Entries in gun control (194)

Saturday
Apr062013

Politico is Progressive Propaganda

The liberal media will do anything to pressure lawmakers to support the Progressive subversives gun-control agenda.

Far left wing, Obama puppet Politico published a story Wednesday with this headline: “Hunting Group Wants Background Checks.” The story gave the false impression that the millions of hunters in the U.S. support Obama’s push for “universal background checks.”

In fact, 31 well-known hunting and conservation groups sent a letter to Capitol Hill Thursday expressing opposition to intrusion by the federal government into private firearm transfers.

As reported by Emily Miller at the Washington Times , Politico only cites one small group in its story, Bull Moose Sportsmen, which claims 5,000 members. The story gives no context for the size of this group in relation to other hunting advocacy groups, nor its prominence in the community. The single poll cited in the Politico story is one commissioned by the group itself and claims 72 percent of hunters support “criminal background checks with some exceptions.”

None of the major hunting groups which represent the millions of law-abiding sportsmen was mentioned, nor the polling of those members.

In fact, Bull Moose Sportsmen is a fringe organization run by Democratic activists that has been rejected from membership into the major gun and hunting groups’ umbrella organization because it refuses to reveal its funding sources.

The American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) is a consortium of 42 organizations, including major groups such as Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, National Wildlife Turkey Federation, National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The groups together represent 6 million individual members.

Members of AWCP told Miller that Bull Moose has been denied entry into their organization because it refused to reveal its mysterious funding sources.

According to some public filings, the “non-partisan nonprofit organization” gave $17,000 in the 2012 federal election, and all of it went to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado. It spent $117,540 in support of Mr. Bennet in the 2010 cycle. The group raised $354,228 in 2011 and spent $295,863.

While calling itself “nonpartisan,” Bull Moose Sportsmen is run by Democrats. Co-Founder Gaspar Perricone, who told Politico that, “Background checks fall within the ethics of responsible gun ownership,” is a former staffer for Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat. Politico also ran an op-ed by Mr. Perricone on Thursday entitled, “Hunters Chart Middle Ground on Guns.” The other co-founder of Bull Moose, Tim Mauck, was Mr. Udall’s finance director and was paid $4,743 by the senator’s campaign in 2012.

The real hunting groups do not want private transfers of firearms to be subject to government checks. On Thursday, most of the groups in the AWCP coalition signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to offer a five-point plan that would address the problem of gun violence.

Among the suggestions is to improve the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System so that it can effectively prevent access to firearms by those not legally qualified to possess them without criminalizing private transfers.

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …  Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State

Wednesday
Apr032013

40% of Gun Purchases Lack Background Checks: Lie Perpetuated by Progressive Subversives

“Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check?” — Barack Hussein Obama, remarks on gun safety, March 28, 2013

“FACT: Nearly 40% of all gun sales dont require a background check under current law. #DemandAction — tweet from @BarackObama, March 28

The REAL Facts:

As Reported by the Washington Post , hardly a Second Amendment civil rights supporter, there are two key problems with the use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet Obama acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to “purchases” or “sales” when in fact the original report concerned “gun acquisitions” and “transactions.”  Those are much broader categories of data.

As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.

This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

The survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.)

Moreover, when asked whether the respondent bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although as we noted before, the survey sample is so small that it is worthless.

Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)

Meanwhile, note the phrasing in the original report — “acquisitions” and “transactions,” which included trades, gifts and the like. But Obama spoke of “gun purchases,” and his tweet referred to “gun sales.”

Why is it important to make a distinction between purchases and transactions? For one thing, the Senate bill that would expand background checks — supported by the White House — specifically makes an exception for “a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings” as well as “the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will.” As noted above, such transactions can change the results.

The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January The Washington Post asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. Thats at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama.

The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.

The White House has repeated declined to comment on why the president keeps using the “up to 40 percent” statistic.

I can answer that one easily.  Because Obama and Progressive statists are liars who intentionally mislead to promote their agenda.  Their agenda is to ban civilian firearms ownership in the United States. 

As noted by John Lott in the National Review Online , the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent.

