Tag Archive for: gun rights

Florida State University President Thrasher Flip-flopped 4 times on Campus Carry

/in , , , /by

The media love to expose the underbelly of politicians whether it favors their own position or not.  Changing positions on issues only once apparently is acceptable but multiple times on the same issue rankles even the most understanding and tolerant person.

It is particularly significant when someone who uses his/her position to expend state funds to lobby the legislature against the constitutional rights of the people who pay those taxes.

Further, it is egregious when that position and power can be used to curtail First amendment rights to keep others from speaking out against the administration on Second Amendment rights.

Conservative, pro-campus carry faculty members and employees have expressed fear of retaliation if they speak out in support of issues which the anti-gun administration opposes.  There is a chill and a suppression of First Amendment rights when it comes to speaking out on gun rights.  If you support the administration’s position, you’re golden.  If you oppose their position, they’re afraid to speak out.

The following article published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune strikes at the heart of the problem of people of power forgetting their true obligation.

Williams: FSU president flip-flopped on campus carry 4 times

By Lee Williams

Published: Herald Tribune, Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 1:27 p.m.

John-Thrasher

Florida State University president John Thrasher

Florida State University president John Thrasher has become one of the most vocal opponents of campus-carry legislation in Florida.

The bill introduced by Rep. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, would allow concealed-carry licensees to tote firearms for self-defense on college and university campuses.

Thrasher has very adamantly and very publicly criticized Steube’s bill, and similar legislation in the Senate.

“I’m personally opposed to it. I think it’s a bad thing for universities to do. I would love to see us have a gun-free zone frankly on our campus,” Thrasher said earlier this year.

It is a position that Thrasher has held on-again, off-again in the past five years: a Herald-Tribune investigation found that Thrasher has switched his position on campus carry four times during that time frame.

Two state representatives have told the newspaper that Thrasher personally lobbied them to vote against the campus-carry bill, even though state law prohibits him from lobbying lawmakers for two years after leaving the Senate.

“It seems as though he’s obviously taking the position he would take as president of the university,” Steube said. “I’d ask him why he’s changed his position back and forth.”

Flip-flopping

Thrasher supported campus carry in 2010, according to the “Florida Candidate Questionnaire” created jointly by the National Rifle Association and the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, the state NRA-affiliate.

The candidates were asked: “Concealed Weapons and Firearms Licenses are only issued to law-abiding adults who are 21 years of age or older. Do you believe the constitutional right of self-defense does not end on the campus of a college or university and that anti-gun administrators should stop discriminating against persons licensed by the state to lawfully carry firearms for self defense?”

Thrasher agreed, putting a check mark by a response that stated: “Yes, and I would support legislation to stop colleges and universities from banning lawful self-defense on campus.”

The two gun groups gave him an “A” rating.

One year later, Thrasher, as Rules Committee chairman, single-handedly killed a concealed-carry bill that was sponsored by Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker.

The reason? The daughter of Thrasher’s dentist had been accidentally shot and killed by her boyfriend during a late-night party at an off-campus fraternity. The boyfriend, who at 18 did not possess a concealed-carry license, told police he did not know his rifle was loaded. He also admitted to drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana.

Thrasher told one newspaper that the decision to kill the 2011 bill was “beyond personal.”

A year later, in the 2012 candidate questionnaire, Thrasher for the first time opposed campus carry. He wrote a personal note on the form to former Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and a past-president of the NRA: “Marion, you and I have discussed.”

Based upon his response, the NRA and USF downgraded Thrasher’s candidate rating to a B-minus.

In 2014, facing reelection, Thrasher switched his position on campus carry again — this time supporting the bill — and he wrote another note to Hammer: “I am a strong advocate of the NRA and the second amendment and plan to continue to be.”

The two gun groups restored Thrasher’s A-rating.

FSU’s Board of Trustees selected Thrasher to serve as president in September 2014.

Just 10 days after taking office, there was a shooting in the FSU library. A 31-year-old alumnus shot a university employee and two students before he was fatally shot by police.

