We don’t have to sacrifice our liberties for security

Posted by Ron Paul

I wish I could say I was shocked at the reports the NSA is secretly spying on the private phone calls of millions of Verizon customers. However, this is a predictable result of a government that continues to erode our liberties while promising some glimmering hope of security.

The Fourth Amendment is clear; it says we should be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects, and that all warrants must have probable cause.

I opposed and continue to oppose the Patriot Act because I believe it throws the Fourth Amendment right out the window. It is certainly not patriotic to support warrantless wiretaps, blanket ‘metadata’ collection, and spying on innocent American citizens.

Unfortunately, what is worse than the reports, is knowing that politicians of both parties will continue to defend this practice as necessary to supposedly keep us ‘safe’. We do not have to sacrifice our liberties for security. At times like this, the question must be asked, ‘if we are willing to change our way of life and our very definition of freedom while tolerating the invasive searches at our airports and now of our phone calls, have the terrorists already won?

The benefits to concealed carry permits in any state

Posted by Steve Adcock

Although the Constitution’s 2nd amendment gives all Americans the right to keep and bear arms, each state has assumed the responsibility to restrict firearm ownership – to starkly varying degrees. The state of New York, for example, has recently clamped down on personal firearm ownership with several new restrictions, while states like Arizona and Alaska maintain “Constitutional Carry” gun laws that allow anyone to carry, openly or concealed, without a state license. But even in these more free states, there are several benefits to state-issued concealed carry firearm licenses.

Some states are more permissive than others regarding their firearm laws. State licensing is broken down into three main categories: Unrestricted, Shall Issue and May Issue.

Unrestricted states allow residents to carry weapons without any permit – like Arizona, Alaska and Utah. So long as you have state identification (a driver’s license), you can buy any number of guns in the state.
Shall Issue states require residents to obtain a firearm license before they can carry a weapon, but the state will always issue the license unless the background check or other state-based criteria is not met. The resident does not have to show “good cause” or obtain the signature of law enforcement before applying for a state gun license. Florida, George and Idaho are examples of Shall Issue states.
May Issue states are the toughest to obtain licenses in and requires residents to convince the state that they need a firearm and often requires the signature of local law enforcement before licenses are issued. Unfortunately, using “self defense” is generally not enough “good cause” for the state to issue a license in these states. Examples of May Issue states include Hawaii, Massachusetts and many areas of California.

Below, we will take a look at the 5 biggest benefits to carrying a license regardless of the kind of state that you live in. Unrestricted states still offer licenses for those who wish to apply, and those licenses provide advantages to firearm owners.

1. Licenses put police officers at ease

Many firearm owners carry a weapon in their vehicle(s) for protection while on the roadways and around town. Get pulled over by a police officer and he or she may ask if you have a firearm in your car. Answer truthfully. In unrestricted firearm states, the police officer cannot lawfully confiscate the gun from you, but the presence of a firearm can effect the traffic stop because the officer is unaware of your criminal history. Showing the officer a concealed carry permit means that you have undergone the background checks necessary to make the state reasonably believe that you are a law-abiding citizen and are trustworthy enough to carry firearms. If you are pulled over with a gun in the car and have a concealed license, consider giving the officer both your driver’s license and your concealed carry license together, immediately putting to bed any concern the officer may have over your firearm.

2. Licenses help when openly carrying around uninformed people

Many firearm owners openly carry where laws allow for it. While open carry is a perfectly legitimate way to carry a firearm, it may also arouse suspicion among people who are generally uninformed about firearms and afraid when they see one. They may call the police and report the fact that you are carrying a weapon, and police departments are obligated to respond to the incident and start asking questions. So long as the laws allow for open carry and no other laws are being broken, the firearm owner will be okay. However, displaying a concealed carry license to the officer is an extra level of protection against aggressive law enforcement that may want to give you trouble for openly carrying a weapon. Effectively, the concealed carry license tells the officer “back off, I’m good”.