The survey asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all FFLs do background checks, those perceived as being FFLs were the only ones counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the very smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no inkling that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and thus reported not buying from an FFL when in fact they did.

But the high figure comes primarily from including such transactions as inheritances or gifts from family members. Putting aside these various biases, if you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through FFLs; just 15 percent were transferred without a background check.

If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent.

We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits. One gun owner I spoke to recently acquired 20 firearms over the last 12 years.  Five of those guns were purchased from federally licensed dealers at a local gun show.  The vast majority of gun show sales are made by federally licensed dealers.  Only one of the twenty gun transfers was made without a government background check.  That was a private sale between immediate family members.

Even if few purchases avoid background checks, should we further expand the checks?

The current system of background checks suffers from many flaws, some causing dangerous delays for people who suddenly need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex. In addition to crashes in the computers doing the checks, 8 percent of background checks are not accomplished within two hours, with almost all of these delays taking three days or longer. 

Obama has made many other false statements during his gun grab push . He asserted that “over the last 14 years [background checks] kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.” But these were only “initial denials,” not people prevented from buying guns.

In 2010, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms dropped over 94 percent of those “initial denials” after just preliminary reviews. Virtually all the remaining cases were dropped after further investigation by ATF field offices or the Department of Justice. Few of these “initial denials,” 62 people or about 0.1 percent, involved strong enough evidence to be consideration for prosecution. Just 13 pleaded guilty or were convicted.

Clearly, criminals are not stopped by the checks. That isn’t really too surprising because even when guns were banned in Washington, D.C., and Chicago, or even in island nations such as the U.K., Ireland, and Jamaica, criminals still got guns and murder rates rose after the bans. 

No amount of background checks on private transfers would have stopped the Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Colorado massacres.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.  -Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

Friday
Mar292013

Patriot Senators Vow to Stop Unconstitutional National Firearms Registration

Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee who provided the most support for the filibuster of the drone program intend to use less dramatic means to block Senate gun control legislation.  The White House is playing the phony sensitivity card to further their liberal fascist gun control agenda.

Let me make it clear; there is NOTHING in this proposed Progressive gun legislation that would have done ANYTHING to stop Newtown or Aurora. Nor will anything in the law stop future criminals and crazies intent on mass shootings.

These gun control measure are intended to curtail legal gun ownership and restrict the Second Amendment civil rights of law abiding citizens.  It takes a legally armed good guy to stop an illegally armed bad guy. PERIOD

The proposals Obama is calling for Congress to pass would serve to reduce the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding citizens while having little or no effect on violent crime.  In a press release Senator Lee said,  It is deeply unfortunate that he continues to use the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime. Along with my colleagues Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, I have informed the Majority Leader that we will exercise our procedural right to require a 60-vote threshold in order to bring any of the presidents proposals to the floor.

“We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions,” the lawmakers wrote  to Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a letter on Friday.

The White House criticized the Republican senators’ decision. “To tell the families of those who lost their children to gun violence, that votes like this might be filibustered, I don’t think that would be welcome news.”

Senator Cruz raised the specter of a national gun registry in a statement explaining his move. “The Democrats’ proposed legislation would require universal background checks for private sales between law-abiding citizens, which according to DOJ would be effective only if accompanied by a national gun registry,” he said. “This raises serious constitutional issues, and would divert resources from prosecuting felons and fugitives who try to illegally purchase guns.”

Senator Lee refuses to let the left usurp civil rights easily. “Bills that potentially violate Americans’ constitutional rights should at least pass with a bipartisan majority and not be imposed by the majority alone,” communications director Brian Phillips told The Washington Examiner. “That’s why we have these rules in the Senate.”

By requiring a 60-vote threshold to end the debate, the Republican Senators can increase pressure on red-state Democrats who face re-election in 2014. Dirty Harry Reid has been trying to protect them from tough votes on gun control by separating the assault weapons ban from the broader gun package, which allows some lawmakers to vote for the full bill but against the ban. But if the red-state Democrats are needed to overcome the opposition posed by Paul, Lee, and Cruz, they might have to take the kind of vote that could damage them in 2014.