After the shooting, Thrasher changed his position again, and now remains opposed to campus carry.

Thrasher, in a brief interview Wednesday, said he had never flip-flopped since the death of his dentist’s daughter.

“When the young woman was shot on campus and killed accidentally by a student who had a gun, that’s when I changed my position,” he said. “I don’t care what I filled out. My position is that I’m opposed to guns. I don’t think it’s a good idea. That’s where I was last year. That’s where I was after the young woman was shot. I don’t care what the NRA says. Thank you.”

Hammer told the Herald-Tribune that she seldom sees anyone switch their position on the campus-carry bill, much less four times, since it “has no gray area.”

“Generally, we believe that when a candidate flip-flops, they have reasons that are not in the best interest of the Second Amendment that they profess to support,” she said.

Read more.

Trump: Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights Will Make America Great Again

/in , , , , , /by

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump released his position on the Second Amendment. Trump’s policy states in part:

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away.

[ … ]

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

[ … ]

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue.

[ … ]

Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried.

[ … ]

The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states.

[ … ]

Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless.

To read Donald Trump’s full policy on the Second Amendment click here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Third Time’s the Charm: Federal Appeals Court Voids Provisions of D.C. Gun Control in Heller III

Congressman Sam Johnson Introduces Bill to Protect Social Security Recipients From the Obama Administration’s Most Ambitious (and Outrageous) Gun Grab to Date

CNN Poll Offers Bad News for Gun Controllers, Anti-gun Candidates

Martin O’Malley: I’m More Anti-Gun Than Hillary!

Latest Gun Control Proposal Doesn’t Pass Constitutional Muster

White House, Media Mislead on Crime Trends, Ignore Evidence that Could Save More Lives

/in , , , /by

Tragedy strikes – and the White House immediately shifts into exploitation mode, trying to use raw emotion to push “solutions” that don’t fit the facts. From Charles C. W. Cooke at National Review comes a timely reminder, however, that despite well-publicized crimes, the nation as a whole is getting safer and less violent.

As Mr. Cooke notes, the U.S. firearm homicide rate peaked in 1993 and has fallen dramatically since then. Meanwhile, he adds correctly, gun control has been rolled back and the number of firearms in private hands has increased dramatically. Yet 88% of the public were unaware of favorable crime trends in a May 7, 2013, Pew Research Center Poll. Mr. Cooke attributes this knowledge gap, in part, to the increasing prevalence of “round-the-clock news” and more powerful forms of social media.

It’s a sad commentary that more news and more communication may have somehow led to greater ignorance on important matters of public policy. Your NRA, for its part, has been doing its level best to keep the record straight, including with the reports mentioned here and here.

Yet it’s no accident on gun control advocates’ part that they mislead the public on the true state of affairs. As we’ve mentioned before, a PR firm hired to produce a gun control messaging guide advises, “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics.” It also counsels advocates to act quickly after a highly-publicized event, while emotions are at their highest. As for the facts, gun control advocates are told, “Don’t wait for them.” Instead, “The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time.”

Once again, sadly, we see that advice in action. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, for example, was using Wednesday’s televised murders in Roanoke to call for universal background checks, even before the suspect had been apprehended and before news emerged that the perpetrator had, in fact, passed a background check to buy the gun he used.

Evil and violence are terrible things, and Americans understandably react with horror and sadness when confronted by them. Yet denying reality and exploiting emotions do not solve problems. Ensuring that peaceable, responsible people have the means to defend themselves is why NRA remains resolute in its mission to defend and protect the Second Amendment.

Rather than promoting “solutions” that offer false promises, like “universal” background checks, policy makers should study what’s working redouble their efforts on those fronts. Dismissing the crime deterring benefits of firearm ownership is neither smart nor compassionate. Empowering good people to defend themselves against violence is, and this defining principle will continue to drive everything that NRA does.

