Opposition rising to Colorado gun control laws

(WASHINGTON TIMES) – DENVER – More than a year after pushing through through some of the toughest gun control measures in the country, Colorado Democrats are finding it harder than ever to get the state’s residents to get behind them.

A Quinnipiac University Poll released Wednesday found that the strict new gun-control laws are losing support among voters.

The survey found that only 39 percent of Colorado voters favor the state’s hotly debated 2013 package of gun control measures, down from 43 percent support in Quinnipiac’s Feb. 5 poll.

Read original story at WashingtonTimes.com ->

Bloomberg not quick enough draw on social media

Safety FirstFormer New York mayor and anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg recently dropped another $50 million on the creation of a new so-called “grass-roots campaign” to supposedly curb gun violence, named “Everytown for Gun Safety”.  Bloomberg’s immediate job is to market the new gun-grabbing group and create a stir to elicit support.

Unfortunately for the rich and shrewd businessman, he failed to secure the Facebook name before announcing the effort.

A quick-to-the-draw Facebook user jumped on the opportunity and registered the name, using it instead as a group to support the second amendment’s gun protections and gun safety, telling BuzzFeed “I took the Bloomberg name because I wanted this page to remain open to debate, unlike his group at Moms Demand Action that block anyone with alternative views.”

Gun owners are getting a bad rep nation wide from their anti gun propaganda. As to who I am, I am your average citizen that believes the second amendment ‘shall not be infringed.’”

https://www.facebook.com/Everytownforgunsafety

Oops!

Supreme Court – let NJ residents enjoy 2A

US Supreme CourtUntil the Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to armed self-defense, many lower courts gave this important provision short shrift. Lacking guidance from above, they linked the right to some undefined militia service, effectively reading it out of the Constitution.

Six years later, they’re at it again.

While Heller clarified that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the ruling left many questions about the scope of that right unanswered. Since then, several courts have made clear that they plan to take only as much from Heller as they absolutely have to.

Since Heller struck down D.C.’s ban on functional firearms in the home, recalcitrant courts pretend that the Second Amendment is limited to the right to keep arms and that legislatures can for very little (or no) reason to ignore the right to bearthem outside the home.

Perhaps the most egregious example is the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which last year upheld New Jersey’s “may-issue” handgun law. This law says that an individual may be granted a carry license—read: may be permitted to exercise her Second Amendment rights—only if she proves an urgent need to do so to the satisfaction of a law enforcement officer.

In order to show this need, one must prove that there are specific, immediate threats to one’s safety that can’t be avoided in any way other than by possessing a handgun. If someone can actually persuade the local official—who has total discretion to accept or deny the claim—then she gets a license for two years, when the gun owner must repeat the entire discretionary process (proving an imminent threat, etc.) to renew the permit.

The effect of this regulatory regime is that virtually nobody in New Jersey can use a handgun to defend themselves outside their home. The state law inverts how fundamental rights are supposed to work—the government must justify restrictions, but the right-holder need not explain the exercise of her rights—and the Third Circuit saw no problem with that.

The court applied a highly deferential review far from the heightened scrutiny normally due an individual right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It assumed the legislature’s good faith without requiring the state to show any evidence that a restrictive-carry regime lowers the rate of gun crime. It also excused what constitutional infringements the law may cause because it was passed before Heller came down—and so the legislature’s ignorance of the Second Amendment insulates it from legal challenge.

The Third Circuit’s opinion makes clear that it, like too many other courts, is “willfully confused” about the right to keep and bear arms as recognized in Heller and the proper judicial methodology to apply when evaluating such cases.

This is an excellent case for the Supreme Court to take up to begin clarifying many of the unanswered questions involving the Second Amendment—such as to what extent it extends beyond the home and whether it can be conditioned on a showing of need. The Court has been hesitant to flesh out the contours of the Second Amendment, which has led to errant rulings that leave the right to bear arms hollow.

If the Supreme Court’s declaration 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago that “the Second Amendment should [not] be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment,” is to have any weight, the Court must not neglect the persistent confusion regarding that constitutional provision as it did in the decades before Heller. Unless the justices intend the Second Amendment to lapse back into second-class status, they need to set wayward courts straight. Reviewing the Third Circuit’s jurisprudential miscarriage would be a great way to demonstrate their commitment to the Second Amendment’s normalcy.

