Kimberly talks violent crime and her right to self-defense

Kimberly Weeks is a survivor of violent crime. As a college student she was brutally attacked in her apartment. Kimberly was overpowered and defenseless against her attacker. After her horrific experience, Kimberly got her concealed carry permit for self defense.

When Kimberly was assaulted she had to plead with her attacker to spare her life during her harrowing ordeal. Later on when she testified before the Colorado legislature, she pled with lawmakers, who were considering legislation to ban concealed carry on college campuses, not to strip her of the right to carry on her college campus. She didn’t want to be left defenseless again.

Kimberly is now standing up to Michael Bloomberg and his gun control efforts. Listen to her call Michael Bloomberg out on his hypocrisy and say, “Mr. Bloomberg you do not have the right to tell me how to defend myself.“

See more at: MeetBloomberg.com/Videos

Election 2014: How to Stop a Socialist State

As election day Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 approaches it is important for voters to understand how politicians create a socialist state. According to Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” there are eight levels of control that must be achieved before a socialist state is created. According to Alinsky, the first is the most important.

  1. Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people (Obamacare). This legislation violates every American’s 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment Rights. Be not afraid. Obamacare started as Romney-Care in Massachusetts. If Romney runs for President in 2016 vote for the Conservative candidate. Romney is no different than Hillary Clinton.
  2. Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if government is providing everything for them to live and survive. This is done by higher and higher taxes on the middle class. This is under way and accelerating.
  3. Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. Politicians use this as an excuse to increase taxes, rather than reduce spending. Debt will produce more poverty. Seventeen Trillion dollars and growing. Approved by Obama, allowed to continue by the U.S. Congress under the weak Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s leadership.
  4. Gun Control– Remove the ability of the people to defend themselves from the Government. Anti-Second Amendment politicians are able to create a police state by disarming law abiding citizens. Solution. Buy more guns and ammunition! Be ready to defend yourself. Get proper safety training on your newly acquired weapons. Vote out any anti-Second Amendment politician or any politician supported by Michael Bloomberg.
  5. Welfare – Take control of every aspect of a citizens life (food, housing, and income). Obama is on it. President Obama’s objectives: destroy jobs (Obamacare mandates) while expanding dependence (Medicaid, EBT cards, welfare, etc.). The GOP Controlled Congress keeps writing the checks for EBT cards, welfare, Obamacare and on and on.
  6. Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. Common Core State Standards is the one size fits all central control system devised to indoctrinate America’s children. Common originated in the United Nations, the National Governors Association with funding from Bill Gates. State run media like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN support it. By the way, Common Core is endorsed by former Florida Republican Governor Jeb Bush. If he runs for President in 2016 vote for a Conservative Republican boys and girls.
  7. Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools. This violates the 1st Amendment  right to free exercise of one’s religion. A Progressive/Socialist/Communist cannot control you if you follow a greater power than man and him a.k.a. Obama.
  8. Class Warfare – Divide the people into categories, wealthy/poor, white/black, legal/illegal/, etc.. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor, who are created by increasing poverty (see #2 above).

To the voters who read this column, this is a litmus test for anyone on your 2014 ballot.

If you allow any of the above to continue, as written by Saul Alinksy, endorsed by Hillary Clinton, led by President Obama, embraced by Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, you will be responsible for the revolution that will be coming your way.

Free Americans will not allow this Progressive/Socialist/Communist take over of the American Constitutional Republic to continue. It would be advisable that you the voter put on notice your city, county, school board, state and Congressional politicians and candidates from all parties. Tell them to start following the U.S. Constitution or they will lose their jobs and/or be defeated on November 4th, 2014.

True Americans are working on taking this country back via the ballot box in 37 or so days.

Florida may Expand Use of Silencers for Hunting

Hunting game in Florida could become a little less noisy by the end of the year.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on Wednesday advanced a proposal that would remove a prohibition on the use of noise-suppressors, or silencers, with rifles and pistols when hunting deer, gray squirrels, rabbits, wild turkeys, quail and crows.

The proposal will now be advertised in the Florida Administrative Register, and the commission is expected to vote on the new rule in November.

While critics said muzzling rifle shots could increase the risk of people being struck by wayward bullets or cause people to wander unaware into hunting areas, backers of the proposal said such concerns are unfounded.

Commissioner Brian Yablonski noted that suppressors take out some of the big bang and recoil, but they don’t silence weapons as depicted in the movies.

“It still makes a very loud sound and this was in all cases,” Yablonski said during a commission meeting in Kissimmee. “We’re talking louder than a rock concert, louder than a jackhammer with the suppressor.”

Commission staff, hunters and a representative from the suppressor industry defended the proposal as a means to protect hunters’ hearing, lessen the impact of hunting on others and even help while introducing people to the sport.

Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association, estimated that 40,000 suppressors are already owned in Florida.

Florida currently allows the use of suppressors on shotguns for game hunting. A suppressor can also be placed on a rifle or pistol when hunting on private lands for non-game wildlife, which includes hogs, bears and armadillos.

