Newtown, CT gun permit applications double after shooting

Article Highlights

Permit applications more than double after shooting

Town received nearly 80 permits in 3 months, beating average

Police say residents fear Washington and/or state gun grab

In news that you probably will not hear on your nightly telecast, the Newtown, CT police department said that since the December 14th school shooting, they have received well over double the applications for gun permits compared to the same time period in previous years.

Police say the cause is primarily due to a fear that the government will take away city resident’s right to own firearms.

“A good percentage of people are making it clear they think their rights are going to be taken away,” said Robert Berkins, records manager for Newtown police.

Yearly, Newtown issues about 130 gun permits. Thus far, the city of about 27,000 residents has received nearly 80 permit requests through the first three months of the year, a pace that is sure to shatter the city’s average. It is unclear how many permits the city has actually issued.

Gun control proponent admits “Constitution is not the gospel”

Posted by Steve Adcock

In an opinion piece published by the Christian Science Monitor, a Republican and veteran of the War in Iraq and proponent of gun control regulations on “assault rifles” wrote that the Constitution is “not the gospel” and is instead a “living document”.

The piece, published today, details the author’s disappointment that Diane Feinstein’s unpopular assault weapons ban – which would have banned 157 different weapons, not all of them “assault rifles”, will not be included in the Senate’s soon-to-be-released gun control proposal. What is particularly disturbing is what the man, a veteran of Iraq, believes our Constitution to be.

He wrote (emphasis mine), “I also like to inform my gun-advocating colleagues and friends that the Constitution is not the gospel and has been amended 27 times since its signing in 1787, including for the provisions of universal suffrage and the abolition of slavery. As demonstrated throughout the course of American history, the Constitution has proved to be a living document, which has reflected the state of affairs and needs of its citizenry.”

The implication is clear – to him, the Constitution doesn’t really represent a document that limits the powers of the federal government – as written. Apparently because the Constitution contains 27 amendments, it no longer constrains the powers of the federal government. It’s a “living document”, so as a result, it is effectively meaningless.

His larger point was to argue that the use of assault rifles, such as the AR-15 (pictured to the right), are not necessary for self defense, and therefore should be banned. His argument is simple, but unfortunately, that simplicity fails the smell test of how effective these bans actually are, not to mention how often these guns are used in crime.

“As a former Army officer with extensive experience with military assault rifles, such as the M16 and M4 (variants of the AR-15), both used for the offensive purpose of neutralizing or killing as many combatants as possible in the shortest duration possible, I can attest that these types of weapons cross the commonsense threshold of a weapon of self-defense,” he argued.

In all due respect to the former Army officer, he is using his experience in a combat zone to argue in favor of laws for everybody at home. Not only is this nonsensical on its face, but it needlessly confuses the real issue of personal defense and the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. A trained military officer should know this.

The rights of the people to keep and bear arms “for self defense” is not the constitutional right afforded to Americans – but I suppose, when you do not recognize the Constitution to be “the gospel” of government power and the guarantee of people’s rights in the United States anyway, those little tidbits become less important, don’t they? But more than that – who gives this man the right to determine what is necessary for self defense? This man is entitled to his own opinion, but enforcing that opinion on the larger population is where problems come into play.

In fact, the former Army officer considers the ownership and use of AR-15s to be selfish and, ironically, “inconsistent with the Constitution that I swore to support and defend while I was deployed to Iraq.” Inconsistent, you mean, with the document that you appear to be throwing by the wayside? The document you consider to be a “living document” and not the be-all-end-all of our nation’s founding principles? Surely you see the irony.

In the same editorial, the author first disregarded the importance of the Constitution, then later uses the Constitution to support his point of view. This is flat disgraceful.

I deeply respect your service to our nation, sir, but your insistence that the use of AR-15s is selfish and that our Constitution – which you do not appear to respect – does not protect the right of the people to own those weapons, is absurd. I expect more from someone brave enough to fight in combat zones for their nation.

The Constitution that you took an oath to uphold protects the right to keep and bear arms, and the 27 amendments to the Constitution proves how important the document is.

If the Constitution wasn’t gospel, there would be no need to amend it, would there?

Colorado Sheriff refuses to enforce state’s new gun laws

Posted by Steve Adcock

Article Highlights

CO requiring background checks for private sales, magazine limits

Sheriff considers new gun regulations to be false security

New state laws expected to be signed by Governor

Arguing that the state’s new controls on guns offer nothing but a false sense of security to state residents, Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said that he will not enforce any of the new regulations in his jurisdiction after they take effect.

“They’re feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable,” the Sheriff told the Greeley Tribune. ”Criminals are still going to get their guns,” he added.

The Colorado state legislature passed several gun measures in the past weeks, including a 15-round magazine limit and a $10 background check for every firearm transfer, even if the transfer is person-to-person rather than a sale from a licensed gun shop. The bill originally restricted magazine capacities to 10-rounds, but a last minute amendment to the bill upped the limit to 15.

