Student Indoctrination: On 2nd Amendment, we must remain vigilant

The Bristol, Conn. Public School system has been called out for what can only be called gun-control indoctrination using old information pushing a specific political agenda. Luckily, parents took notice of the lies and propaganda, and Bristol’s superintendent of schools had the assignment withdrawn from the classroom.

Read more

Trifecta for tyranny, Part Three

We’ve posted this before (in November, 2011), and Jim spoke about it again today in light of the Supreme Court’s hearings on gay “marriage”.    Read more

Inconvenient facts: what is the real difference in violent crime between the U.S. and Great Britain?

Piers Morgan has been peddling his mantra of the U.S. being the “wild west” in terms of gun violence, and continues to make the point that the U.S. has a relatively high number of gun related deaths compared to Great Britain (GB).  In literal numbers, yes, the U.S., with its Second Amendment, and roughly six fold greater population (316 million in the U.S. vs. about 51 million in England excluding Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland; about 60 million with them included), demonstrates a higher level of gun related deaths, about 210 to 30,364, adjusted for population in 2009.  Of course, with a virtually complete gun ban, one wonders how those gun related deaths occurred at all, given that GB is a relatively small island with a fifth of the U.S. population and no open borders.  But I digress.

Let’s use the liberal’s own logic to examine this: has disarming the population of GB made their citizens safer?  According to a Gallup poll taken in 2006 (the most recent they have on the subject), the overall crime rate is lower in the U.S. than GB (or Canada).  Of course, the public perception is that crime is on the increase has risen, despite sharp declines in U.S. violent crime rates.  It is my considered opinion that the overly sensational coverage of crime by the media is responsible for this.

Actually, in GB, since 1997, when the Labour Party took control and the Firearms Act of 1997 was enacted, effectively disarming the British public, there has been a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses.  As a historical note, this bill passed as a result of the “Snowdrop Petition” that was generated as a result of 16 children being shot in Dunblane.  Sound familiar?  As Rahm Emmanuel put it:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

As a result of “doing things they couldn’t do before”, British citizens have no means of defending themselves against gangs of knife wielding thugs, and even if they did, the government is in the practice of prosecuting the victim, not the perpetrator.  Criminals see gun free zones, or countries in this case, as welcome mats.  Places where people can defend themselves, not so much.  To pop the liberal balloon that says more guns equals more crime, if you actually look at the statistics, in GB and Chicago, after similar gun bans, homicides continued to increase (with a bit of a spike in GB after 1997, coincidentally), while in places like Washington DC, Florida and Texas, when right to carry laws became effective, murder rates continued a sharp decline or actually increased the decline.  Where is all the “wild west” gun play that liberals like Piers Morgan pontificate about?  Where it has always been: in their minds.  That and Hollywood.

The figure that really counts in this discussion, and is rarely if ever used by the media, is the rate of violent crime per 100K people.  In GB, this important figure is over 2000/100K, while in the U.S., the rate is 466/100K.  That’s right, less than one quarter of the British number.  Now honestly, given the facts, where would you feel safer walking on a dark street at night, GB or the U.S.?  If an assailant is in front of you with a baseball bat, demanding your money, will you feel better that he doesn’t have a gun?  Want to bet that a major contributor to our significantly lower rate of violent crime compared to GB is because we still have the right to defend ourselves with a weapon?

Where do we turn to find a historically based, sound defense of the Second Amendment and the right to arm oneself in self defense?  Oddly enough, Pravda, which has become a more reliable news source than most of our self proclaimed “important” media.  In an article published shortly after the Newtown murders, one Stanislav Mushin commented as follows:

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room.  Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases.  As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or homemade bombs (everywhere), insane people strike.  They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack.  What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly.  So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted?  Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

From his lips to a politician’s deaf ear.  Deranged or fanatical people will always find a way to vent their violence on innocents; they just are less inclined to do so when the innocents can defend themselves.  Let’s not repeat Britain’s mistakes.