Buck Holly, an owner of C&H Precision Weapons in LaBelle, projected that by lifting the ban, sales of suppressors at his Hendry County business would grow from about two to five a month to up to 10 a month. He said that would allow him to add one or two jobs.

“I know in most counties one to two jobs isn’t a big blip on the radar, but in Hendry and Glades counties, one or two is a tremendous economic boost,” Holly said.

Patricia Brigham, chair of the League of Women Voters’ Gun Safety Committee, cautioned that a proliferation of silencers would reduce public safety.

“They’re going to be used in such a way that they’re not intended to be used, which is to harm other human beings,” Brigham warned. “There are more important things than protecting the hearing of a hunter, than encouraging a young person to hunt … the more important thing is the errant bullet catching the sleeve of a nearby hiker, penetrating the skin of nearby hiker, penetrating the heart of a nearby hiker.”

Katherine McGill, a founding member of the National Urban Wildlife Coalition, said more time should be given to the review.

“I have no problem with suppressors personally. If someone is target-shooting near my property I’d be glad that they are using them. I’d like them to be put on fireworks, too,” McGill said. “But I don’t want to be riding my horse in the woods and not hear that hunter out there.”

Suppressors are allowed in 32 states for all hunting.

Division of Hunting and Game Management Director Diane Eggeman said lifting the prohibition isn’t expected to lead to a widespread proliferation of the use of suppressors. She estimated a rifle suppressor costs between $750 and $2,000, while individuals also have to pay $200 for a federal criminal background check.

Holly placed the cost for most suppressors between $450 and $1,000.

EDITORS NOTE: This column is courtesy of the News Service of Florida.

By the Numbers: How Dangerous Is It to Be a Cop? by Daniel J. Bier

Defenders of police militarization such as that on display in Ferguson, Missouri, often claim that it’s necessary to provide military gear to cops, given how dangerous law enforcement has become.

Indeed, in the name of the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, the federal government has provided thousands of pieces of military-grade body armor, mine-resistant armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, grenade launchers, helicopters, and night-vision goggles to local police and sheriffs. Almost every county in America has received equipment from these programs.

But has policing really become so dangerous that we need to arm peace officers like an invading army? The answer is no. It’s never been safer to be a cop.

To start with, few police officers die in the line of duty. Since 1900, only 18,781 police officers have died from any work-related injury. That’s an average of 164 a year. In absolute terms, officer fatalities peaked in 1930 (during alcohol prohibition) at 297, spiking again in the 1970s before steadily declining since.

If you look at police fatalities adjusted for the U.S. population, the decline is even starker. 2013 was the safest year for American policing since 1875.

In 2013, out of 900,000 sworn officersjust 100 died from a job-related injury. That’s about 11.1 per 100,000, or a rate of 0.001%.

Policing doesn’t even make it into the top 10 most dangerous American professions. Logging has a fatality rate 11 times higher, at 127.8 per 100,000. Fishing: 117 per 100,000. Pilot/flight engineer: 53.4 per 100,000. It’s twice as dangerous to be a truck driver as a cop—at 22.1 per 100,000.

Another point to bear in mind is that not all officer fatalities are homicides. Out of the 100 deaths in 2013, 31 were shot, 11 were struck by a vehicle, 2 were stabbed, and 1 died in a “bomb-related incident.” Other causes of death were: aircraft accident (1), automobile accident (28), motorcycle accident (4), falling (6), drowning (2), electrocution (1), and job-related illness (13).

Even assuming that half these deaths were homicides, policing would have a murder rate of 5.55 per 100,000, comparable to the average murder rate of U.S. cities: 5.6 per 100,000. It’s more dangerous to live in Baltimore (35.01 murders per 100,000 residents) than to be a cop in 2014.

This is not to say that police officers do not have a difficult job. They certainly do. They’re required to have daily contact with drunks, the mentally disabled, and criminal suspects. Arrests can often lead to physical confrontation, assault, and sometimes injury. Police are constantly dragged into families’ and neighbors’ petty squabbles. It can be a stressful and sometimes thankless task.

But it just isn’t unusually deadly or dangerous—and it’s safer today than ever before. The data do not justify the kinds of armor, weapons, insecurity, and paranoia being displayed by police across the country. Short of an outbreak of land-mine-related crimes in America’s heartland, there’s no reason to deploy mine-resistant vehicles and .50 caliber machine guns to rural sheriffs departments.

Instead of hiding behind gas masks, how about putting cops back on the beat and talking to the community? Instead of M16s and grenade launchers, how about dashboard and body cameras, which have been shown to reduce excessive force and improve officer safety? I bet Mike Brown’s family wishes St. Louis County had considered that, rather than being dazzled by shiny new toys from the Pentagon.

