to bar dealers from selling assault weapons to prevent the traffickers from getting the guns in the first place?
It follows the traditional "I'm a gun owner but.." format w/ the author listing his 'credentials' of firearm ownership, how he's really smart, loves his guns, but....
He hates the NRA.
He doesn't actually present a REASON in his letter of why she should be confirmed or dispute any of the points Chris Cox made other than that he hates the NRA:
NRA characterizes the firearms issue through narrow toilet-paper tubes of fear that 'liberals' with anti-gun agenda will take away our guns. The reality is that illegal and improper use, storage or transfer of guns is a significant problem in America. I strongly support gun ownership but come down on the side of organizational and personal responsibility and competence with respect to guns. Guns are dangerous.Yep, it's not the 80%+ recidivism, gangs, or violent drug culture that's the problem, it's legal gun owners.
He then goes on a rant about how the NRA does nothing for hunters and sportsmen (now there's a familiar phrase). Here's a telling part:
Here in Idaho where I live there are no NRA basic firearm training programs even though this is a great outdoor sports state.Hmm. About ten seconds on Google found numerous available instructors, courses and programs including Spudguns.net, Idaho Ordnance, etc. Using the 'Find NRA near you' feature, I found even more. Nevermind that our very own Joe Huffman lives in Idaho and could have pointed him to the right people if he didn't do the instruction himself. So our 'strong supporter of gun ownership' is either ignorant or FOS.
Then follows some questions he'ld like to ask Sotomayer:
Do you believe that gun ownership in America carries responsibility by the owner to be competent in the storage, handling, maintenance, and use of the owned firearms?By the phrasing, I'm going to take an educated guess he supports licensing, legislated training, safe storage, and mandatory insurance for all firearm owners because we can trust the Gov't to uphold our rights. That's exactly the view held by the Founding Fathers. Right?
Do you think that the 'well regulated militia' language in the second amendment implies that private gun owners should be trained and certified perhaps as automobile drivers are tested for knowledge, skill, and abilities?
Should gun ownership carry insurance requirements for liability and health damages caused by the gun owner?
Now, coinciding with the above highlighted phrase, I did a little research on our alleged gun owner. Turns out he is a strong Obama supporter with donations totaling over $2,000 for the last election.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
I'm so glad to have such a 'strong supporter of gun ownership' out there defending my rights even though his 'support' makes a 'Prag' look like a 'Threeper' in comparison.
More from Caleb.
Last summer, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court confirmed what the Framers, most scholars, and a substantial majority of Americans believe: that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Heller led to lawsuits raising the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects that right against infringement by state and local governments. In a consolidated case involving a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, the Seventh Circuit answered that question in the negative, finding itself foreclosed by 19th-century Supreme Court decisions. Cato, joining with the Institute for Justice, filed an amicus brief supporting requests for the Supreme Court to review that line of precedent. We argue that the Court's initial encounters with the Fourteenth Amendment yielded a profound misreading of its Privileges or Immunities Clause that has haunted the Court's rights jurisprudence ever since.
Download a copy of the brief
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
"The facts are it's 90 percent of the guns that were traced, that we were able -- that the Mexican government and ATF were able to send back here to be traced by ATF. It does not represent the 75 percent of the guns that we don't know where they came from because they were never submitted for trace. That's clearly stated in our report. So if someone's misreporting that, you know, that's not my problem. But our report is based on the facts."Now we get to watch Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign back-peddle furiously from his statement made back in April:--Jess Ford GAO
As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reports, 90 percent of firearms recovered at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to gun sellers right here in the United States.So since one big number didn't work, now he's jumping on another one to try and generate any knee jerk reaction to restrict and ban guns. What he doesn't focus on is that the '20,000' guns is over a period of 5 years and that, according to the very GAO report he cites, over 4,000 (20%) came from California, rated A+/#1 by the Brady Campaign.
So even those 'tough, common-sense' laws in place aren't enough to curb their desire for even more restrictions. Never mind the fact that numerous US and Mexican officials have been caught smuggling guns. You know, those ones we're supposed to place our absolute trust in?
Keep throwing out those numbers Paul. Maybe someone will believe you.
Update: Kaveman also notes some previous number fudging that Paul is trying to avoid. Like when the claimed that 2,000 guns per day were crossing the border. Assuming all those 20K went to Mexico and returned within those five years, it would average 11/day. Someone of a discrepancy of 99.45%, Not a very good 'estimate' was it Paul. Nevermind them quoting Mexican officials claiming grenades and rocket launchers are coming from US gun shows.
Armed and Safe has more.
Fairfax, Va. – Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
“The historical record clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to every American in every state in the country,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “As the Supreme Court said clearly in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment protects an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Two-thirds of America’s state Attorneys General agree.”
The Seventh Circuit claimed precedent bound it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.
California attorney general Edmund G. Brown Jr. is filing a separate brief arguing that the Supreme Court should take up NRA’s appeal and hold that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States.
“It is fundamentally wrong to violate the civil rights of any law-abiding person based on their zip code,” Cox concluded. “The fundamental right of self-defense must be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”
I hope Paul, Bryan, and Josh are now crapping themselves hoping they can get a few AG's to support them.
Unsurprisingly, the Illinois AG is not a signatory.
"Look at this," Lloyd said, waiving a stapled copy of Burris' criminal record. "This is like 25 pages. At some point the criminal justice system is going to need to explain why this suspect was out on the street."
But the only thing that made him do it was the gun.
Trust the Gov't. They're here to help.