Good Guys with Guns: 01/01/2013

reposted by permission from Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY
http://www.spw-duf.info

From GOA: ...Originally, Obama's allies had announced they would reintroduce the 1994 ban on commonly-owned, defensive firearms. That was until they found out that they would look like fools, since that semi-auto ban was largely the law of Connecticut on the day the Newtown shooting occurred – and didn't cover Adam Lanza's AR-15. After that, gun grabbers just kept adding more and more guns until they would register (or ban) a huge percentage of the defensive guns in existence. So where are we now? Obama's crazy gun ban is now being denounced by many Democrats. And, although you don't "pop the cork" until Congress adjourns, it will probably take the magazine ban down the toilet with it. This means that gun owners' focus must now shift to the part of Obama's agenda which poses the most danger because it is most likely to move: the requirement that the government approve every gun transfer in America – the so-called universal background check. All of you know why this is a problem. But how do you explain it so simply that even a congressman can understand? Let's take a crack at that... ACTION: Contact your senators and congressman. Urge them to oppose the universal background check because it is a platform for national firearms registration and confiscation. This alert goes on to carefully lay out five very compelling arguments against the so-called universal background checks and is must reading even if you don't follow through and send the pre-written message to your Representative and Senators.)

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62339821
--
90%, 40% - What's the Difference: Of all the gun-control measures touted by President Obama on Wednesday, the one that got top billing was a dramatic tightening of background checks on gun purchasers. Obama himself said the need was urgent because “40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.” But before we make the most sweeping changes in federal firearms law since the 1960s, shouldn’t we at least examine the validity of that figure? It’s about as dubious as they come... The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks – which is actually 36 percent – comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994. If that alone didn’t make the number invalid, the federal survey simply asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all Federal Firearm Licensees do background checks, only those perceived as being FFLs were counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no idea that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and so the survey underestimating the number of sales covered by the checks. Another reason for the high number is that it includes guns transferred as inheritances or as gifts from family members. Even President Obama’s background proposal excludes almost all of those transfers... (The figure of 40% is brought to you by the same folks who fabricated the claim that 90% of the firearms recovered in drug-related crimes in Mexico came from US gun shops. Anyway, I'd have no problem if 90% of US firearm transfers bypassed NICS. Criminals will still get guns either way and background checks merely pave the way for registration and subsequent confiscation.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/337958
--
So, What's the Point?: During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws. Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” ...Baker, the NRA’s director of federal affairs, told TheDC that he was given five minutes to present the NRA’s concerns and the approach the group saw as being the most effective to prevent another massacre like the Newtown, Conn. shooting. During those five minutes, he said, he mentioned the need to prosecute existing gun laws. He pointed to the low number of prosecutions for information falsification and the relatively low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes. Biden was apparently unmoved by Baker’s concern... (The usual pattern in the American judicial system is for firearm-related charges against real criminals to get dropped in the plea-bargain process, leaving enforcement of those laws mostly against those who have committed only some sort of technical, victimless crime.)
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/
--
Don't Count Your Chickens Yet: Some vulnerable Senate Democrats are balking at President Obama’s new push on gun control, reflecting the tough position many will be in if Congress takes up major firearms legislation. Shortly after Obama unveiled the details of his policy, a number of Democrats from conservative, heavily rural states who are up for reelection in 2014 indicated they’re likely to oppose the measures. The responses indicate how tough it will be for any legislation to move through Congress – and how tricky an issue it is for some rural-state Democrats facing reelection. Here’s a rundown of what some of those Democrats had to say about the proposals.. (The fat lady has not even walked onto the stage yet. Don't forget how skillfully Chicago-schooled Big Brother used carrots and sticks to get recalcitrant members of his Dependency Party to vote for so-called healthcare reform – the bill that had to be passed so we could learn what was in it.)