New Gun Ownership Study is ‘bunkum — pure fiction’

/in , , /by

The NRA-ILA in an email writes, “Once again we owe thanks to reporter Lee Williams, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, for his willingness to expose the agenda of those who are the enemies of Freedom and the Second Amendment.  On the day before Independence Day — July 4th, he released an article exposing the agenda of those who conspire against the Second Amendment.”

Below is the column by Williams which shows a recent study is “bunkum – pure fiction.”

Study: Gun control groups should undermine our ‘gun culture’ to reduce gun ownership

Posted on July 3, 2015 by Lee Williams  Sarasota herald-Tribune

There’s a dangerous scientific study making the rounds, even some pro-gun websites have featured it, titled “Gun ownership and social gun culture.”

It’s bunkum — pure fiction.

It’s an insidious piece of work, written by four academics who used firearm policy information from the Brady Center and the CDC’s Injury Prevention and Control Center — two groups well known for their opposition to the Second Amendment.

The gist of the study appears to say that since gun control supporters’ long term goal is to reduce gun ownership, they ought to consider not only campaigning for gun control laws that make it more difficult to acquire or possess guns — background checks, gun registration, gun owners licensing, etc. — but focusing on policies that could undermine the social aspects of gun ownership.

To be clear, the authors say gun control groups need to undermine our “gun culture.”

The study does not describe these social aspects in much detail, but you can guarantee they mean everything from hunting, to target shooting competitions and clubs, to marksmanship training classes and gun shows.

This is not a new approach.

Since the 1980s, gun control groups have realized that once a person becomes part of the gun culture, they’re likely to become a single-issue voter focused on protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

This is why anti-gun activist groups are now pushing the lie that — even though Americans have been buying guns in unprecedented numbers — gun ownership is declining.

They hope other people will essentially say, “Well, if no one is owning guns, I guess I don’t need to own guns either, or fret about additional restrictions.”

This new tact coincides with an admission by gun control supporters that pushing for extreme restrictions — handgun bans of the 1970s, “Assault Weapon” bans of the 1980s, “cop killer” bullet legislation of the 1990s, and more recent magazine restrictions — has failed.

None of these tactics worked.  In the 1970s, when they claimed more handguns would mean more crime, Americans tripled the number of handgunsthey owned in little more than a generation.

In the 1980s, gun control supporters started trying to stop states from adopting Right-to-Carry laws. But Florida ignored them, adopting its law in 1987, 32 states followed Florida’s lead, and now nearly every state has right-to-carry legislation, and the nation’s murder rate is
at an all-time low.

In 2012, the administration and its gun control supporters in Congress tried to convince Americans that support for gun control was overwhelming, and no further debate over the subject was necessary. But Americans responded by buying guns in unprecedented numbers, and
Congress rejected the President’s agenda.

The Pew Center reported in December 2014 that among nearly all demographic groups, support for gun ownership is rising and support for gun control is decreasing. Gallup showed that self-defense is the primary reason why American own guns.

The ultimate goal of the study is obvious given its use of the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s scorecard to assess the gun ownership culture in the states.

The Brady Campaign gives most states school grades of “F” or “D,” because they don’t have the myriad of gun control laws that Brady wants.

Finally, I should point out that in the 1990s, several anti-gun groups tried to funnel taxpayer money to their like-minded pals in academia — an effort thwarted by Congress.

Maybe now the four academics responsible for this little study are hoping to carve themselves a lucrative niche in the anti-gun research cottage industry.

Hollywood Elite to Erect Memorial to all Dead Home Invaders

/in , , /by

HOLLYWOOD, CA – The silver screen’s most elite names and faces gathered at a discrete location, to discuss their disastrous participation in Michael Bloomberg’s first annual Gun Violence Awareness Day on June 2nd.

Wear orange

The stars had every reason to be concerned after their collective wearing of orange shirts to commemorate all those who have lost their lives to gun violence went largely unnoticed by the general public. Attended by Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda, to name just a few, the discussion over cocktails and entrées extended into the late evening, until all celebrities came to a consensus that the best way to raise awareness for the victims of gun violence was to erect a statue of an unarmed man with a flashlight and a bag over his shoulder, climbing through a window.

