Articles published in May, 2010
Idaho National Laboratory’s Microsight: A new kind of sight for a new era
Hay gun grabbers you are on the wrong side of the facts; FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime
Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn’t waned on Capitol Hill, that anti-gunners are—as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it last year—only waiting to “pick the time,” should watch the video of Mexican president Felipe Calderon’s speech to Congress last week, versions of which have been posted on youtube.com. When Calderon asked that the federal “assault weapon” ban be re-imposed, a very large number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing ovation.
However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation’s legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation’s murder rate fell to a 45-year low.
The FBI’s report was also bad news for anti-gunners elected to other offices. With the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago no more than a few weeks away, Mayors Bloomberg, of New York City, and Daley, of Chicago—who fear that it will require them to respect the Second Amendment for the first time—have continued to beat their drums for gun control. As we have noted, Bloomberg recently encouraged a Senate committee to support the Lautenberg-King terrorist watchlist bills. And last week Daley told a Chicago Reader reporter, who expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Chicago’s handgun ban, “It’s been very effective.” Holding a bayonet-equipped rifle, Daley added, “If I put this up your butt, you find out how effective it is.”
But, murders in big cities declined over 11 percent between 2008 and 2009, translating to over a 12 percent decrease in the big city murder per capita rate. We hope, but don’t expect, that the indisputable fact that an increase in gun ownership does not necessarily correspond to an increase in crime, will reduce the frequency of Bloomberg’s stunts aimed at gun shows, and Daley’s periodic rants against the firearm industry.
This brought to you by the SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – This morning’s fatal shooting of a home invasion suspect by an 80-year-old retired Army veteran in Chicago’s East Garfield Park neighborhood underscores why we filed a lawsuit to overturn the city’s gun ban, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
That case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is about to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Joining SAF in that lawsuit are the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents including Otis McDonald, for whom the case is named.
Today’s shooting of an armed home invader with a lengthy criminal record is still under investigation by police, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, but it appears to be a clear-cut case of self-defense. Local newspaper reports show strong support from the older man’s neighbors. The Chicago Sun Times quoted next door neighbor Curtis Thompson, who observed, “It’s a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead.” Another neighbor, identified as Audrey Williams, told the newspaper “I’d have done the same thing. They say we’ve got to give up our guns, but that’s crazy.”
The newspaper is also quoting the man’s 57-year-old son, who put it bluntly: “If homeowners can’t have guns to defend themselves and their families, there’s going to be more home invasions. My father’s glad he had a weapon. He did what he had to do.”
“We filed our lawsuit two years ago to protect the self-defense rights of Chicago citizens just like this man,” Gottlieb said. “We have taken the McDonald case to the Supreme Court because far too many people in Chicago are not been able to defend themselves. They have been unconscionably disarmed, and left in as much fear of being arrested and jailed for having a gun as they are afraid of being robbed and murdered by armed thugs who have ignored the gun ban.
“Chicago’s ban did not stop this violent criminal,” he added, “a homeowner with a gun did. The ban also did not stop the recent murder of off-duty police officer Thomas Wortham IV. It is time for this insidious ban to be nullified, and we are hopeful that’s exactly what the Supreme Court is about to do.”
Why do some people scream for one right guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights, but, those same people would scream to deny a right to another person guaranteed by that same document to someone else? What am I talking about? Well let me explain. Some people would literally fight if necessary for an artist to show a painting of something that denigrates Christians and he Christian religion. They would (and have) said that this painting is that artists individuals right to freedom of speech. While personally I think that kind of “art” is crap and don’t think art is speech. About half of Americans think it is.
If art is speech and protected to the indivigual under the constitution and the bill of rights. Then why do some people say that my right to own a gun is not only NOT a personal right protected by the constitution, but, not even protected under the second amendment? The second amendment states as follows “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” At the time of the addition of the bill of the rights the term militia meant: either defense activity or those who engage in it, whether as individuals or in concert with others. So the term militia basically meant the people of the United States of America. And how those people who dislike firearm ownership by the average citizen get the phrase “Shall NOT be infringed” absolutely blows my mind. They would through a screaming fit if someone or the political class tried to infringe on the “artist’s” right to free “speech”, but, would applaud my right to bear arms being taken away.