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/277783-vulnerable-senate-democrats-balk-at-obamas-gun-measures
Meanwhile: Sen. Rand Paul is pledging to undo some of President Barack Obama’s executive orders on guns that the Kentucky Republican believes overreach. “In this bill we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation,” Rand said Wednesday on Fox’s “Hannity,” referencing his legislation that is slated to be introduced in Congress next week. “And there are several of the executive orders that appear as if he’s writing new law. That cannot happen.” ...“I’m afraid that President Obama may have this ‘king complex’ sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen,” Paul said, adding that the Founding Fathers specified that Congress should make laws... Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) hit back at Paul Thursday morning. “But the notion that we’re going to nullify presidential action when the president is acting pursuant to law, that’s just kind of this anti-government rhetoric that I’m surprised to hear somebody in government use it,” he said on CNN’s “Starting Point.” (However, if Congress does not like the way a president is interpreting or enforcing a law, it is definitely within its power to alter or repeal it.)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rand-paul-on-gun-control-pledges-to-nullify-obama-orders-86332.html
Some Republicans were quick to denounce President Obama's plan to bypass Congress and use his executive powers to institute gun violence proposals. But most of the GOP has been conspicuously silent on the matter, and constitutional scholars have concluded that the president is acting within the law. "I was actually pleasantly surprised that Obama did not try to legislate by executive order," said Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute. Obama rolled out a series of gun control measures Wednesday, including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips, but he also signed 23 "executive actions" that will institute a variety of gun-related issues without congressional approval. Shapiro said it appeared none of the initiatives seemed to rise to the level of actual executive orders, which are recorded in the Federal Register, but are more akin to memoranda or actions that can be taken by the executive branch without any special recognition... (Perhaps, but if Congress has any spine, it can still deny funding or repeal or amend the laws that Big Brother has chosen to enforce – as opposed to he chooses to ignore, such as immigration.)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-opposition-to-obamas-use-of-exec.-powers-limited/article/2518987#.UPl4-_KH-So
Rallies have been scheduled to protest Barack Obama’s gun agenda, members of Congress are pondering their resistance and American consumers are speaking daily with ever-new records for gun purchases. Now states are getting into action, with several legislatures already developing bills that would simply pull the rug from under the president’s agenda by specifying that unconstitutional rules or regulations, or executive orders, won’t be allowed. Rep. Kendell Kroeker of Wyoming introduced HB 104, The Firearms Protection Act, and spoke to WND about the bill... Texas also has started its work, developing a plan to block enforcement of those efforts that are in violation of the Second Amendment, which notes that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” ...Missouri has also joined the fight. On Tuesday Rep. Casey Guernsey, R-Bethany, introduced HB170, a similar bill that would block state or federal enforcement of a wide range of unconstitutional federal restrictions on firearms. It also affirms the state’s authority to regulate firearms made and owned within Missouri and makes it a felony for any federal agent to attempt to enforce a federal regulation on those weapons. Tennessee, South Dakota and South Carolina also have similar bills pending before their legislatures. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate as many as a dozen more states could follow suit in the coming weeks. Alaska also is planning an upgrade of its firearms freedom act too, much like the actions in Wyoming and Texas. Those existing Firearms Freedom Acts were adopted several years ago, and simply state that federal regulation of firearms made, sold and kept in the states is banned...

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/states-pulling-rug-from-under-obama-gun-plans/?cat_orig=politics
--
A Historical Reminder?: Among the 23 “executive actions” President Obama announced yesterday amidst great fanfare (and shameless exploitation of children) is this: “Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” Obama may want to put a hold on that one, until he comes to grips with what happened the last time a U.S. president tried it. During the late ’70s, President Jimmy Carter and his inner circle determined to push through comprehensive new federal gun-control legislation. They decided the best way to grease the congressional skids would be to have a massive scientific study conducted which, in the end, would proclaim that gun-control laws were effective in reducing crime. So the Carter folks handed out a major gun-control research grant to University of Massachusetts sociology professor James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. They spent four years and lots of tax dollars to produce what would be the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research – an exhaustive, three-volume work titled “Under the Gun.” There was only one problem. Their findings, summarized starkly by co-author Wright, were that “Gun control laws do not reduce crime.” … (Don't forget that Big Brother was schooled as an attorney – a profession with a dictum that you don't ask a question in court to which don't already know the answer. Apparently, Wright et al. were willing to let the chips fall where they may. The history of CDC is that any studies they conduct will be designed to produce the desired result - “proving” that firearm ownership is a “public health” problem.)