Senators who vote against the interests and principles of the Constitution and their constituents must be held accountable. The proposed legislation would require individuals to keep private records of gun sales they make, FOREVER.  This creates a national gun registry, which is contrary to current federal law and a violation of Second Amendment civil rights.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., continue to work on reaching a compromise, but they have yet to produce a bill both sides can agree on. 

Ranking Judiciary Committee member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is working on an alternative bill.  The bill is still being written, and it is an alternative to reduce gun violence, says a spokesman in Grassleys office. Sen. Grassley wants to address gun violence in a manner that does not violate the constitution, which is why he is working on a separate bill.

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin -American Statesman

Wednesday
Mar272013

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in America

Founded by Jews in 1989, Jew for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) initially educated the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed. JPFO has always welcomed people of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim-disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all. JPFO is the brainchild of Aaron Zelman (1946 - 2010), a leading national civil-rights activist.

JPFO is a non-profit tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational civil-rights organization, not a lobby. JPFO’s products and programs reach out to as many segments of the American people as possible, using bold tactics without compromise on fundamental principles

JPFO has always welcomed people of all religious beliefs (or none) who share a common goal of opposing and reversing potentially deadly victim disarmament policies. You don’t have to be Jewish to join JPFO; you just have to love freedom.

Aaron Zelman, a proud Jew, initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed. He was appalled that so many Jewish politicians and influential Jewish public officials and spokes people actually advocated citizen disarmament. He said it many a time: “Jews should be the last people on Earth to support ‘gun control’. See: An Interview With Aaron Zelman

The current Executive Director of JPFO is Charles Heller. Mr. Heller grew up in Chicago, the son of a law-enforcement officer and grandson of a judge.  He had a BB-gun rifle range in the basement of his grandfathers house, and fired thousands of shots during his youth.

In 1978 he moved to Arizona, specifically so he could exercise his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Hes literally one of the many political refugee from places like Chicago, New York, New Jersey and Maryland who move to free states like Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Florida and about 35 other shall issue states.

Mr. Heller is one of four co-founders of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, the primary self-defense civil-rights lobby in Arizona.  They are responsible for the passage of Constitutional Carry in Arizona, which recognizes the right to carry openly or concealed without a permission slip from government.

So-called “gun control” is a deadly lie. Firearms registration lists lead governments-gone-bad straight to gun owners. Licensing and registration of guns has resulted in outright banning and confiscation over the last one hundred years of world history. The bloody results of these mass citizen disarmaments have been horrific.

Click here for more information of JPFO

Anyone who is lawfully adjudicated unfit to carry a firearm should not be on the street in the first place. They should be in prison or in a mental institution. We’ve thrown the baby (our personal liberties) out with the bathwater, making us helpless to protect ourselves from armed criminals and lunatics. And who promotes this delusional illogic the most fervently? Politicians and the law enforcement hierarchy.”    -Aaron Zelman

Saturday
Mar232013

Federal Appeals Court Rules Maryland May Infringe Second Amendment Civil Rights

Jeff Pittman of the Mississippi State Firearms Association reports in his weekly newsletter that a three member panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the decision by a US District Court for Maryland and has upheld the Maryland gun permit law in the case Woollard v. Sheridan.

The District Courts decision set aside the states requirement that an applicant demonstrate a good and substantial reason to state police prior to issuance of a handgun carry permit in Maryland.  Plaintiffs argued that one doesnt need a good reason to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right. 

Judge Robert B. King wrote for the panel that the state has clearly demonstrated that such a requirement advances the objectives of protecting public safety and preventing crime because it reduces the number of handguns carried in public.
 
Jeff points out that there is no Constitutional guarantee of public safety, but there is one stating that citizens right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It is simply a lie that reducing the number of handguns carried in public reduces crime or enhance public safety. See Chicago for details. In fact, study after study in shall issue conceal carry states, consistently show a decrease in violent crime.
 
Plaintiffs attorney Alan Gura hasnt decided whether to seek en banc review by all of the judges on the 4th Circuit or to petition the Supreme Court, but apparently an appeal is forthcoming.

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginias Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Page 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 39 Next 5 Entries »