Weather or not art is speech is a topic for another day and another place. What I am sick of is some of the people who say it is also turning around and saying I do not or should not have the right to own a firearm. As I have stated in other posts, that I know for a fact that I am a better shooter then most police in the country today, and probably better then most military. The only difference is I am not paid by the tax payers of this nation. I have an will now again take the same oath that our founding fathers took when they signed the Declaration of Independence. I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to the defense of this nation, whatever free state I happen to be in, and my fellow American. In my opinion that is the civilian (or none military/police) oath to protect my community.
So in conclusion, if you can find fault with my point of view please keep it polite and post it here at Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog.
2nd Amendment Rights Protected During Emergency In Hawaii; “Castle Doctrine” Enacted As Governor Signs Laws
Governor Linda Lingle today signed into law two important bills preserving 2nd Amendment rights passed by the recently adjourned 25th Hawaii State Legislature.
SB 358, SD1, HD2 introduced by State Senator Sam Slom (R-8th O’ahu – Hawaii Kai to Diamondhead) (Act 96) establishes provisions relating to prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during emergency or disaster, suspension of permit or license. Prohibits any person or government entity to seize or confiscate, under any civil defense, emergency, or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, or during any civil defense emergency period, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, any firearm or ammunition and permit or license of any individual who is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State. — Amends provisions relating to civil defense powers, in general. Section Affected: 134- (1 SECTION), 128-6.
Slom, a Trustee and Secretary of the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation said he introduced the legislation in part as a result of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath in New Orleans when law enforcement officials went door-to-door and seized legal firearms from legally registered owners. The court subsequently overturned the state’s actions. He said he also had worried constituents call this year during the Hawaii Tidal Wave alert. Citizens were concerned that the police would not be able to protect everyone and their property during a major emergency.
Slom added, ” I emphasize this law applies to legally owned and registered firearms. This is a good bill and Governor Linda Lingle should be thanked for her prompt attention to this important legislation which passed the Senate unanimously. Hawaii now joins 30 other states with similar legislation.”
The other bill signed today (Act 97) is SB0532 SD1 HD1 CD1 RELATING TO LIMITING CIVIL LIABILITY. Also known as the “CASTLE DOCTRINE”, and originally introduced by Slom, the version that passed was sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi (D-Manoa), By Request. Current Hawaii law requires a homeowner to “retreat” from his or her own home when invaded by a criminal engaging in a felony. The new law establishes provisions relating to owner to felon; limited liability. Provides that any owner of any other interest in real property shall not be liable to any perpetrator for any injury or death that occurs upon the real property during the course or after the commission of certain felony offenses. –
Section Affected: 663- (1 SECTION) OWNER TO FELON.
Slom said of this bill, “It represents common sense and confirms in Hawaii the old adage, “A man’s (or woman’s) home is his (her) castle.” It should put potential criminals on notice that they no longer can break in, commit a felony, threaten the owner and escape with no risk of personal harm. Both laws are about taking back our individual, Constitutional rights”
A little publicized hearing for 5/5/10:
In February 2004, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Policy (OLP) to form a working group to review federal firearms and explosives laws*particularly in regard to NICS background checks*to determine whether additional authority should be sought from Congress to prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected terrorists. In the 111th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Peter King have reintroduced a bill (S. 1317/H.R. 2159) that would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected terrorists. This bill reportedly reflects a legislative proposal developed by DOJ.
In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee or permittee through Brady background checks, if the Attorney General determines that the prospective transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting, preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with terrorism (proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The bill would make similar amendments to the provisions of the GCA governing the processes by which federal firearms dealer licenses are issued and revoked (18 U.S.C. §§ 923(d) and (e)).