Update: My estimate for the rate of police murders was probably too high. I assumed for the sake of argument that half of the 100 police fatalities in 2013 were murders, because the FBI hasn’t released numbers yet for how many were felony killings. But the average from 2003-2012 shows that felony killings accounted for only a third (34%) of all officers fatalities. That would make the murder rate for police in 2013 something closer to 3.77 per 100,000, well below the national average.

ABOUT DANIEL J. BIER

Daniel Bier is the executive editor of The Skeptical Libertarian. He writes on issues relating to science, skepticism, and economic freedom, focusing on the role of evolution in social and economic development.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Yes, Sue Our Lawless President!

“Today, however, President Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it, and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it, that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker. Time after time, in areas as disparate as civil liberties, immigration, foreign affairs and health care, the President has demonstrated a propensity for rejecting his oath and doing damage to our fabric of liberty that cannot easily be undone by a successor.”

That is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, writing in the July 31 edition of The Washington Times.

Americans and many around the world are increasingly fearful of a President who has demonstrated no regard for the checks and balances of our incredible Constitution, the oldest in the world that still functions to protect individual rights and which sets forth the divisions between our legislative, judicial and executive departments of government.

Congress, however, will not impeach President Obama, but the House will sue him on the basis of just one of the many examples of his dictatorial use of executive orders to ignore the power of the legislative branch to pass laws he took an oath to enforce. He has unilaterally and illegally altered the Affordable Care Act 27 times, his signature legislation that former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Congress had to pass “so we can find out what is in it.” No Republican member of Congress voted for this two-thousand-page-plus law, passed late in the evening of Christmas Eve, 2009.

The decision to impeach a President is essentially a political one and Republicans understand that the impeachment of President Obama would be interpreted by nearly half of the voters as an attack on a President they support. There have only been two impeachment actions in U.S. history and both have failed.

The nation is significantly divided regarding the President and Congress has been in gridlock as Democrats as the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has refused to let more than 300 House bills sent to the Senate be debated and voted upon.

Suing the President has ample history. It is hardly “a stunt” as Democrats have labeled it. New York Democrat Louise Slaughter called it “preposterous”, but failed to mention that eight years earlier, in 2006, she was a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against George W. Bush!

In a 1939 case, Coleman v Miller, the Supreme Court granted standing to members of the legislature to sue. Two years ago, four Democratic members of the House filed a suit against Vice President Biden in his capacity as head of the Senate, challenging as unconstitutional the filibuster. Other Democratic legislators had filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2001, in 2002, in 2006, and in 2007. The judiciary concluded their cases had little merit.

In a July 30 Wall Street Journal commentary, David B. Rivken who served in the Reagan and Bush administration’s Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office, and Elizabeth Price Foley, a constitutional law professor at Florida International University, wrote:

“These barriers between the branches are not formalities—they were designed to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in one branch, As the Supreme Court explained in New York v. United States (1992), the ‘Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”

“Congress has the exclusive authority to make law because lawmaking requires pluralism, debate and compromise, the essence of representative government…Litigation in federal court is an indispensable way to protect all branches of government against encroachment on their authority,”

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” said President Obama. In April, a poll by PolitiFact of the Tampa Bay Times, revealed that 63%–nearly two thirds—of respondents agreed that President Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues and an additional 20% said he lies every now and then. Only 15% believed the President is completely truthful. Democrats were 39% of the 1,021 registered voters polled. Republicans were 38% and independents were 20%,

The President has lied so routinely that this character flaw is likely to play a role in the forthcoming midterm elections on November 4. When you add in his lawlessness and his leadership failures that have created a far more dangerous and divided world, Americans are likely to vote for change in Congress.

That’s how democracy works and how our Constitutional system works. Suing the President is just one part of it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Mat Best 11X: A Veteran’s Veteran

matt best ranger

Matt Best, U.S. Army Ranger.

Mat Best is a former U.S. Army Ranger turned online video satirist. Mat has five OIF/OEF combat tours with the 2nd Battalion 75th Ranger Regiment. Mat is the President of Article 15 Clothing. I learned about Mat from a column David Reeder did in Issue 14 of RECOIL Magazine. Reeder describes Mat thusly, “He is an irreverent, irrepressible smartass who will cut off the filthiest of jokes mid-sentence to hold the door open for an old lady. In short, he is almost impossible not to like.”

Mat Best did an op-ed that RECOIL published titled “Grass is Greener Veterans, Regret Veterans & Depressed Veterans – What is PTSD?.” This is perhaps the clearest understanding of PTSD that I have read from a soldier’s soldier. The bottom line: Mat believes that the individual must deal with their experiences and make the most of life by giving back to society and his fellow man.

Mat gives back by doing videos that are hard hitting but funny at the same time. His YouTube channel is MBest11X. For those who do not understand what 11X stands for the U.S. Army Military Occupational Specialty of an Infantryman. Mat was an 11X and has captured the warrior spirit, with a satirical twist, in his video parodies that since have gone viral.

For Mat “sometimes life experience outweighs a scholarly approach.” I must agree. Here are two examples of Mat at his best (pun intended).