Sheriff Cooke said he, and other sheriffs from the state, will not enforce the new gun regulations due to the difficulty of tracking gun owners (which, coincidentally becomes more and more difficult as gun regulations increase) and how little the new regulations will effect senseless gun crimes.

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa told a group of residents in Colorado Springs last week that he, too, will not enforce the state’s new regulations.

New York’s new SAFE Act claims first victim, Iraq war veteran

Posted by Steve Adcock

Article Highlights

War veteran victim of entrapment by state of New York police

Faces 7-years in jail after selling two now-banned weapons

Laughably, state considers man’s actions “potentially dangerous”

Benjamin Wassell of Silver Creek, New York, was arrested this week and charged with selling weapons now banned in the state of New York after the passage of the “SAFE Act” to an under cover police officer. He is the first victim of his state’s new terribly destructive gun control measure.

He is charged with twice selling now-banned AR-15s with magazines that exceed the new state-wide capacity limit and a pistol grip, telescoping butt stock and bayonet mount. The first sale included 299 rounds of ammunition and six magazines. The second sale included 21 rounds of ammunition. He is charged with felonies that could land the Iraq war veteran and weapons expert in jail for as many as 7 years.

“By selling these illegal firearms, Mr. Wassell’s actions had potentially dangerous consequences for New Yorkers,” said State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who added that the illegal sale of semiautomatic weapons will not go unpunished.

The insanity of this rammed through piece of legislation continues to amaze, and the words of the state’s own Attorney General stands as proof of just how clueless and inconsequential these gun control measures really are. ”Potentially dangerous consequences”? This man was setup by agents of the state – in this case, an undercover police officer – hell-bent on putting a knowledgeable weapons expert and war veteran behind bars for selling a weapon that was once legal just weeks ago. The implication that this arrest makes anyone in New York safer is nonsensical on its face.

This man is a victim of the systematic destruction of liberty within the state of New York.

New bill would ban those on terror watch list from buying guns

Posted by Steve Adcock

Last week, Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced a bill that would ban the sale of firearms to those who are on the terrorist watch list, which fills what the Senator considers to be a “gaping hole” in federal gun control legislation.

One question: How does an individual get into the terror watch list? Or for that matter, how does one get off that list?

Currently, federal law prohibits the sale of firearms to those who have committed a crime (including domestic violence or illegal immigration). The law does not give the government the right to confiscate weapons of, or prevent the sale to, those on the so-called terrorist watch list.

Guilty until proven innocent. Shameful.

This, by very definition, means the Lautenberg bill would prohibit the sale of guns to those who have not broken any law. Sure, the term “terrorist watch list” sounds bad, and who wouldn’t want to ban the sale of weapons to terrorists?

But nobody really knows how you get onto that list – or who is on the list. By what standard does the government consider you to be a potential terrorist, and should that standard – whatever it is – automatically disqualify you from firearm purchases when you have committed no crime?

“Our gun laws have gaping holes that allow known and suspected terrorists to walk into a gun store and leave with legally purchased deadly weapons,” he said. The sky sure is falling, isn’t it Senator?

How many of our nation’s school shootings would have been prevented by this bill?

Mr. Lautenberg needs to answer this question. The answer, of course, is simple: this bill would have prevented no school tragedy, and Lautenberg knows it. Gun control efforts are notorious for enacting legislation that historically accounts for an incredibly small fraction of gun crime in the United States, if that. This bill is no different.

In fact, the bill’s very premise is terribly flawed. To support this bill, one would have to believe that terrorists have no ability to obtain firearms through undocumented and underground channels. Further, the bill assumes that a known terrorist, who has a premeditated plan and clear opportunity to terrorize the United States, would surely use his or her own identity to purchase firearms. These assumptions, which this entire bill depends on, are laughably absurd.

And please ignore the fact that the United States government has funded and sold weapons to nations that harbor terrorists for decades, including nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt. The United States is the largest arms exporter in the world, by far! But, even the most basic logic and reasoning has no place in the discussion of gun control. This bill fails the sanity check.

The Lautenberg bill brings the insanity of gun control to a whole new level. Not only does current gun legislation make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms for personal protection, this bill would make it illegal to sell a gun to a person who the government believes might commit a crime. This nonsense has no place in a free society.

This is another example of rampant destruction of personal liberty in the United States and sheltered politicians who are clueless to the realities of normal life in our country. If Lautenberg has his way, you no longer need to be a convicted criminal any longer to have your constitutional right to keep and bear arms removed from you by federal bureaucrats under “less than public” guidelines and procedures.

If the government believes you might commit a crime in the future, then basic constitutional rights no longer apply to you. You are, most definitely, guilty until proven innocent.