Last but not least, maybe the only people we need to fear with guns are the very people that publicly rail against gun ownership.  Case in point: on CNN Piers Morgan and his liberal peanut gallery “joked” about shooting talk show host Alex Jones, who cleaned Morgan’s clock on a gun ownership debate on a previous night.  Now why would they feel the need to “joke” in the very vernacular that would get a conservative roundly criticized (along with the requisite accusations of being crazy)?  To demonstrate that this is the common thought among liberals, just look at the Twitter comments that follow the video in that piece.  See any peaceniks, or do you see near sociopathic commentary by drooling, slack jawed, liberal anti gun nuts?  Why are the self appointed guardians of the public peace so violent?

Liberal, heal thyself.

The Second Amendment … It seems so simple

But it’s not. I do not profess to be a Constitutional scholar, but I think my understanding is better than average and I’ve done my research. Let’s take a look at the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Read more

Trifecta for tyranny, Part Deux

We posted what follows on November 11, 2010.  In light of recent events, perhaps it is time to repeat it.  Guns…Fast and Furious, wealth…the rich aren’t paying their fair share, religion… Read more

Trifecta for tyranny

We posted what follows on November 11, 2010.  In light of recent events, perhaps it is time to repeat it.  Guns…Fast and Furious, wealth…the rich aren’t paying their fair share, religion… Read more

States must comply with the Second Amendment

Today, in a very close decision, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that no state can pass a law that would violate a citizen’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Before going further, though, it is important to understand what the decision does, and what the decision does not do.  It allows citizens of any state to own a gun, and provides that individual states (or cities, or municipalities) cannot pass laws that would interfere with that right.  But, it does not allow anyone,

to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose.  (see p. 45)

The question presented in McDonald was whether the second amendment is a “fundamental” right.  As Justice Alito put it (in the majority opinion), a fundamental right is one that is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice”, and which is a “fundamental principle of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions”. (see p. 22, emphasis in original)

According to the Court, the right to bear arms is as fundamental to our American system as the right to freedom of speech, or, the “right” to remain silent, or, the “right” to be represented by council in criminal proceedings.  As such, the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause prohibits a state from denying any citizen the right to bear arms.

Of further interest is the Court’s emphasis of the word “our” in the above quote.  Justice Stevens’, in his dissenting opinion, believes that the American concept of “fundamental rights” and “due process” should be defined, in part, by what other countries do.  Not only do I have trouble with this approach, as it would allow judges to basically pick and choose laws from other countries, and apply them here willy nilly, but, so does Justice Scalia.  He devotes virtually the entirety of his concurring opinion to explaining why Stevens’ approach to constitutional law is flawed.  He takes apart Steven’s thought that due process should only apply to what has been historically protected, reasoning that were that the case, no new rights could ever be recognized by any court, no matter how fundamental that right was (see p. 56); and, Stevens’ belief that courts should make “moral judgments” in determining fundamental rights.

Justice Stevens’ approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever
the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected rights will be whatever courts wish it to be… Justice Stevens abhors a system in which ‘majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way’…but replaces it with a system in which unelected and lifetenured judges always get their way. (p. 66)

Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion, beginning at page 52, is certainly well worth the time it takes to read it.  In a logical and reasoned manner, he pretty much dismantels any claim that the Constitution should be some “living breathing document” that changes not only from moment to moment, but from court room to court room.

In a post that is already way to long, one more thing struck me.  Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor did not join in Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion…Justice Breyer wrote his own dissenting opinion, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in that opinion.  Could Justice Stevens’ views be even way to liberal for them?

University professor calls cops after presentation on gun rights

A few months ago I wrote that some people tend to freak out at the sight of a gun magazine let alone an actual firearm. Many thought I was exaggerating. Right. Well now we have a university student presenting a topic concerning Second Amendment rights and the professor calls the cops.

Hat tip to reader Jerry. Read the post on Central Connecticut State Universities (CCSU) The Recorder Online.