Let’s Give Back To Veterans

Epic Rap Battle: Special Forces vs MARSOC (WARNING: Some language may be offensive especially to those who have never been shot at in anger):

Here is my favorite by Mat titled “You Might Be A Veteran If…” (WARNING: Contains language that may offend a Navy SEALS wife, or maybe not?)

In a 1993 Washington Times essay Richard Grenier wrote, “As George Orwell pointed out, people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Put another way in the Aaron Sorkin film A Few Good Men, “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.”

I would not be one to question Matt Best in any manner. Matt is a rough man with a big heart and good soul.

matt best with kitten

For a larger view click on the image. Photo courtesy of RECOIL Magazine.

Florida: Appeals Court OKs “Docs vs. Glocks” Law by Brandon Larrabee

A federal appeals court has upheld the state’s controversial “Docs vs. Glocks” bill, overturning an earlier court ruling that had blocked part of the law from being enforced.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state Legislature had the right to pass the law, which includes provisions restricting doctors and other medical providers from asking questions about gun ownership during medical visits.

“In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear,” Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote. “In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct — which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy — the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters.”

The majority found that the National Rifle Association-backed law, known as the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, “has only an incidental effect on physicians’ speech.”

The appeals court rejected a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Cooke, who ruled last year that the law was built largely on anecdotal evidence, and that legislators couldn’t prove that gun rights would be jeopardized or that patients who own firearms might face discrimination.

Supporters of the 2011 law say doctors might turn away patients who own guns or who wouldn’t answer questions about whether they did. Critics argue that doctors need to know what’s in a patient’s home so they can offer safety advice.

In a sharp dissent significantly longer than the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Charles Wilson said the law was an unconstitutional “gag order” that infringes on doctors’ rights.

“The holding reached today is unprecedented, as it essentially says that all licensed professionals have no First Amendment rights when they are speaking to their clients or patients in private,” Wilson said. “This in turn says that patients have no First Amendment right to receive information from licensed professionals — a frightening prospect.”

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the law, said in a statement that his organization was “astounded” by the ruling.

“Today’s decision will keep doctors from asking reasonable questions and providing advice that could very well save lives,” Simon said. “We expect the doctors who filed this case to appeal this decision and that this decision will ultimately be overturned.”

The doctors could seek a full appellate court review or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This column is courtesy of the News Service of Florida from the Capital, Tallahassee by correspondent Brandon Larrabee, dated July 25, 2014.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Gun-maker Beretta Relocates U.S. Headquarters in Response to State’s New Firearms Restrictions
Colorado’s Experience Soundly Refutes Common Anti-gun Talking Point – Dr. Rich Swier

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of BeforeIt’sNews.com.

Colorado’s Experience Soundly Refutes Common Anti-gun Talking Point

Last month, while addressing a group of Colorado sheriffs, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper spoke on the topic of the state’s 2013 measure outlawing almost all private transfers of firearms. According to the Denver Post, Hickenlooper told the sheriffs, “I think we screwed that up completely… we were forming legislation without basic facts.”

A new Associated Press report examining Colorado background check data in the first year of the new law proves the accuracy of Hickenlooper’s statement, and should (although likely won’t) end the repetition of an already discredited anti-gun background check factoid.

The report states that the Colorado Legislative Council, an offshoot of the state legislature that is tasked with analyzing legislation, estimated that 420,000 additional background checks would be conducted in the two years following the new private sale restrictions. This led the Colorado legislature to allocate $3 million to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to handle the anticipated increase.

However, the AP notes, “officials have performed only about 13,600 reviews considered a result of the new law — about 7 percent of the estimated first year total.” The article goes on to state, “In total, there were about 311,000 background checks done during the first year of the expansion in Colorado, meaning the 13,600 checks between private sellers made up about 4 percent of the state total.”

How did the Colorado Legislative Council get their estimate so wildly wrong?

They relied on the same bogus statistic (that 40 percent of gun transfers occur between private parties) which gun control advocates and the White House have been using to advocate for expanded background checks all over the country.

The 40 percent statistic is from a Police Foundation survey, the results of which were published in a 1997 National Institute of Justice report titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. The figure has been debunked repeatedly by the NRA and others, and even earned the President “Three Pinocchios” from the Washington Post’s fact-checker for his repeated use of the misleading stat.

Unfortunately, these public admonishments haven’t deterred gun control supporters from using this absurdly inflated figure. In November, Sen. Dianne Feinstein repeated the factoid in an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News. As recently as early July, the Brady campaign asserted in a press release, “Approximately 40 percent of all guns sales go unchecked.” A May press release from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety reiterated estimates “that 40 percent of gun sales occur without a background check in the U.S.” Even President Obama’s official website, whitehouse.gov, has a page for his “Now is the Time” gun control campaign that continues to claim, “Right now, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on those buying guns, but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement.”