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/
A Better Explanation?: ...Memories are short. It was only 15 years ago that Congress cut off federal funding for the Centers for Disease Control’s gun research. Top CDC officials such as Patrick O’Carroll, M.D., had said things like “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” Nor was Congress pleased that the CDC had funded in the spring of 1995 a newsletter from the San Francisco gun-control group the Trauma Foundation. This newsletter advised “advocates” to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s clout.” There’s no reason to believe the CDC will not again use taxpayer millions to pay for more anti-gun-rights pamphleteering...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337935/obama-s-directs-his-executive-power-america-s-gun-owners-timothy-wheeler

The directives on gun violence President Obama signed Wednesday were meant to seem harmless. A closer look at the president’s first memorandum reveals it to be a sneaky assault on congressional authority in order to fund gun-control propaganda. Getting this done has been on the White House “to do” list for some time. In his 2013 budget submission, Mr. Obama deleted the prohibition that has been in effect since 1995 on the use of federal funds to advocate or promote gun control. Mr. Obama is trying to steamroll the Democratic and Republican majorities that kept the ban intact by labeling the advocacy as research. “While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” said Mr. Obama. Under the terms of the memo, CDC may “sponsor” another entity to conduct the research, which is a handy way of funneling taxpayer cash to sympathetic gun-control groups... By calling gun violence a “public health crisis” on Wednesday, Mr. Obama echoed Mr. Clinton’s model. It’s a move that could cost lives, as shifting funding away from fighting disease creates severely misplaced priorities. In 2010, 780,213 Americans died from cardiovascular disease and 574,743 from cancer, compared with 11,078 firearm homicides... Congress must reassert itself and override this executive action so that more tax dollars aren’t wasted. If Mr. Bloomberg wants more propaganda, he can pay for it out of his own deep pockets.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/18/tax-dollars-for-gun-control/
--
John Lott Gets Another Shot: Warning about "weapons designed for the theater of war," President Obama on Wednesday called for immediate action on a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He said that "more of our fellow Americans might still be alive" if the original assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, had not expired in 2004. Last month, in the wake of the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) promised to introduce an updated version of the ban. She too warned of the threat posed by "military weapons." ...Moreover, none of the weapons banned under the 1994 legislation or the updated version are "military" weapons. The killer in Newtown used a Bushmaster .223. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is "no reason" for such "military-style weapons" to be available to civilians... Yes, the Bushmaster and the AK-47 are "military-style weapons." But the key word is "style" – they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the Bushmaster uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet – .30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. No self-respecting military in the world would use the civilian version of these guns... Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report. By 2011, the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000 people. One should also bear in mind that just 2.6% of all murders are committed using any type of rifle. The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates... (Nothing really new here other than that it's nice to see it presented to the influential readership of The Wall Street Journal.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068.html
--
More Community Organizing: President Obama on Thursday mobilized the massive campaign operation that twice helped elect him as part of an effort to pressure Congress to pass his gun control proposals. Obama for America has been virtually silent since the November elections. But the president revived the grassroots organization to help convince Americans to back his call for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines and push for universal background checks for gun buyers. Early Thursday, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina sent emails to millions of supporters urging them to "stand with President Obama" on gun control, and later, Vice President Biden previewed the campaign-style blitz the White House will initiate... It's not certain that Obama can reclaim and invigorate the national network of backers that propelled him to victory over Republican Mitt Romney last year. And while his supporters did rally around the president in the fight for middle-class tax cuts, guns are a more polarizing issue... (It could prove that many American gun owners and potential gun owners believed that they could safely vote to re-elect Big Brother for perceived economic benefits as they swallowed the lie that he had actually expanded the RKBA during his first term. Who knows? Nearly a century ago, H.L. Mencken noted that no one has ever gone broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.)
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-puts-campaign-muscle-behind-gun-control-push/article/2518985#.UPl-YPKH-So