Whatever analytical approach the Supreme Court ultimately uses in defining the scope of the Second Amendment, the time has come to fill in the picture that the Court outlined in Heller, and to bring harmony to the cacophony below.

Article originally published at: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/second-amendment-case-supreme-court-must-take

Purchasing a Firearm for Your Home

Purchasing a gun is something that more and more Americans are doing. There are a lot of people that believe that they are safer when they have a gun that they know that they are going to be able to use in case they find it necessary. Whether they are out hunting or defending their home, many people use their household firearm on a fairly consistent basis. If you are considering getting a firearm, you should be sure that you are going through all of the right processes to purchase your firearm legally.

Research the Laws in Your Area

There are a lot of people that do not understand that laws for purchasing guns differ between states. Depending on the state that you are living in, you will have very specific laws that you need to abide by to be able to purchase a firearm. Take the time to do your research ahead of time to ensure that you are not breaking any laws as you are doing your shopping. Some states may require you to wait a couple of days to pick up your guns, while other states will require you to provide them with extensive details of your history.

If you are asked for a background check, you should be sure that you realize this is optional. Background check software may be a part of the purchasing process, but you are not legally required to submit to the background check. If someone wants to perform a background check with their background check software, you can certainly submit.

Learn to Use Your Gun

Once you have legally obtained your firearm, make sure that you know how you are going to use it. There are many people that do not realize that many people die because they misuse firearms. You should be sure that you know how you are going to use and store your firearm to ensure that there are not any accidents. Take the time to teach everyone in your home how to come into contact with the gun and use it safely. By teaching everyone how to use and store the guns safely, you can prevent dangerous accidents from happening.

When you are learning about gun safety, you should be sure that you are getting the licenses that you need to use your gun when you want to use it. It is important that all of the information that you learn is going to stick with you. Make sure that you remember what you learn in your classes so that you do not put anyone in your home at risk.

Although purchasing a firearm is your right, as an American citizen, it is important that you go about the process wisely. This way, you can be sure that the gun is something that has a positive effect in your life rather than a negative effect. Do not be afraid to purchase a gun, and take the process seriously. When you do your research and buy a gun the right way, it can serve its purpose in your home without any other problems.

A gun’s purpose is to kill, right?

As the gun debate drags on, one point of contention continues to hold strong by proponents of strict gun control.  While guns can be used for perfectly legitimate recreational use (like sport shooting or hunting), the gun’s main purpose is to kill – nothing more.

Though one might expect me to vehemently argue against such a assertion, in truth, I absolutely agree with this statement.  A gun better be able to kill.

Guns fundamentally transformed hunting in the 1800s.  Instead of risking life and limb in the quest for food, hunters relied on their guns to kill their dinners.  Guns made it possible for our ancestors to kill large animals like bulls and ox far easier than ever before, bringing back to their villages large quantities of meat to sustain their populations for weeks.

Guns enabled our revolutionary armies to fight against an oppressive enemy in the 1700s.  Guns enabled warfare from a distance, relying instead on the marksmanship of our nation’s warriors rather than the sheer dexterity of men in close combat.

Snipers on rooftops effectively neutralize hostage tackers and terrorists from a distance with guns.  Regular people use guns in the defense of their own lives every day.  The better your aim, the fewer lives that are lost in life and death situations.  Lives saved.

Whether the target is an animal or a criminal, you are darn right that the intent of a gun is to kill.  If your life is on the line and you are armed with a gun, it is nice to know that the original purpose of a gun holds true.

It is people who ultimately control what they do with potentially dangerous weapons.  Cars are nothing more than 4,000 pound death machines.  Historically, cars have killed more people every day than guns.  Then again, so has alcohol and tobacco.  Nobody argues that cars, alcohol and tobacco were designed to kill people, but yet, their harm to our population has historically outweighed that of guns.