Wear orangePenn, the leader of the Coalition of Film Actors Against Gun Violence, explained his support for the memorial.

“We live in a nation of small-minded, gun-toting ignoramuses who fail to realize that the reason for economically challenged individuals to enter strangers’ homes is not that they are criminals out to do them harm, but in actuality it manifests the desire of the disadvantaged classes to obtain items of materialistic culture that our capitalist society conditions them to think they need,” he stated.

“Deprived by the system of the means to afford expensive things, they try to acquire them the only way they can, by entering someone’s home and taking it. The so-called ‘burglars’ and ‘home invaders’ are, in fact, nothing more than casualties of America’s perpetual war on the poor and racial minorities,” said the star of Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Adorned with a golden plaque saying, “To all those lost to the mindless pull of a trigger,” the memorial is expected to appear in the center of the famous Hollywood Forever Cemetery, which will make it officially the first monument erected at a U.S. cemetery for political motives. Despite objections by locals and right-wing groups, Penn and his celebrity alliance claim that the monument will bear as much dignified significance as any war memorial in American history.

Jane Fonda supported Penn’s statement by saying, “It takes a lot of courage to enter a home of a complete stranger. We should honor their bravery, while at the same time recognize their sacrifice as a shameful legacy of conservative policies. Hopefully, this sacred memorial will raise awareness and help end the bloodshed,” said the actress famous for her portrayal of a gun-toting interstellar beauty in Barbarella.

The movement has been able to raise over $250,000 in donations since its inception yesterday, with most of the money coming from California’s wealthiest gated communities, protected by private security companies and teams of armed bodyguards.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Here It Comes: Obama’s Final Assault on the Second Amendment

/in , , , , , /by

The Justice department is moving forward with a flurry of new rules. according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.

HERE IT COMES FOLKS!

The Hill Reports:

The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.

Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance.

FULL STORY HERE:

Administration preps new gun regulations | TheHill

Veteran Administration Systematicly Disarming Veterans Brings Further Shame to Troubled Agency

/in , , , , , , /by

Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) brought renewed attention to the plight of a growing number of veterans who have been unjustly stripped of their Second Amendment rights. In an April 14 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Sen. Grassley takes the Department of Veterans Affairs to task for overreaching policies that have resulted in the names of well over 100,000 veterans and dependents being placed in the FBI’s National Instance Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as prohibited from possessing firearms.

Federal agencies are required to forward information to the FBI about individuals who have been disqualified by agency action from legally possessing firearms. This includes information about disqualifying mental health “adjudications” and “commitments.” The VA’s interpretation of what constitutes a disqualifying mental health “adjudication,” however, has resulted in widespread, unjustified deprivation of Second Amendment rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights.

As Grassley’s letter points out, federal regulation allows the VA to determine whether its beneficiaries need a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. Veterans who the agency determines need help administering their VA compensation are then labeled “mental defectives” and reported to NICS to be barred from firearm acquisition and possession, alongside the likes of felons, fugitives, and the dishonorably discharged. The process of assigning a fiduciary, however, does not require the VA to consider whether the veteran actually poses a danger to himself or others or is seriously functionally impaired in any other respect. Indeed, the VA’s own website states, “The determination that you are unable to manage your VA benefits does not affect your non-VA finances, or your right to vote or contract.”

Needless to say, it’s completely untenable that America’s military men and women must choose between what’s best for their medical care and financial management and the fundamental civil liberties their own service protects. The fact that a veteran’s spouse or other loved one is more financially astute or is simply more accustomed to maintaining the household finances is completely irrelevant to the veteran’s ability safely and responsibly to handle firearms. That the VA claims otherwise reveals nothing so much as its own systemic, institutional anti-gun bias and its distrust of the very people the agency serves.