--
Lies, Damned Lies and Polls: Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. [To see survey question wording – seven questions – click the second link.) ...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/january_2013/questions_gun_control_january_16_17_2013
Americans place more blame for mass shootings on parents and Hollywood than they do on guns, a surprising new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reveals. Asked how much responsibility several choices might bear for the shootings that have taken place in Tucson, Ariz.; Aurora, Colo.; and Newtown, Conn., guns came in fifth. The top choice was “parents not paying enough attention to what is going on in their children’s lives” – 83 percent said that was “a great deal” or a “good amount” responsible. Only 4 percent said “none at all.” The second choice, selected by 82 percent as “a great deal” or “a good amount,” was “the lack of effective treatment for mental illness.” Next came “the amount of media coverage of mass shootings,” at 67 percent. Fourth was “movies, television programs, and video games that portray violence and violent behavior,” chosen by 62 percent.
Tied for fifth place at 59 percent each was “assault and military-style firearms being legal to purchase,” and “the availability of high capacity ammunition clips.” ...
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/poll-blame-violence-hollywood/2013/01/18/id/472068
--
Speaking Philosophically: ...Meanwhile, Paul Waldman of the lefty American Prospect offers up a doozy of a non sequitur in a CNN essay pooh-poohing the Second Amendment: “To be clear, most gun owners aren't stockpiling canned goods and assault rifles in preparation for some kind of societal breakdown that will give them permission to act out the violent fantasies they've been nurturing for years. But many would say that their "right" to own any and every kind of firearm they please is the only thing that guarantees that tyranny won't come to the United States. Well, guess what: They're wrong. In today's world, most tyrants aren't overthrown by an armed populace. Nonviolent revolutions can result in a quick transition to democracy, while violent insurrections often result in long and bloody civil wars.” Even assuming that Waldman is correct about the best way to overthrow a tyrant, surely he does not think America is ruled by a tyrant right now. The question, which he evades entirely, is whether the Second Amendment helps prevent one from arising.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324468104578247901894797168.html
After receiving a set of recommendations from a task force led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., President Obama will Wednesday announce plans for major legislation to prevent gun violence in the wake of last month’s mass shootings in Newtown, Conn. Since the shootings, prominent religious groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and a multi-faith coalition have also called for tightening the nation’s gun control laws. But religious groups do not speak with one voice on the issue of gun control. On one hand, the religiously unaffiliated (60 percent), minority Protestants such as African Americans (69 percent), and Catholics (62 percent) all favor stricter gun control laws. On the other hand, a majority of white mainline Protestants (53 percent) and more than 6-in-10 (61 percent) white evangelical Protestants oppose stricter gun control laws... (For those interested in scholarly studies of how the teachings of various religions have treated self-defense and the right to arms, I'm adding links to three references.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/figuring-faith/post/why-pro-life-catholics-and-evangelicals-part-ways-on-guns/2013/01/16/3a643a4a-5fe9-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html
http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/LawRev/The-Torah-and-Self-defense.pdf
http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/Catholic-Second-Amendment.pdf
http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/Self-defense-in-Asian-religions.pdf
In a rash of crime criminals are proving that they don’t need firearms in order to commit their acts of brutality. In a recent trend another person was beaten and thrown onto subway tracks, this time in Philadelphia. Philly, I remind you is a den of anti-gun sentiment with Mayor Nutter leading the charge. Hmmm…I wonder what could have helped this woman stop a larger more physically imposing male assailant from beating her and tossing her onto the subway tracks? According to the gun control zealots it was better for her to nearly die than to have the ability to defend herself with a firearm. A woman in New Jersey, one of the most restrictive states for the law abiding to get a firearm to defend themselves, was brutally stabbed repeatedly while she was with her baby inside a Bed Bath & Beyond. Could a woman defend herself and her baby with a firearm against an attacker with a knife? Gun Control zealots would in New Jersey would prefer you not find out. In a Dallas Hardware Store, a clerk had his throat slashed and was beaten with a hammer and left for dead. I wonder if the gun control zealots would think the perpetrator of this attack would be easily found if only his hammer was registered... Everyone of these situations occurred when a smaller, weaker, or outnumbered victim was violently attacked. A gun in their hands would have been an equalizer to the roving animals of this world that walk upon two legs...