Similarly, matches were designed to start fires.  When an arsonist lights a match and burns down a building or starts a violent and destructive forest fire, is it the fault of the match?  Typically, matches are used for reasonable and safe purposes.  So are guns.  The difference is when a gun crime happens, our 24-hour network news jumps on the opportunity to prop up their ratings on a sensationalized story designed to soak as much emotion out of the American people as possible.  Unfortunately, it works.

Guns have been used to murder.  Cars can be used to hit and kill pedestrians.  Alcohol and tobacco have killed people, and matches used to start wild fires have carved large destructive paths of death all over the world.  Regardless of the intent of the potentially dangerous weapon, people use common objects in the commission of crimes.  Statistically, the intent of the weapon has very little effect on the dangers of its use.

Why do gun control proponents use a gun’s “purpose” to fight for strict controls on guns when many other killers exist in our world that were never intended to kill?  The answer is because guns produce emotional responses, and they are an easy target.

When a child gets tragically hit and killed by a car, the grieving parents rarely blame the wide availability of cars.  However, when a child gets killed by a maniac with a gun, it suddenly becomes the fault of the gun because it was supposedly the gun’s purpose.  Cars cannot be banned, so nobody tries.  But guns can be banned, at least in the minds of strict proponents of gun control.  The Constitution be damned.  Logic be damned.  Let emotion rule the world.

Nobody intends to get into a car accident, but people do.  Nobody intends to lose their home and become homeless, but it happens.  Intent has very little to do with the dangers of our world.  Purpose and intent guide our vision and dreams.  Only actions provide the impetus to get there.

A gun’s intent is to propel a small projectile in a straight line.  Nations have used weapons of all kinds in war against their enemies.  Hunters have used guns in the survival of their families.  Everyday citizens use guns to protect their homes and loved ones.

The purpose of a gun is whatever you want it to be – after all, we are a free country.  For now.

What makes American children want to kill?

gty_guns_children_lpl_130206_wgFor more than 237 years, America has been the most free, peaceful, prosperous, generous and yes, well-armed society on earth. Through most of this period, parents taught their children to pray, to honor thy mother and father, to tell the truth, to work, sacrifice, earn and own, to respect others and yes, to properly handle weapons.

For 223 of those years, kids often carried arms with them to school in order to go hunting with their friends after school and not once did any child take up arms and go on a killing spree against innocent random targets in a school, a mall, a theater or a Chucky Cheese or McDonalds. For most of this period, nearly every boy carried a pocket knife, just like Dad and Grandpa did…

But since 1999, something very evil has been happening with increasing regularity and it’s time for us to take a good hard look at the patterns of these mass killings and the motives and trends behind them.

Between 1963 under Lyndon Johnson and 1998 under Bill Clinton, America experienced ten (10) “mass shootings,” none of them involving children randomly killing children. This calculates to one such incident every 2.8 years in America during this 35 year period, all of them involving adults with a specific axe to grind, a specific target and reason for their actions. Over the last five years, we have seen these events skyrocket to 2.4 mass shootings each year.

But on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado, a suburb of Denver, something changed when 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold killed 12 fellow students and one teacher before committing suicide in the school library.

This date marks the first time in American history when two teenage children plotted and carried out a mass killing of innocent random targets in a public school. What had changed?

  • 8 killed – March 21, 2005 - Red Lake High School, Red Lake, Minnesota. 16-year-old Jeff Weise kills his grandfather and another adult, four fellow students, a teacher and a security officer. He then kills himself.
  • 32 killed – April 16, 2007 - Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. A gunman, 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho, goes on a shooting spree killing 32 people in two locations and wounds an undetermined number of others on campus. The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho then committed suicide.
  • 8 killed – December 5, 2007 - In Omaha, Nebraska, 19-year-old Robert Hawkins goes to an area mall and kills eight shoppers before killing himself.