For veterans who choose to contest the appointment of a fiduciary, VA procedure offers scant protection. Typically, deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right requires significant due process, as required by the Fifth Amendment (for example, a criminal trial). As Grassley’s letter makes clear, the procedure VA employs falls well below acceptable due process standards and places the burden of proof upon the veteran to seek redress after the fact.

In an April 21st, 2015 article for the Daily Caller, entitled, “VA Sends Veterans’ Medical Info To FBI To Get Their Guns Taken Away,” journalist Patrick Howley puts a human face on this tragedy. In one instance, disabled veteran Henry Wrobel was categorized as unable to handle his own finances, triggering the firearm prohibition. The VA’s actions followed Wrobel’s conversation with a VA counselor during which he mentioned having recently opted to receive his benefits by direct deposit in an attempt to simplify his life. In another case, a Vietnam War widow receiving VA benefits was deprived of her right to bear arms after making a request to the VA for assistance in obtaining someone to help with her household chores after she suffered a mild stroke.

Beyond this matter’s constitutional concerns is that the VA’s “mental defective” determination process and forwarding of records to NICS have contributed to a deep distrust of the agency among those it serves. Rumors abound regarding VA measures to strip gun rights from veterans, and current VA practices regarding fiduciary appointments, along with  highly suspect efforts, substantiate these concerns. Undoubtedly, some veterans have chosen to forego vital benefits and medical treatment, or have been less than candid with VA personnel, due to a fear of losing their Second Amendment rights.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Congressmen with America’s Most Popular Rifle: A Cause for Panic in D.C.

Gun Grabbers High on Hillary, Look to Her to Enact Controls Where Obama Failed

D.C. Shifts from Defending Total Ban on Carrying Firearms, to Defense of Near-Total Ban

Ladies and gentlemen I offer you some good ‘Gun Sense’

/in , , , , , /by

With more and more women and men arming themselves with the latest tricked out versions of the AR-15 (the AR stands for Armalite, the company that originally manufactured this rifle), it is time to make sure you are using “good gun sense” when selecting a self defense weapon to defend your home and family.

Ladies and gentlemen I ask you: Will your home invasion self defense plan protect you from a Democrat prosecutor?

I have some tips.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of VolkStudio Blog.

Kimberly talks violent crime and her right to self-defense

/in , , , , , , /by

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

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

/in , , , , , /by

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: Minimum-mandatory gun sentences need revamping

/in , , , , , /by

Minimum-mandatory sentencing sounds like a good idea, because it keeps judges from imposing lighter, or no sentences upon dangerous criminals. But while legislators hold judges feet to the fire with broad-brush mandatory sentencing laws, many decent, non-dangerous people are being victimized with excessive penalties that they don’t deserve.

I would call upon the governor and the state representatives of Florida to reconsider these draconian mandates that strip judges of all discretion from considering extenuating circumstances in each and every case. We’ve gone too far in punishing people with minimum sentences just because they happened to be in possession of a firearm at the time of the alleged “crime.” I cite two particular Florida cases which serve as examples of overly “harsh” penalties imposed upon decent people whose back were to the walls in moments of domestic in-tranquility.

Our justice system has lost its sense of justice and humanity. Decent people who are no threat to society languish in prison for decades based on sentencing technicalities that strip judges from using judicial discretion. Meanwhile, dangerous criminals still roam the streets while honest and productive citizens languish in jail cells, leaving kids stripped of fathers and mothers.

Example One: Marissa Alexander, 31, Jacksonville. In 2012, this mother of a three small kids, holding a master’s degree and working at a job, was sentenced to 20 years in state prison. Her crime: Firing a gun toward a wall as a warning shot during a domestic fight with her estranged husband, who was under a restraining order.

Charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, prosecutors offered a plea deal for reduced charges, but she declined, feeling she was guilty of no crime. The jury found her guilty, compelling the judge to sentence her to 20 years, based on laws that give judges no discretion.