3. Licenses allow firearm owners to carry in more public areas

Many states that do not require licenses to own and carry firearms still restrict where owners can carry their firearms – like schools, courthouses, national parks and restaurants. For example, the state of Arizona allows concealed carry license holders to possess weapons within 1000 feet of schools. Without a license, however, such possession is unlawful. Arizona also allows license holders to carry firearms into bars and other restaurants that serve alcohol, so long as the firearm owner is not consuming alcohol. Unlicensed firearm owners, however, cannot legally possess firearms in these establishments. Consult your local state’s concealed carry laws for specifics on your state’s licensing details.

4. Licenses educate firearm owners on laws that could save their lives

The process to obtain state concealed carry licenses is more than a simple background check and proficiency test (in some states). Typically, those interested in a license will go to an 8-hour class where experienced instructors will not only teach what licenses provide for state residents, but also the laws of the state and when deadly force can be used. For example, is shooting at a fleeing carjacker considered “self defense” in your state and an appropriate situation in which to use deadly force? In Arizona (and most other states), it isn’t – because the carjacker is no longer threatening your life or property. Is unholstering your weapon considered “brandishing” and punishable under the law? The concealed carry license class will teach you what you need to know to keep yourself out of jail if you ever need to use your weapon in a defensive situation. Know your laws.

5. Licenses make it easier to buy firearms

All states require simple background checks each and every time a weapon is purchased due to the laws and regulations of the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). However, several states, including Arizona, wave the background check requirement if the purchaser has a concealed carry license. States do this because the holder of the license has already undergone the required background check in the process of obtaining the license. This makes your next trip to the gun store smoother and quicker. You will still need to fill out some paperwork, but waiting for a background check may no longer be required. Again, consult your state’s regulations for specific details on how a license effects your next gun purchase in your state.

In closing, if your state requires the possession of a concealed carry license before owning and carrying a firearm, then you will need one to lawfully carry your weapon anyway. But if your state does not require a license, still consider getting one. As we have discussed, licenses include many benefits that can both keep firearm owners safe and more trustworthy around police and teach the laws of the state and what you need to know to keep yourself out of jail.

Florida bans texting while driving, citing “safety” as concern

Posted by Steve Adcock

According to a report by the SunSentinal, Florida has become the 41st state to ban texting while driving, who’s governor said the law will make the state’s roads more safe.

The ban, however, possesses very little muster. Texting while driving is only a secondary offense, meaning state police officers cannot pull people over based solely on this alone – another primary offense is needed first. Billing records would need to be summoned in order to add this offense to the state’s case against the resident.

The long and short of it is this: Florida has put into place a law that not only adds more bureaucratic mess by requiring cellular billing records before a charge can be levied for this offense, but simply making something illegal will not stop the behavior. You cannot fix distracted driving by making distracted driving illegal.

To believe that this law makes Florida state roads safer, one must also believe that people will suddenly stop initiating and responding to text messages simply because of the presence of this law. Most drivers already know that texting while driving is stupid and dangerous. People do it anyway. What, then, makes Florida governor Rick Scott believe that a hollowed-out law without much teeth will make any positive difference in the safety of his state’s roads?

Our country is full of nonsensical laws. Please, Governor Scott – we don’t need more.

Ron Paul: We need a free market in education

Posted by Ron Paul

In addition to shredding civil liberties, launching a utopian global war for democracy, and going on a spending spree that would make LBJ blush, the so-called “conservative” Bush administration dramatically increased federal control over education via the “No Child Left Behind” act. During my time in Congress I heard nothing but complaints about this law from teachers, administrators, and, most importantly, students and parents. Most of the complaints concerned No Child Left Behind’s testing requirements, which encouraged educators to “teach to the test.”

Sadly, but not surprisingly, instead of improving education by repealing No Child Left Behind’s testing and other mandates, the Obama administration is increasing national control over schools via the “Common Core” initiative. Common Core is a new curriculum developed by a panel of so-called education experts. The administration is trying to turn Common Core into a national curriculum by offering states increased federal education funding if they impose Common Core’s curriculum on their public schools. This is yet another example of the government using money stolen from the people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.