The data from Colorado’s first year of restricted private transfers makes continued use the 40 percent figure untenable. Still, some gun control advocates might seek to blame Colorado’s low increase in background checks on scofflaws, and those unaware of changes in the law, circumventing the new restrictions. Even if these factors did have a role to play in the underwhelming check numbers, they could hardly be expected to raise the percentage of undocumented private transfers by a factor of 10. Even if they could, it would merely weaken the case of the efficacy of private transfer restrictions. Evidence of background check avoidance would simply underscore NRA’s position that background check laws cannot affect the behavior of those who intentionally or unknowingly violate them.

Colorado’s expensive foray into background check expansion should serve as a warning to state and federal legislators as to the limited effect these laws can have, and the importance of collecting the “basic facts” before crafting legislation that inhibits the rights of their constituents.

Yet the tactics of gun control supporters are nothing if not shameless, so don’t expect them to relinquish the 40 percent myth any time soon. President Obama has openly embraced the confiscatory gun bans of Australia and Great Britain, and he and other gun control radicals realize they can’t achieve that goal without registration. “Universal” background checks are the next step in that direction, so for their proponents, the ends justify their dishonest means.

For everyone else, however, Colorado’s example is a resounding reminder that the war the proponents of “universal” background checks are waging is one of ideology, not one of facts, and it is certainly not in the service of “gun safety.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column is by the NRA-ILA with accompanying graphic.

Florida becomes Leading Safe Haven for Gun Manufacturers

Florida in particular, and Southern states in general, have become safe havens for gun manufacturers. In response to anti-gun legislation, labor issues and over-regulation in states where gun-making once flourished, like New York and Massachusetts,  manufacturers large and small are finding better places to do business across the American South.

The map below shows the recent relocation or expansion of forty gun manufacturing companies into Southern states. Of the forty companies Florida leads with way with ten companies or 25% of the total.

Guns_South_Map

Map courtesy of American Rifleman. For a larger view click on the image.

49H

John Zent.

John Zent in Gun Culture writes, “In the past six months, three preeminent firearm manufacturers—RugerBeretta, and Remington—announced plans to build new gun factories, and it’s no coincidence that all three chose not to expand at current locations. In fact, the companies publicly stated that moves to the gun-friendly South at least partly hinged on rampant anti-gun legislation in northeastern states where they have been long-time, tax-paying fixtures in the business community. In a Washington Times op-ed piece, Dr. Ugo Gusalli Beretta slammed the hypocrisy: ‘Unfortunately, as we were planning that expansion, Maryland’s governor and legislature voted in favor of new regulations that unfairly attack products we make and that our customers want. These regulations also demean our law-abiding customers, who must now be fingerprinted like criminals before they can be allowed to purchase one of our products.’”

“Significant gun manufacturing continues to occur in the northeast, where major players like Smith & Wesson, Kimber, Colt’s and SIG Sauer appear firmly entrenched. Ruger and Remington, for that matter, still have operations at their original locations. As American Rifleman Editor-in-Chief Mark Keefe pointed out in his “Keefe Report” last July (“Moving: It Isn’t That Simple”), there are many obstacles that stand in the way of gun-company relocation, not the least of which is concern for loyal employees. Nonetheless, one must wonder what the future holds for America’s traditional “Gun Valley” if states there continue on the course of self-destructive legislation that cripples corporate vigor and strips the rights of law-abiding citizens,” notes Zent.

Zent lists the following manufacturers who have relocated or expanded their facilities in the American South:

1) Ashbury Precision Ordnance, Ruckersville, VA
2) Sturm, Ruger, Mayodan, NC
3) Para USA, Pineville, NC
4) FNH USA/Winchester, Columbia, SC
5) Ithaca Gun, Aynor, SC
6) PTR, Aynor, SC
7) Daniel Defense, Ridgeland, SC
8) Daniel Defense, Black Creek, GA
9) MasterPiece Arms, Comer, GA
10) Lothar Walthar Precision, Cumming, GA
11) Knight’s Armament, Titusville, FL
12) Kel-Tec, Cocoa, FL
13) Diamondback, Cocoa, FL
14) Taurus/Rossi, Miami, FL
15) Heritage Manf., Miami, FL
16) Doublestar, Winchester, KY
17) Remington/Marlin, Mayfield, KY
18) Beretta, Gallatin, TN
19) Barrett, Murfreesboro, TN
20) Remington, Huntsville, AL
21) Steyr Arms, Bessemer, AL
22) Wilson Combat, Berryville, AR
23) Daisy Manf., Rogers, AR
24) Bond Arms, Granbury, TX
25) American Derringer, Waco, TX
26) STI Int’l, Georgetown, TX
27) High Standard/AMT, Houston, TX
28) Mossberg, Eagle Pass, TX
29) BPI Outdoors, Duluth, GA
30) Walther Arms, Fort Smith, AR
31) Nighthawk Custom, Berryville, AR
32) Surgeon Arms, Prague, OK
33) Shield/Texas Black Rifle, Shiner, TX
34) Alexander Arms, Radford, VA
35) Jarrett Rifles, Jackson, SC
36) American Tactical, Summerville, SC
37) Glock, Smyrna, GA
38) Core Rifle Systems, Ocala, FL
39) SCCY, Daytona Beach, FL
40) Ares Defense, Melbourne, FL
41) Serbu, Tampa, FL
42) Colt Competition, Breckenridge, TX