Said Circuit Judge Donald Jacobsen: “If it weren’t for the minimum mandatory aspect of this, I would use my discretion and impose some separated sentence, considering the circumstances of this event.”

The insanity of such cruel and harsh punishment is incomprehensible. Even if she showed poor judgment, there was no justifiable reason to incarcerate a productive, law-abiding human being for 7,300 days. The state not only punished Alexander, but three kids will grow up without a mother.

Example Two: Orville Wollard, 53, Davenport. This family man, gainfully employed, had been coping with a problem whereby his live-at-home daughter was often abused by her violence-prone boyfriend.

On May 14, 2008, Wollard was called at work by his wife, advising of a volatile situation at the house. He later saw that his daughter had a black eye. Having had arm surgery, Wollard was no match for the young man in a physical altercation. The boyfriend was ordered out of the house but refused.

The fighting escalated until Wollard retrieved his legally owned firearm. After the angry boy punched a hole in the wall, he confronted the older man. Wollard fired a shot into the wall. The boyfriend left. No one was hurt. Weeks later, the boyfriend called police and filed a report.

Wollard was prosecuted and convicted of the same crime as Alexander. As in that case, and because he was in possession of a firearm at the time of a felony, the judge was duty bound under minimum mandatory laws to sentence this good and decent man to 20 years in prison, wrecking his life and the life of his family.

At the sentencing, Wollard spoke to the court: “This person assaults my daughter, he threatens me, I protect myself. No one is injured, and I am going to prison. I would expect this from the Soviet Union not the United States.”

The state Clemency Board and/or Florida governor have the power to grant pardons and/or clemency when miscarriages of justice are wrongfully imposed against citizens. Alexander and Wollard certainly qualify for consideration.

Straight-faced man makes epic mockery of city council over gun ban

/in , , , /by

Tom Tillison from BizPac Review reports, “Some Oregon elected officials considering a ban on loaded guns in public were mocked mercilessly for the proposal. An Ashland, Ore., resident on Monday [February 3rd] used ‘satire to point out the idiocy of the proposed ordinance’ to City Council members, according to a video posted by Guns Save Lives. Oregon is an open-carry state, which means no license is required unless carrying a concealed firearm.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ixhsuB6xMR8[/youtube]

Read more.

Florida NRA spokeswoman confuses the issues on HB 733 gun legislation

/in , , , /by

The Florida Citizens Alliance in a press release notes confusion on  legislation put forth by Representative Dane Eagle (R- FL District 77). Rep. Eagle’s (pictured) bill is House Bill 733.

In an email FCA states:

January 30, 2014 Ms. Marion Hammer, spokeswoman for the Florida NRA released the following statement about the recent House Bill 733 filed by Florida Representative Dane Eagle to protect Floridian’s 2nd Amendment rights:

“HB-733 is NOT an NRA bill and, at this time, we have taken no position on the bill. We have grave concerns about the effect of the bill — whether the consequences are intended or unintended.

Of primary concern is the effect the bill would have on positive pro gun legislation that NRA has worked hard to pass in the past and hopes to pass in the future. The bill does not differentiate between positive pro gun legislation and restrictive gun control laws that negatively effect Second Amendment rights”

Amazingly, she leaves just one question for all Florida Citizens to ask and she makes the decision for all Florida Legislators very easy! “Ms. Hammer, what part of the … right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[period] …do you not understand?” The federal government has NO Constitutional POWER or right to make good or bad 2nd Amendment legislation. This is a power reserved to the “states and the people” based on Article 1, Sec. 8, the 2nd Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Constitution is NOT an a la carte menu and every Florida legislator swore an oath to protect and preserve it in its entirety!

Ms. Hammer is not only fear mongering and using intimidation, but she offers an unconstitutional view that the Feds have the power to make good or bad gun legislation. As a result, she gives Florida Legislators a very simple choice—Violate your Oath of Office by accepting Ms. Hammer’s fear mongering and her unconstitutional view of federal powers OR honor your Oath of Office and support FL HB 733 to protect Floridians.