Critics of Common Core say it “dumbs down” education by replacing traditional English literature with “informational texts”. So students will read such inspiring materials as studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the EPA’s “Recommended Levels of Insulation,” and “Invasive Plant Inventory” by California’s Invasive Plant Council. It is doubtful that reading federal reports will teach students the habits of critical thinking and skepticism of government that the Founders considered essential to maintaining a free republic.

Like Obamacare, Common Core (now dubbed “ObamaCore” by some) has sparked a backlash in the states, leading some to propose legislation forbidding state participation in the scheme. I hope these efforts lead to states not just opting out of Common Core, but out of No Child Left Behind and all other federal education programs as well.

Parents can also effectively “opt out” of programs like Common Core by seeking alternatives to government education. It is no coincidence that, as federal control over education increases, the quality of public education has declined and more parents have chosen to homeschool.

To support these parents, I have established my own homeschool curriculum. Unlike Common Core, we do not dumb down any of our offerings. Instead, the goal is to provide students with a rigorous education in history, math, English, foreign languages, and other core subjects necessary to a well-rounded education. Unlike the top-down model of nationalized education, the homeschool curriculum is deigned to encourage maximum input from parents and students. While the curriculum will reflect my belief, and interest, in Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of the struggle against state power, the curriculum is being carefully designed to not show bias toward any one religion. I hope all parents of any faith—or no religious beliefs at all—will feel comfortable using the curriculum.

I believe it is important for those of us concerned with education and liberty to fight our battles locally. We must oppose further encroachment on the autonomy of local public schools and work to roll-back existing interference, while encouraging and supporting the growth of homeschooling and other alternative education movements. The key to restoring quality education is to replace the bureaucratic control of education with a free market in education. Parents should have the freedom to select the type of education that best suits their child’s unique needs.

911 tells rape victim “no cops available”; if only she had a gun

Posted by Steve Adcock

Picture this for a moment. You are a woman alone in your house. You have an ex-boyfriend who has sexually assaulted you before and left you hospitalized for several weeks. That ex-boyfriend is now outside your house threatening to break in, and you immediately jump on the horn and call 911. Sounds like a bad night already, but it’s about to get even worse.

You explain the situation to the 911 dispatcher, and the dispatcher proceeds to tell you that there are no police available to respond to the incident and suggests that if your ex-boyfriend does break into your house, simply ask him to go away. Sound like a made-up fairy tale that could never happen in the United States of America?

Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical situation. Due to supposed budget cuts, this happened to a woman in the state of Oregon.

The woman was sexually assaulted and choked that night…again. Oregon State Police arrested her boyfriend following the incident. In the state of Oregon, you’re quite literally left to fend for yourself as our government, once again, falls down on the job. The state blames a federal subsidy that they no longer get for the cutbacks that took 23 police officers off of the streets.

Our nation continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year in so-called “humanitarian aid” missions overseas, engages in countless and never-ending wars, wastes money on feel-good social programs – only to leave our own citizens literally fighting for their lives as our government insists on taking absolutely no responsibility for the services that all Americans pay taxes to enjoy.

If there were ever a reason to increase the responsible ownership of firearms, this is it. The police cannot, and apparently will not, protect you in many areas of our nation. If people are left to fend for themselves, then the people need to take advantage of their second amendment right to keep and bear arms – while we still have it. A simple 6-shooter revolver could have saved this particular woman from another hospital visit at the hands of a maniac, and sadly, this is not an isolated incident, and guns have an important place in our society. Defensive gun use is becoming more and more critical.

Forget the rape whistle, as suggested by one particularly clueless Colorado lawmaker. Get a firearm. Learn how to effectively use the firearm. Protect yourselves, because our government has made it painfully clear, once again, that they have no intention of doing their job.