Somebody Picked the Wrong Girl

Pitchfork Patriots writes, “In a new commercial that’s sure to get some liberal panties in a bunch, Glock has held nothing back. It’s amazing how conservative companies that liberals consider so controversial (like Glock or Daniel Defense) make such ‘safe’ advertisements and are still called out as controversial. There are no partially clad women, no violent altercations, no edgy language… but somehow because these gun manufacturers make guns, they are inherently controversial. Newsflash, folks! If we didn’t have gun manufacturers we wouldn’t have guns, and if we didn’t have guns what would be the point of our RIGHT to bear arms?”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/a2gCFOtaZPo[/youtube]

Gun Crimes Plummet Even as Gun Sales Rise

A majority of Americans say they think gun crime has increased over the past 20 years, even though it has actually fallen dramatically, a recent Pew Research Center survey shows.

Sources: DOJ, ATF AFMER & USITC, Pew Research Center, National Safety Council, Gallup

For more information visit: http://nssf.org/infographics

gun-crimes-plummet-even-as-gun-sales-rise_5203f959cd014

Governor Rick Scott Makes History Signing 5 Pro-gun Bills

On, Friday, June 20, 2014, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed 5 pro-gun bills into law.  A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, Governor Rick Scott has now signed more pro-gun bills into law — in one term — than any other Governor in Florida history.

The bills are as follows:

HB-89 Threatened Use of Force
  by Rep. Neil Combee/Rep. Katie Edwards and Sen. Greg Evers

SB-424 To Stop Insurance Discrimination Against Gun Owners
  by Sen. Tom Lee and Rep. Matt Gaetz

HB-7029  Zero Tolerance/Pop Tart Bill
  by Rep. Dennis Baxley and Sen. Greg Evers

HB-523 Concealed Weapon/Firearms Licenses Fast Track
  by Rep. James Grant and Sen. Wilton Simpson

HB-525 Protection of Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Holder Information
 by Rep. James Grant and Sen. Wilton Simpson

A news article on Guns.com titled Florida governor signs five pro-gun measures into law, including “Pop Tart” and “Warning Shot” bills by Chris Eger on June 21, discusses these bills.  To read this article, please click here.

According to NRA/ILA:

It was a great session, marred only by the defeat of  SB-296/HB-209 by Sen. Jeff Brandes and Rep. Heather Fitzenhagen. This was the bill to allow law-abiding citizens to carry their firearms with them during a mandatory evacuation under a declared state of emergency, rather than leave them in their homes for theft by looters or destruction by hurricanes or other disasters. However, the Florida Sheriffs Association and numerous anti-gun sheriffs fought to kill the bill. They were not successful in their efforts in the House, because Representatives put your safety and your rights above anti-gun sheriffs who didn’t support the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

However, in the Senate, Sen. Jack Latvala became the champion of the Florida Sheriffs Association and supported their efforts to kill this gun owner protection bill.  Sen. Latvala pulled together a coalition of Republican Senators who were willing to sacrifice your rights and to pander to anti-gun sheriffs and help kill the bill.

Remember these names. Some are up for re-election this year. Some are not up for re-election until 2016.  Do not forget them.

Sen. Jack Latvala (R)  SD-20
Sen. Charlie Dean (R) SD-5
Sen. Nancy Detert (R) SD-28
Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R) SD-40
Sen. Rene Garcia (R) 38
Sen. Denise Grimsley (R) SD-21
Sen. Alan Hays (R) SD-11
Sen. John Legg (R) SD-17
Sen. Garrett Richter (R) SD-23

How Covering up Minority Crime Leads to Gun Control

Commenting recently on the Elliot Rodger killings, arch-leftist Michael Moore wrote that while “other countries have more violent pasts…more guns per capita in their homes… and the kids in most other countries watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games that our kids play, no one even comes close to killing as many of its own citizens on a daily basis as we do….” From a man who used to take the simple-minded gun-control position “fewer guns=less homicide,” it was surprising evidence of growth. After making his point, however, Moore made a mistake in following up with, “and yet we don’t seem to want to ask ourselves this simple question: “Why us? What is it about US?” It’s not, however, that we don’t want to ask the question.

It’s that we don’t want to hear the answer.

We can begin seeking it by asking another question: Why is it that Vermont, with approximately the same rate of gun ownership as Louisiana, has less than one-eighth the murder rate? Even more strikingly, why does New Hampshire have both a far higher gun ownership rate and a lower murder rate than England, Piers Morgan’s favorite poster-boy nation for gun control?

Professor Thomas Sowell provided more of these seeming contradictions in 2012, writing:

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks.