The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, so that it would include persons who were the subject of terrorism-related determinations (described above). The bill would amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the subject of a terrorism-related determination as well. In addition, the bill would amend the NICS background check provisions (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) to reflect that the Attorney General would have this new discretionary authority under the proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B.
With regard to NICS denials of firearms transfers or state-issued firearms permits based upon terrorist watch list hits and subsequent determinations by the Attorney General, the bill would amend the Brady Act (P.L. 103-159) to allow a denied prospective transferee to request from the Attorney General the reasons for the denial, but it would also give the Attorney General the authority to withhold those reasons if he determines that such a disclosure would compromise national security. The bill would make a similar amendment to the Brady Act in regard to correction of erroneous information.
Furthermore, the bill would amend the GCA provision that addresses erroneous denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A), to allow any person denied a firearms-related transfer or permit to challenge that determination in U.S. court within 60 days of that determination. This proposed amendment would require the court to sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the U.S. Government a preponderance of evidence standard that the determination satisfied the proposed provisions described above (18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those documents contained information that could compromise national security, but it would also allow a court to review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera at the court’s option or on the motion of the petitioner (denied person). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to determine whether the summaries or redacted versions of the documents were fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents; however, it would not allow the court to overturn the Attorney General’s determination based on the full and un-redacted documents.
First, why are you so bent on disarming the law-abiding American public? You have made many statements which I find disturbing and anti-gun.
You stated on 60 Minutes after the 1994 gun ban was passed, and I quote, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them (firearms), (having) Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.”
Recently you stated that you will pick the time and place with the new anti-gun administration in power to push your anti-gun agenda. The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you politicians not understand? The definition of “infringed” is to break or violate an agreement or law.
There is a document on 8.5 by 11 inch paper, printed on both sides, two inches thick published by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE) that are laws and regulations of federal and state government that are infringements on the Second Amendment.
Yes, I have heard the argument that the militia is now the National Guard, or military reserves, however, the definition of a militia is a group of armed men between the age of 15 and 50 years to be used for the security of the state, who do not belong to a regular military unit.
The last I heard the National Guard and military reserves are regular military units.
In California, you can’t buy a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable high capacity magazine and pistol grip and, God forbid, a flash hider and bayonet lug. What is the difference between the described rifle and a semiautomatic Winchester Hunting Rifle with a 10-round, detachable magazine? They both can fire the same caliber cartridge, with the same muzzle velocity, with the same rate of fire.
You anti-gun people have infringed on my Constitutional right, just on appearance, nothing else. Yes, I have heard the argument that if the magazine is detachable and high capacity it has so-called increased firepower, but I fail to see the difference between firing 30 rounds from one magazine or three 10-round magazines, or three rifles with 10-round magazines.
There is an anti-gun myth printed that a home with a firearm is more likely to have a shooting than a home without a firearm. Using the same logic, a home with a private backyard swimming pool is more likely to have a drowning than a home without a private swimming pool, but I know of no anti-swimming pool groups.
What you anti-gun people fail to accept is that for every crime committed with a firearm, there are four to five crimes prevented because the intended victim had access to a firearm in the home, business or vehicle, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
If the anti-gun people’s logic is correct, a place that has the most severe gun regulations and laws, a place where it is almost impossible to own a gun legally, would be the safest place to live.
Washington D.C. has the most severe gun regulations and laws in the U.S., however, Washington D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the nation year after year. States with the least restrictive gun regulations and laws, such as North and South Dakota and Texas, have the lowest crime rates.
So I ask again, why do you want to disarm the law-abiding American public?
If you are so bent on taking the legally-owned guns from the American public, why did you request and receive a gun permit in California in 1974? Yes, you returned your permit, but you now have armed protection paid for by my tax dollars, that I and others do not have excess to.
Finally, why is your protection more important than the protection of my family and me?
Gary Brown, military arms historian, lives in Nevada City.