http://gunowners.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/a-snapshot-of-the-world-where-gun-control-wins/

--
Keep on Balkin': Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law... The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely... The only justification Holder uses to ask the court to indefinitely delay Judicial Watch’s suit is that there’s another lawsuit ongoing for the same documents – one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Judicial Watch has filed a brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to stay. As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was voting Holder into contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigators by failing to turn over tens of thousands of pages of Fast and Furious documents, Obama asserted the executive privilege over them. The full House of Representatives soon after voted on a bipartisan basis to hold Holder in contempt. .. (Wasn't this going to be the most transparent administration in US history?)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/17/Holder-begs-court-to-indefinitely-delay-group-s-lawsuit-fighting-for-release-of-Obama-s-executive-privilege-Fast-and-Furious-documents
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., reacted angrily to President Obama’s decision to nominate B. Todd Jones, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to be permanent director. Issa, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called the decision a “slap in the face” given the acting director’s connection to the “Fast and Furious” scandal... Jones has been running the ATF since August, 2011. He replaced Kenneth Melson as head after the latter resigned and was reassigned in the midst of the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. The agency has not had a permanent director for six years. In a video sent to ATF employees last year, Jones threatened serious consequences for any staffers found talking to the press about the scandal without the consent of the agency leadership: “[I]f you don’t respect the chain of command, if you don’t find the appropriate ways to raise your concerns to your leadership, there will be consequences.” Republicans said he was trying to scare off any potential whistleblowers.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/issa-calls-obamas-pick-to-head-atf-a-slap-in-the-face/article/2519024#.UPl9wfKH-So
A Mexican national has claimed responsibility for killing Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ABC News-Univision reported yesterday. Gustavo Cruz-Lozano told Univision News “he murdered Terry during a firefight on Dec. 14, 2010, while the agent was on patrol near the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona... The injection of the word “botched” and the assumption that the government was trying to track firearms when it made no effort to do so once they crossed the border are familiar talking points that have been parroted by establishment media throughout what limited “Project Gunwalker” reporting they have done. It allows for “Authorized Journalists” to further proffer conclusions like “Critics called the operation irresponsible for allowing guns to enter into the hands of cartel members.” ...As Hofmann has noted, “Let's be clear – the only thing 'botched' in 'Project Gunwalker' was the cover-up.” But what remains unclear, as the ABC-Univision report admits, is whether either of the Fast and Furious “walked” guns found at the Terry murder scene were used by his killer, something confirmed by the Office of Inspector General Report, which notes “The FBI tested the two firearms recovered at the scene of the shooting and was unable to determine whether or not either gun was used to shoot Agent Terry.” ...
http://www.examiner.com/article/confessor-to-terry-murder-could-help-verify-if-fast-and-furious-gun-was-used
--
So Sue Us: Coloradans waiting a week or more for state background checks to buy firearms got no help from lawmakers Thursday, who rejected a request for more money to cut the backlog of applications. The Joint Budget Committee on a 4-2 vote rejected the Colorado Department of Public Safety's request for $455,784 to add 24 temporary staff, which would have helped cut a logjam in applications for the background checks that swelled to more than 12,000 by the end of December. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which is under the safety department, does the checks and has been swamped with applications for weeks since a huge uptick in gun purchases after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and talk of gun control... Lambert, a staunch supporter of gun rights, said he didn't think the CBI's "Instacheck" system for background checks was any better than that used by the FBI and on which some other states rely. "I've really never seen them demonstrate that this is actually solving crimes or preventing crimes or doing anything that the FBI check would not do," Lambert said... (Fact is the greatest enemy of theory. While a backlog of this sort – and NICS experiences the periodically as well – can potentially create a life-threatening delay for a law-abiding would-be gun owner, it has not effect on the criminal who buys his guns in an alley on the “wrong side of town.”)
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22398687/background-check-backlog-colorado-gets-no-extra-funding
--
Idaho Legislators to Weigh RKBA Bills: In one of the most Second Amendment-friendly legislatures in America, the pressure to respond to the Connecticut school massacre and President Barack Obama’s gun control ideas has prompted a flurry of behind-the-scenes action... Sen. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, who authored a failed 2011 bill to allow guns on college campuses, is leading a similar effort in the Senate and working with Gov. Butch Otter’s chief of staff, David Hensley. Hagedorn said he’s exploring two legislative avenues: school safety and protection of gun rights. “Do we have holes we need to fix, along with what we’re doing for the schools?” he said... Hagedorn said he won’t revive his guns-on-campus bill because it was strongly opposed by university presidents and would be a distraction. But Hagedorn said it’s time to revisit the state’s ban on guns in schools and courthouses. “One of the things we need to consider is if a person today has a right to protect themselves and carry a gun, when they go into a gun-free zone is there a liability on the state to then take over that protection?” Boyle said she’s consulting police officials and has determined that arming school employees and providing advanced training for violent emergencies is a top priority. “It’s one thing to carry a gun and it’s another when you have some crazy person coming at you. Police are trained on that, so that’s why they’ve been helping us,” she said. Idaho’s 115 school districts would be able to decide whether to arm employees, but the legal incentive to do so would be high, Boyle said... (I don't know if cops in Idaho are significantly more “into guns” that they are I other states but I strongly suspect that Boyle is overrating the training they have.)
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/18/2416723/legislators-deal-with-panic-over.html
--
Massachusetts Could Require Gun-Owner Insurance: Massachusetts gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance in case their firearm was ever used to injure someone under a bill being filed at the Statehouse. The initiative is included in a gun control measure which would also change standards for gun licenses and outlaw large capacity magazines. Under the bill being filed Friday, individuals applying for gun permits in Massachusetts would have to show proof of firearms insurance. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. David Linksy, compared the change to the requirement that car owners have auto insurance before registering their vehicles. Linksy said requiring insurance could create market-based gun safety incentives. Gun owners could see their insurance drop, say, if they agreed to take a firearms training course and properly stored their weapons. Gov. Deval Patrick is pushing his own gun control measure. (One more way to keep lower-income people from owning firearms lawfully.)