Ten States have recently used the 2nd Amendment Preservation approach to protect their Citizens from Federal Overreach on the 2nd Amendment. The recent unconstitutional Presidential Executive Orders that infringe the 2nd Amendment, and the rampant and accelerating threats to initiate federal gun registration by the President and members of Congress, drive us to demand that our Florida Legislators use every Constitutional means to protect our right to keep and bear arms!

The National Association for Gun Rights and the Gun Owners of America strongly support using all of the Constitution to protect your right to keep and bear arms! Why does the NRA seems bent on protecting its turf while risking our 2nd Amendment Rights?

Link to HB733: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=51848

FL Rep. Dane Eagle Introduces HB 733 – Second Amendment Preservation Act

/in , , , , , /by

Florida State Representative Dane Eagle (R-Cape Coral) introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act, House Bill 733. The provisions of H.B. 733 are simple and easy to understand. Florida officials would be barred from enforcing federal gun control laws and would be fired if they did.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) in an email states, “Whatever the intent of the 1968 Gun Control Act, it has become a monstrosity. It has been used to strip more than 150,000 veterans of their constitutional rights without due process. The ATF is now using annual inspections to Xerox 4473’s and compile a national gun registry.”

“And the Obama administration is now setting the stage for using medical information to strip tens of millions of Americans of their constitutional rights — again, with no due process. This includes individuals with ADHD and PTSD — plus those with common anxiety disorders or Alzheimer’s. And while no one has been able to identify any ‘danger of gun violence’ posed by people with Alzheimer’s, many of them do have very large and valuable gun collections which they would like to pass on to their children,” reports GOA.

GOA warns, “Unfortunately, like prisoners who have come to identify with their captors — called the “Stockholm Syndrome” — a few gun owners have become addicted to federal infringements.”

GOA observes:

  1. Under the Supreme Court’s Printz decision, Florida has no obligation to be a regulatory lap dog for President Obama.
  2. Even without Federal Law, Florida has more than enough laws regulating firearms ownership.
  3. Contrary to promises, the Brady Act hasn’t worked particularly well, producing “false positives” in roughly 95% of the cases where gun owners are denied by the Brady Check. Not only that, the law sure hasn’t stopped calls for more gun control.

To those who have become addicted to having their constitutional rights taken away, we would say this: “You will get used to freedom, and you will really like it.”

GOA ACTION: Contact your State Representative. Tell our representative how you feel about House Bill 733.

HOW TO CONTACT-WRITE YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES:

  1. Go to http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/myrepresentative.aspxand type in your street name and city.
  2. Click on the “Full Detail” banner under the picture of your state representative.
  3. Click on the “Email Representative” banner.
  4. Once you are at your legislator’s webmail site, you can fill in your name and address, and then copy-n-paste the letter below.

GOA Pre-written letter:

Dear Representative:

Please cosponsor and support the Second Amendment Preservation Act (H.B. 733).

The provisions of this bill are simple and easy to understand. Florida officials would be barred from enforcing federal gun control laws and would be fired if they did.

Whatever the intent of the 1968 Gun Control Act, it has become a monstrosity. It has been used to strip more than 150,000 veterans of their constitutional rights without due process.

The ATF is now using annual inspections to Xerox 4473’s and compile a national gun registry.

And the Obama administration is now setting the stage for using medical information to strip tens of millions of Americans of their constitutional rights — again, with no due process. This includes individuals with ADHD and PTSD — plus those with common anxiety disorders or Alzheimer’s. And while no one has been able to identify any “danger of gun violence” posed by people with Alzheimer’s, many of them do have very large and valuable gun collections which they would like to pass on to their children.

Sincerely,

EDITORS NOTE: Kansas and Alaska have enacted Second Amendment Preservation Acts.

State Courage Rising: Kansas leading the way

/in , , , /by

Kansas is showing no fear and leading the way in standing against the Washington D.C. bullies who threaten freedom! The Tenth Amendment is the solution to a growing problem.

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