… [There are also] countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

So what’s the answer we don’t want to hear? The critical difference among these regions and nations is explained right in Sowell’s title: it’s “not guns.”

“It’s people.”

What “people” differences are relevant? Let’s start with race and ethnicity. In the cases of homicide in 2012 in which the races of the perpetrators were known, 55 percent were committed by blacks, 62 percent of whom were under 30 years of age. Black youths are 16 percent of the youth population, but constitute 52 percent of those arrested for juvenile violent crime.

The statistics for Hispanics are more difficult to ferret out because, unbeknownst to many, law enforcement agencies tend to lump them in with whites in crime statistics (the FBI has announced that it will finally categorize Hispanic crime — in its report on 2013). However, there is some information available. Examiner’s Ken LaRive tells us that “Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites,” but that the disparity could be even greater because of their often being classified as white.

The National Youth Gang Survey Analysis reports that gang members are approximately 49 percent Hispanic, 35 percent black and 10 percent white. And while whites are 35 percent of NYC’s population, blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crime in the Big Apple and 98 percent of all gun crime.

Another good indicator is international crime statistics. Hispanic countries dominate the homicide-rate rankings, with Honduras topping the list with a rate eight times as high as that of our worst state,Louisiana. Also note that there are no European/European descent nations in the top 20 and not one Western-tradition nation in the top 30 (Russia and Moldova are 24 and 28, respectively).

And what can we say about these “people” differences? It’s much as with the question of why men are more likely to be drunkards than women. You could explore whether the differences were attributable to nature, nurture or both. But it would be silly to wonder if the answer lay in men having greater access to bars, alcohol or shot glasses.

This brings us to why covering up minority criminality encourages gun control:

Americans won’t understand that the critical factor is people differences if they aren’t told about the people differences.

They will then — especially since most citizens aren’t even aware that there are nations with more firearms but less murder — be much more likely to blame guns. Of course, this is precisely what you want if you’re a left-wing media propagandist.

There is a question that could now be posed by the other side: if the main difference in criminality is demographics, why not outlaw guns? After all, it won’t make a difference one way or the other, right? I’ll offer a couple of answers to this question.

First, for a people to maintain just liberties, a freedom must always be considered innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof is not on those who would retain it, but on those who would take it away.

Second, while private gun ownership and just law enforcement can’t turn barbarians into civilized people any more than excellent schools can transform dunces into geniuses, they can act as mitigating factors that minimize criminality as much as possible given the “raw material” with which the particular society has to work. It’s much as how you can maximize your personal safety: you may be safer in a great neighborhood with no martial arts training than in a terrible one with that training. Nonetheless, it allows you to be safer than you would be otherwise whatever neighborhood you choose.

And what do the stats show in our fair to middling USA neighborhood? Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reported that guns are used by good citizens 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year to deter crime. That likely saves many more innocent lives than are lost in massacres every year, but these unseen non-victims don’t make headlines the way Sandy Hook tragedies do. That’s why I like to say, using a twist on a Frédéric Bastiat line, a bad social analyst observes only what can be seen. A good social analyst observes what can be seen — and what must be foreseen.

Lastly, one more truth becomes evident upon recognizing that demographics are the main factor in criminality: even if you do believe in gun control, imposing it federally and applying a one-size fits all standard is ridiculous. In terms of people and crime, there’s a world of difference between towns in New Hampshire or Vermont, with their England-level murder rates, and cities such as East St. Louis, IL, or Detroit, which rival El Salvador in citizen lethality. You can make gun control the same everywhere, but you can’t change the fact that people will be very, very different.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey wrongfully prosecuting lawful gun owners

Florida has over a million citizens who have valid concealed carry permits issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture. The eligibility requirements are strict as are those reasons which make one ineligible for a concealed carry permit. It appears that those who carry are being increasingly prosecuted by State Attorney Angela B. Corey from the 4th Judicial Circuit.

State Attorney Corey’s website states:

As your State Attorney, I am charged with upholding the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution and Statutes of the great and sovereign State of Florida, as they relate to the prosecution of crimes committed against our citizens. By adhering to this standard we will vigorously pursue justice for all victims of crimes while maintaining the rights of every individual.

In an email the Florida TEA Party states, “Florida Assistant Attorney Generals and Local State Prosecutors are out of control in fighting against the Second Amendment. Once again the anti-gun elements in the Florida Attorney General’s office are attempting to scuttle the appeal in the case of Norman v. State. The Norman case is the only viable case in the country arguing for recognition of the constitutional right to open carry.”