http://www.wggb.com/2013/01/18/mass-bill-would-require-gun-liability-insurance/
--
Safe-Commuting Bill in Nebraska: Nebraska employers could ban guns in their workplaces but not in their parking lots under a proposal sponsored Thursday by one of the Legislature's strongest gun-rights advocates. The bill by State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial takes the concept a step further by holding parking lot owners civilly liable if their policies disarm a gun owner who later is unable to defend himself from an act of violence. The senator suggested that his measure represents a pro-gun response to a bill introduced last week that would hold gun owners liable if they fail to safely secure a firearm later obtained by a juvenile or person with mental illness. Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha sponsored last week's bill. Christensen said Thursday that he has received complaints from gun owners who, while at work, have been prevented from keeping firearms in vehicles parked in their employer's lot. Some like to have a firearm for security when returning home or to hunt or target shoot after work, he said. Legislative Bill 335 would allow gun owners to store firearms in their parked vehicles, regardless of the employer's gun policies. The bill also applies to the parking lots of stores, businesses or any other place where a motorist can legally park... (Republicans sometimes balk at voting for these bills, citing “property rights” of the employer. The fallacy of that argument is that it extends the employer's “rights” far beyond his property by letting him require his employees to drive to and from worked disarmed.)
http://lexch.com/news/statewide/nebraskans-could-store-guns-in-their-parked-vehicles-under-new/article_d3c39534-6186-11e2-ab9b-0019bb2963f4.html
--
Haste Makes Waste: A New York lawmaker says that the state’s recently passed gun control law stunningly fails to include any exemptions for law enforcement officers, and technically prohibits police from ever bringing guns on school grounds or possessing extended ammo magazines. The NY SAFE Act, which was championed and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, bans all magazines that hold more than seven bullets and pre-1994 high capacity magazines, and prohibits the carrying of guns on school grounds. But because no loophole for law enforcement was included in the law, every police officer in the state is technically in violation of the statute even though the prohibition is unlikely to be enforced, according to New York Assemblyman Al Graf. Graf – a former New York City police officer and the ranking Republican member of the assembly’s powerful Codes Committee – says that the ban could even impede the efforts of officers to respond to a school shooting... (Anotehr bill passed to see what was in it? I'm not sure that it wouldn't be a bad idea to re-arm most NYPD officers with six-shot revolvers. Remember Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell?)
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/cuomos-new-gun-law-does-not-exempt-new-york-cops-could-prevent-police-from-responding-to-school-shootings/
Meanwhile: Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for New York gun owners: Come to Texas, and bring your guns with you. "Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that," Abbott, a Republican, said on Thursday, after ads extolling Texas appeared on several media websites... Abbott, a possible candidate for governor of Texas in next year's election, used campaign money to buy ads on websites of news organizations in New York City and Albany. One ad says in classic Western script: "WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities." Clicking on the ad leads to a Facebook page touting the virtues of Texas, including the fact that the state has no income tax so "you'll be able to keep more of what you earn and use that extra money to buy more ammo." Abbott told Reuters the ads are a "way to tweak our liberal friends up in the Northeast. It is tongue in cheek, but there is a deeper message here," he said. "Texas really does stand as the last bastion of ultimate freedom in this country. Over the last decade, more than 4 million people moved to this state, and one reason is freedom and one reason is economic opportunity." Abbott has said he will file a federal lawsuit to throw out any nationwide gun restrictions implemented by Congress. A Cuomo spokesman did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/us-usa-guns-texas-idUSBRE90G1DA20130117