But this was just the beginning… January 2009 to present…and counting

Ten years after Columbine, the situation would become much worse…

  • 8 killed – March 29, 2009 - In Carthage, North Carolina, 45-year-old Robert Stewart kills a nurse and seven elderly patients at a nursing home. In May, the Moore County district attorney announces she will seek the death penalty. On September 3, 2011, a jury finds Stewart guilty of second-degree murder and Stewart is sentenced to 141 to 179 years in prison.
  • 10 killed – March 10, 2009 - In Alabama, Michael McLendon of Kinston, kills 10 and himself. The dead include his mother, grandparents, aunt and uncle.
  • 13 killed – April 3, 2009 - In Binghamton, New York, Jiverly Wong kills 13 people and injures four during a shooting at an immigrant community center. He then kills himself.
  • 13 killed – November 5, 2009 - Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13 people and injures 32 at Fort Hood, Texas, during a shooting rampage. He is convicted and sentenced to death.
  • 8 killed – January 19, 2010 - Christopher Speight, 39, kills eight people at a house in Appomattox, Virginia. He surrenders to police at the scene the next morning, and is charged with one count of murder with additional charges pending.
  • 8 killed – August 3, 2010 - Manchester, Connecticut – Omar Thornton kills eight co-workers at Hartford Distributors before turning the gun on himself. Thornton had been asked to resign for stealing and selling alcoholic beverages.
  • 6 killed – January 8, 2011 -  U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen others were shot during a constituent meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, Arizona, in the Tucson metropolitan area. Six people died, including federal District Court Chief Judge John Roll; Gabe Zimmerman, one of Rep. Giffords’ staffers; and a nine-year-old girl, Christina-Taylor Green. Jared Lee Loughner was the shooter.
  • 8 killed – October 12, 2011 - Eight people are killed during a shooting at the Salon Meritage in Seal Beach, California. The suspect, Scott Evans Dekraai, 41, of Huntington Beach, is arrested without incident as he is trying to leave the scene. The eight dead include Dekraai’s ex-wife, Michelle Fournier, 48. He was armed with three guns — a 9 mm Springfield, a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum, and a Heckler & Koch .45 — and was wearing body armor during the shooting rampage.
  • 12 killed – July 20, 2012 - Twelve people are killed and 58 are wounded in a shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater screening of the new Batman film. James E. Holmes, 24, is taken into custody outside of the movie theater. The gunman is dressed head-to-toe in protective tactical gear, set off two devices of some kind before spraying the theater with bullets from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene.
  • 27 killed – December 14, 2012 - Sandy Hook Elementary School – Newtown, Connecticut. Adam Lanza, 20, guns down 20 children, ages 6 and 7, and six adults, school staff and faculty, before turning the gun on himself. Investigating police later find Nancy Lanza, Adam’s mother, dead from a gunshot wound. The final count is 28 dead, including the shooter.
  • 12 killed – September 16, 2013 - Shots are fired inside the Washington Navy Yard killing 12. The shooter, identified as Aaron Alexis, 34, is also killed.
  • December 13, 2013 – Centennial Colorado – The shooter, identified as 18-year-old Karl Halverson Pierson, shot two students before turning the gun on himself.

The number of mass killings has skyrocketed with twelve (12) mass-shootings between January 2009 and today. Despite increasing gun-control laws popping up across the country, most notably in Colorado, mass shootings are clearly on the rise since 2009 and it begs the question, why?

Compare those numbers again… ten (10) incidents over a 35 year span with no children behind the weapon, compared to twelve (12) in just the last 5 years under the watchful eye of the Obama Administration.

Something very significant is happening since March of 2009…

  • According to the Obama Administration, American veterans are a grave threat in this area. However, the record shows that only two of these twelve incidents involved shooters with any military background, one of which was a Muslim Terrorist screaming “Allah Akbar” as he killed unarmed soldiers at Ft. Hood, the other a known mental screwball at the Washington Navy Yard, neither of whom targeted “random” civilians. There is no basis for Obama’s claim that veterans are involved in this trend.
  • According to the Obama Administration, “assault weapons” are the problem, yet almost every incident involved the use of handguns and/or a shot gun, including the recent shooting at Centennial Colorado, which also involved homemade Molotov cocktails and a machete.
  • According to the Obama Administration, thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “right-wing extremists” are the primary threat concern for such events. Yet again, none of the active shooters involved in these events were “right-wing extremists” on a political mission. The majority of shooters were actually “left-wing” social misfits.
  • According to the Obama Administration, “right-wing” militia types are a grave threat to American society. Yet none of these mass shooting incidents were carried out by “right-wing militia types.”
  • According to the Obama Administration, “guns” in the hands of legal law-abiding citizens is the problem. But none of these events were carried out by legal law-abiding American citizens.