Norman v. State (FL) is the case of Dale Norman, a law abiding concealed carry licensee, who was arrested on February 19, 2012 and prosecuted in Fort Pierce, FL for violating Florida nearly complete ban on Open Carry after his otherwise lawfully carried handgun unknowingly became unconcealed while walking down the street the first time he carried outside his home with his new Florida concealed carry license. Watch the video of the arrest of Dale Norman:

According to the Florida TEA Party, “Since the appeal was first brought, the West Palm Beach Office of the Attorney General has repeatedly attempted to derail the case based on procedural arguments that the lower court did not properly certify its questions of great public importance. The AG’s office even appealed the case to the Florida Supreme Court in an attempt to keep the Fourth District Court of Appeals from hearing the case. They want the case heard by a Circuit Court where a recognition of the right to carry will not have state-wide effect and will be decided by only one local judge. A request was sent to the Assistant Attorney General in Palm Beach asking them to consent to the lower Court amending its judgement to include the certified question in the order of Judgement and Sentence to correct the AG’s claimed procedural defect that may exist.”

The response: We (the Attorney General’s Office) will take “no position”…

Florida Carry notes, “The Second Amendment question is fairly straightforward; Florida courts have clearly found that the carrying of a concealed firearm is a privilege, subject even to being banned completely, not a right protected by the constitution. Florida appellate courts have held that the ‘Retroactive application of (new Florida Statutes), is not unconstitutional because a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm is a privilege and not a vested right.’ Crane v. Department of State, 547 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1989). The Florida Legislature and Supreme Court have long recognized that there is a right to bear arms outside of the home. The ‘privilege of a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm’ recognized in Crane cannot replace, or substitute for, the fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.”

“No credible organization could question the pro-gun record of Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi who has signed on to support many important federal amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court that were filed by other state’s AGs, but her own office is apparently in need some deep house cleaning. The ruling and intent of the lower court is clear, that this case be reviewed by a panel of appellate court judges as a matter of great public importance that impacts thousands of law enforcement officers and millions of gun owners,” notes the Florida TEA Party.

There are two other cases that various Florida pro-Second Amendment organizations are involved with involving concealed carry permit holders In State Attorney Corey’s jurisdiction. In the first case, a man was arrested on his own front porch for having a handgun in a closed bag, while finishing moving. State Attorney Corey’s office claims that it was no longer his home, since he was moving, and is prosecuting him for a felony. In the second, a Florida concealed weapons licensee has been sentenced to 60 days in jail for an open carry ban violation after his shirt rode up over his holster in a store exposing his firearm.

The Florida TEA Party is asking its members to contact Attorney General Bondi and make their thoughts known. Attorney General Bondi may be contacted by using an email form, via Facebook, and on Twitter.

UPDATE 6/25/2014: Florida Representative Ray Pilon, a member of the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, stated in an email, “She [Corey] is also the one that caused us to pass the so called ‘warning shot bill’ although that is not the purpose of the law. She prosecuted a woman for defending herself in a domestic violent incident. She missed and was prosecuted by Angela for Aggravated Battery. If the woman had killed her assailant she it would have  been ruled justifiable. It does surprise and concern me that Assistant Attorney Generals are doing what you posted.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Vermont: Safe and Happy and Armed to the Teeth | National Review Online
More State Attorney’s Office Resignations After Angela Corey and Bernie De La Rionda Use Department Operating Funds To Pad Their Retirement Accounts…

Hunting on Public Lands at Risk!

You may have seen the news that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), along with other anti-hunting groups and individuals, filed a petition with the Interior Department demanding rules against hunting with traditional ammunition on public lands – one-fifth of the total land area in the U.S.

The National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) warned this was coming after the HSUS playbook was discovered. After all, this is the same HSUS that is run by Wayne Pacelle, who has made his goals known:

“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” (The Kingman Daily Miner, 30 December 1991).

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” (Full Cry Magazine, 1 October 1990).

The 50 page-petition is littered with junk science and fails to make the case that the use of traditional ammunition is a threat to wildlife populations or to humans that would warrant such a drastic action. Are we really to believe USUS finds hunting acceptable just so long as hunters use alternative ammunition?  Hunters, sportsmen and target shooters aren’t gullible.  We know better than to trust HSUS with setting hunting policy for the entire country. But we can’t assume the Obama Administration’s Interior Department is on our side.

Call Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today at 202-208-3181 and tell her to reject this scientifically baseless petition from HSUS to ban traditional ammunition. Let the Department of the Interior know that requiring the use of alternative, non-lead ammunition, is nothing more than a back-door way to ban hunting by raising the price of participating in an American sporting tradition. Make sure to tell them:

  • There is no sound science to support banning traditional ammunition used by hunters for centuries.
  • Don’t allow the Humane Society and other anti-hunting groups to advance their end game of banning all hunting through the tactic of by banning the use of traditional ammunition for hunting on public lands.
  • There is absolutely no adverse wildlife population impact that warrants such a drastic measure.
  • There is no evidence that consuming game taken with traditional ammunition poses a human health to hunters and their family.
  • Hunters are the original conservationists.  Excise taxes (11%) raised from the sale of traditional ammunition the HSUS and others unfairly demonize is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. Banning traditional ammunition will harm the very animals HSUS claims to care about.

Call your officials today: DOI Office of Communications: 202-208-6416   DOI Executive Office: 202-208-3181 FWS Public Affairs: 703-358-222