Professor Called Police After Student Presentation
For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.

On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses. [more]

Nothing like a little First Amendment bashing of those speaking about the dreaded Second Amendment.

Wahlberg was called to the CCSU police department – a division of the Connecticut State Police – where they listed off the firearms registered to him and asked him where they were kept. Talk about harassment.

Before commenting further on Wahlberg’s presentation, it would be great to actually see it in video format, the slides or the presentation notes.

Does anyone know how to get in contact with Wahlberg to see if we can get a copy of his presentation?

NRA legislation update – national carry and firearm licensing

On Sound Off Connecticut today, current legislation in the U.S. House concerning firearm licensing was mentioned and we have an update for you. The NRA is tracking legislation and provides us with the proposal details.

If you are a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the services is e-mail notification concerning proposed legislation in your state and at the federal level.

First, positive legislation that you should support. H.R. 197 is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009. In part, it states that if you go through the required background check and fulfill state requirements to have a pistol permit, that state issued permit should be accepted without question in other states. I guess you can compare this to a drivers license that is accepted in other states.

Many argue that nobody should be required to even have a permit to carry a self defense weapon after the normal background check. If they “grant” permission to you, you accept the fact that rights are given to you by the government. I understand that position since rights described in The Constitution are unalienable, not granted by the government.

There would also be issues around Vermont residents who are not required to have a permit to carry a pistol; anyone can buy a pistol and carry after the standard background check.

I wonder why there are no “wild west shootouts” in Vermont? Anyway, here’s the text of H.R. 197.

H. R. 197 (111th Congress, 1st Session)
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

January 6, 2009

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009′.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.

On to H.R. 45 – Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act. I’ve made the full PDF of the legislation available here, but here is the recap from the NRA.

The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things:  a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. …

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner’s address in America.  Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a “qualifying firearm” — defined as “any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…” without one of the proposed licenses.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a “qualifying firearm” to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require “qualifying firearm” owners to report all transfers to the attorney general’s database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence.

The NRA also tracks legislation at the state level. Our readers and listeners are from all over the country, but here is the information on proposed legislation for the State of Connecticut. Here is the link to find information concerning legislation in your state and how you can help.

Anti-gun legislation, Senate Bill 554, introduced by State Senator Leonard Fasano (R-34), would ban the private sale of long guns and subject them to the same licensing requirements as handguns.  SB554 has been referred to Public Safety and Security Committee.

Please contact members of the Public Safety and Security Committee today and respectfully urge them to vote “NO” on Senate Bill 554.  Click here for a list of the members of the Public Safety Committee.

On a positive note, several pieces of NRA-supported legislation were introduced.  Senate Bill 729, sponsored by State Senator Dan Debicella (R-21), Senate Bill 727, sponsored by State Senator Sam Caligiuri (R-16), and House Bill 6165, sponsored by State Representative Penny Bacchiochi (R-52), all clarify and improve upon current law as it relates to the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.  These bills have all been referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary.

Two very important pro-hunting bills were also introduced and referred to the Joint Committee on Environment.  House Bill 5209, sponsored by State Representative Craig Miner (R-66), would maintain the amount of state land where hunting is permitted should land be taken away.  House Bill 5281, sponsored by State Representative Bryan Hurlburt (D-53), would allow deer hunters to take two additional deer provided the meat is donated to a nonprofit entity serving the needy.

Please contact the members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary today in support of Senate Bill 729, Senate Bill 727, and House Bill 6165.  Click here for a list of the members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary.

Please contact the members of the Joint Committee on Environment today in support of House Bill 5209 and House Bill 5281.  Click here for a list of the members of the Joint Committee on Environment.

Today’s Second Amendment news update

Maybe we should include a feature called “Second Amendment Tuesday” here on the blog and the radio show. There are quite a few stories that have popped up during the last couple of weeks concerning boisterous buying at our local Second Amendment shops, but here are a couple of stories that have been below the fold and under the radar; and one from a commentator who’s plain wrong Read more