But there is indeed a set of common traits among the shooters involved in these acts…

  • ALL of these events were “illegal” acts… laws don’t stop crime
  • These events have taken place in states and cities with the strictest gun laws in America
  • They have all taken place in cities governed by left-leaning Democrats
  • The same people trying to disarm Americans to “save these kids” have killed over 50 million Natural Born American children before they could even be born
  • Most had known mental disorders
  • Most had horrific home situations
  • Most were on mind altering prescription drugs
  • Many were “left-wing” political activists
  • Most were social misfits who had been bullied
  • Most were introverts who spent hours playing violent video games
  • Most were under some form of psychiatric supervision
  • None were carrying weapons “legally”

The Obama Administration has refused to publish any of this information. Most of this information has been covered up by the main stream media in the push for broad gun-control.

The day before the most recent school shooting in Centennial Colorado, four people were stabbed at a post-game party after the Denver Bronco’s loss at home. A few days before that, another party shooting happened following an upset loss by the nation’s top ranked Crimson Tide.

In Chicago and other major cities, kids are playing a “knock out game” in which they pick a random person walking down the street to sucker-punch and knock out cold.

What is really going on?

It all adds up to a total lack of respect for human life, decency, moral foundations and individual liberty. It shines a spotlight on the breakdown of the nuclear family, the moral degradation of American society, the over-use of psychotropic drugs, and the failed notion that “society” can raise children better than decent honest parents can.

Statistically speaking, life in Chicago is more dangerous than military deployment in Afghanistan and with increasing regularity, the violence involves children. It must be pointed out that Chicago leads the nation in both anti-Second Amendment statutes and gun violence.

The question isn’t how children are killing random innocent victims, but why?

And why have these events skyrocketed under the Obama Administration?

Most of these events end with the shooter turning the gun on themselves. They have lost all “hope” and do not appear to like the “changes” happening in America.

American’s must ask the right questions in order to get to the right answers.

Begin with…  Why have there been more of these killing in the last five years than the preceding thirty-five years…? And why are children now behind the gun?

The guns used in these crimes are no more responsible for the crime than the shoes worn to walk to the shooting site. Guns have been part of American culture for more than 237 years, but what is happening today is quite new.

Supporters of Democratic Socialism will deny that they have any responsibility for these events, but there is no running from the fact that these events started on their watch and have skyrocketed under their leadership.

What impact is “hope and change” really having on our children? Why are children killing?

Politician supports forcible police inspection of homes

Selectman Barry GreenfieldCiting the state of Massachusetts’ law that requires all gun owners to store firearms in a safe manner out of the reach of children, Swampscott Selectman Barry Greenfield said he supports enabling local police officers to force their way into private homes of registered gun owners to inspect their firearm storage.

Currently, police are required to obtain a warrant and abide by the protections that all Americans are afforded under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution before entering private residences.  However, “We need the ability to enforce the state law,” said Selectman Greenfield.  Apparently, Greenfield does not believe local Swampscott residents are worthy of 4th Amendment protections.

According to this elected official, civil liberties no longer apply in his utopia in Massachusetts.  Gun owners are typically wary of calls for gun registrations because of politicians like Greenfield who believe their own draconian political ambitions trump the Constitution.

I refer all readers to the 4th amendment to the Constitution, which states that all people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant and probable cause before government officials can enter homes and seize property.  Clearly, this proposed policy would violate the 4th Amendment and leave residents wondering where their constitutional rights went.

Greenfield backed off his statements to BearingArms.com.

I’m simply asking the question of whether an existing law can be enforced. I’m not trying to add any laws. I asked our board of selectmen whether we could look into potential methods of enforcement. Can the police conduct a investigation with due notice, similar to a building permit inspection or a fire inspection when you want to sell your home? If not, fine.

Right, Mr. Greenfield.  What you meant to say is that freedom-loving Americans caught on to your suggestion that the 4th Amendment no longer apply in your fair town.

Too late.