Two handguns and two pistol permits were stolen from the New City home of a man whose name and address are listed on the website of a local newspaper as possessing gun permits, police said. The thieves ransacked the house Wednesday night, breaking into two safes on the home's third floor and stealing a third safe. The guns were in the stolen safe, police said. Clarkstown police said they had no evidence the burglary was connected to the controversial map. "The burglary is still under investigation, and there are no facts to support this correlation at this time," Clarkstown Sgt. Joanne Fratianni said in a statement. "If the investigation develops further information, it will be released accordingly." ...The burglary comes less than a week after a White Plains homeowner -- who also was listed on the Journal News website as having gun permits – arrived home to find his home burglarized, with jewelry missing and an attempted break-in of his gun safe. The thieves were not successful, and no guns were stolen. White Plains Police Commissioner David Chong said Monday that it was "premature" to connect that burglary to the website listing but said it was part of the police investigation... (An apparent silver lining to the rushed “AWB” in New York is a provision preventing publication of this sort of lost of gun owners.)

http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/journal-news-map-listed-guns-permits-stolen-from-new-city-home-cops-say-1.4463741

--
With Friends Like These...: The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, also known as the Harrisburg Gun Show, has announced it will limit the type of firearms that it will allow to be exhibited. “We have made the decision not to include certain products that in the current climate may attract negative attention,” they posted on their website. The hunting and fishing show, the largest consumer event in the nation, offers 1,200 exhibitors and will run from February 2 –10, 2013, just outside of Harrisburg, PA. A representative to the show told the Daily Caller that “no specific information was available on the type of restricted product at this time” and she offered to have someone call back with the information... The NRA is reconsidering their support of the show, “The NRA’s future participation in the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show will be determined by Reed Exhibitions actions in response to the concerns raised by the NRA, the outdoor industry, and America’s law-abiding gun owners.” ...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/americas-largest-outdoor-sports-show-to-ban-ar-15s/
--
Business Owners: “Lawfully Concealed Weapons Welcome on Premises” high quality vinyl sticker, made in the USA for The Patriot Post Shop, measures 4"x 6". was: $3.50 now: $2.25 Free shipping! (I try to order a few items a year from The Patriot Post, to support their efforts to educate our troops about the Constitution they swore to support and defend. I encourage you to take advantage of this rare offer of free shipping with no minimum-purchase requirement. If you are a business owner in the White Mountains and don't care to support The Patriot Post at this time, contact me and I'll give you one of mine – they should be here by the end of the month but I will accept requests now.)
https://patriotpostshop.com/products/1704
--
Tangentially Related: A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.” The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.” The center – part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers – posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.” The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence. But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.” ...A Republican congressional staffer who served in the military told The Washington Times: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero. “Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?” the staffer said. “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?” (While the closing question may seem rhetorical, my answer is that it all depends on which people the Commander in Chief views as the greater enemy.)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/17/west-point-center-cites-dangers-far-right-us/
No governmentwide requirements exist for the checking of references for job applicants as a part of the federal government’s hiring process, including those who apply for law enforcement positions in the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a report released Thursday says. The Justice Department’s office of inspector general, in a 109-page report, says law enforcement personnel at the five federal agencies accounted for more than 60 percent of the department’s new hires in fiscal 2010 but Justice required reference checks only for attorney applicants. The report says reference checking within the department was more commonly done for positions not involving law enforcement and for internal transfers, adding that a review found that ATF, DEA and the Marshals Service had no policies requiring reference checks for new criminal investigators, deputy U.S. marshals or correctional officers... (Current and former federal agents on the list are welcome to comment.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/17/no-federal-policy-check-job-applicants-references/
--

Good Guys with Guns

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

What is a Sheriff?

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Founding Fathers and their thoughts on guns

Monday, January 21, 2013

Gun statistics

Friday, January 18, 2013

23 executive orders on gun violence

DUF Digest, 01-18-13

obama's 23 executive orders on guns

Followers

Blog Archive

Blog Sections

Related sites