Tag Archive for: Guns

Obama’s Executive Clemency Program Putting Firearm Offenders on the Streets

/in , , , /by

We’ve often mentioned that President Obama, despite his insistent shaming of America over its supposed lack of gun regulation, has shown little interest in enforcing the gun control laws already on the books.

But it gets worse. A lot worse.

Information has now arisen that the Obama administration is granting executive clemency to dozens of felons imprisoned for firearm-related offenses, some whose crimes involved possessing or using a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes. These criminals will for the most part be released back into the very communities that they exploited and victimized with their offenses.

The revelations were detailed in a March 31 letter from Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-AL) to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. According to the letter, of more than 200 federal inmates granted release under the president’s initiative for executive clemency, “33 were convicted of firearm-related offenses.”

These include, according to the letter:

  • Seven convictions of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime;
  • Four convictions of possession of a firearm by a felon; and
  • Two convictions of use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.

Sen. Shelby expressed his frustration with the administration’s actions:

Communities in my state, like other towns and cities all over America, are working hard to clean up their streets and make their communities safer. This is a constant struggle for some areas. Yet, this announcement from the President sends an unfortunate and resounding message to criminals everywhere: if you are convicted of a crime involving a gun, the federal government will go easy on you.

The president’s moves seem to be a glaring contradiction to his assertion last year that “the one area where I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied … is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common sense gun laws.”

Surely Obama’s advisors have apprised him of the hundreds of federal gun control laws already on the books. So you would think he’d be using every tool at his disposal to deal with the violent crime that, for example, plagues his own home town in particular.

But rather than focus on violent criminals, Obama’s most recent and highly-touted gun control offensive targeted hobbyists and collectors who make occasional gun sales, licensed dealers, and expanding the attack on veterans to include Social Security recipients. 

But rather than focus on violent criminals, Obama’s most recent and highly-touted gun control offensive targeted hobbyists and collectors who make occasional gun sales, licensed dealers, and expanding the attack on veterans to include Social Security recipients.

Sen. Shelby’s letter raised questions about whether the administration is following its own guidelines in the granting of executive clemency. These include prioritizing applicants who “are non-violent, low-level offenders without significant ties to large scale criminal organizations, gangs or cartels” and who “do not have a significant criminal history.”

The administration’s actions would seem to point inescapably to two possible conclusions. One possibility is that the president really is allowing dangerous criminals back out on the streets of their communities. If that’s the case, then his actions are reckless and irresponsible and gamble with innocent lives for the sake of politics.

Another is that he genuinely believes that individuals who use or possess guns to perpetrate drug crimes are not really a threat to public safety. If that’s true, then he is dangerously misinformed. It also makes his obsessive focus on purely technical violations of gun control laws – e.g., re-categorizing hobbyists as “dealers,” banning veterans from possessing firearms, and recently expanding the attack on veterans to include Social Security recipients – seem even more like political persecution and less like serious crime control.

Whatever the case may be, President Obama’s latest moves merely add to his reputation as more interested in style than substance.

This November, voters should carefully consider whether Obama’s would-be successor really has their best interests at heart or whether, like Obama, the next president would vilify his or her political opponents, while simultaneously coddling the very criminals that put innocent lives at risk.

VIDEO: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked

/in , , /by

A thorough debunking of the propaganda presented by Vox in their video on gun control and “mass shootings” in the U.S.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scotland Gun Control: Where Nightmares Are Reality

Gun Violence Is a Serious Problem – Gun Confiscation Isn’t a Serious Solution

The Evil of Gun-free Zones

EDITORS NOTE: Read more at http://LouderWithCrowder.com including all sources at http://louderwithcrowder.com/vox-gun-…

You Can Take the Word Liberal From Me When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Mouth by Jeffrey Tucker

/in , , /by

I was in the middle of  a nice discussion with the man behind the counter at the firing range. He was surrounded by semi-automatic weapons and hundreds of handguns in the display case that separated us. I used the opportunity to tap his expertise, mostly because I don’t keep up with gun issues enough.

He explained to me the absurdity of the ban on automatic weapons, how and why it is that there is really no such thing as an “assault rifle,” and a bit about regulations on magazine size. He informed me that Clinton’s partial ban on assault rifles expired in 2004 due to a sunset clause.

This is where the conversation became interesting.

I asked: “So the law has been liberalized since Clinton?”

He raised his eyebrow and there was a long pause.

Finally he said in a deep Southern drawl, “I don’t know about no liberalism. I don’t like liberals.”

“Ok,” I said, “that’s not what I mean. I mean ‘liberalized’ in the sense of more liberal: like more freely available.”

That didn’t help. He just said, “I’m just saying that I don’t like much about what liberals are saying or doing.”

So I tried again.

“Well, more precisely, what I mean by liberalization is that American citizens are now more free from restriction than they once were to import and use certain kinds of weapons. We are more liberated to choose than we were before.”

Still, he stood there in silence, staring. Finally a co-worker walked by and said to him, “This customer means liberal like in the old way: a different way than you mean the term.”

I piped in and said, “yes, just the English-language ‘liberal’ meaning less government control over what we do.”

Even then, this nice man couldn’t understand what the heck I was talking about. The word “liberal” to him was like the Mark of the Beast. He somehow thought I was standing there promoting evil. Nothing I said would overcome his sense that I was somehow on the enemy side, simply because I was uttering this word.

Are we really so far down the path? Has our political terminology become so confused that we can’t even use regular English words and be understood?

Demonizing Liberals

Maybe this was an extreme case. Maybe it is not so bad all over. But I do wonder.

For years, right-wing radio commentators have been using “liberal” as a swear term: the worst epithet you could ever hurl at someone, indicating an individual hell-bent on destroying your life. They have contrasted the malice of “liberals” with the greatness of “conservatives,” who favor God, country, and free enterprise (with a bit of war thrown in). And book after book are published for conservative consumption using the term “liberal” to identify the most depraved values.

To be sure, this is not new. It has gone on since after World War II, when Russell Kirk’s Conservative Mind appeared and was promoted on the cover of Time Magazine. This  kicked off a long-running demonization of one of the great words in the English language.

Now, you might correctly point out that the “liberals” started it. About a century ago, everyone knew what a liberal was. A liberal favored free speech, freedom of action, a free economic order, and religious freedom. A liberal opposed war. A liberal favored the ever-increasing liberation of the world from oppression, poverty, suffering.

That began to change in the Progressive Era and especially with the New Deal. Liberals had to make a choice between the free economy and the fascist model of the New Deal. They chose poorly. Yet they kept calling themselves liberals. Ten years later, it had begun to stick.

Conservative Is Not What We Are 

So when William F. Buckley set out to, as he alleged, “stand athwart history and yell stop,” he needed a different name for his “anti-Left” movement. The name he chose was Kirk’s “conservative.”  The new “conservatism” differed from that of the old English Tories in that it had affection for free enterprise. Yet it harkened back to those bygone reactionaries by favoring war, the cops, and social control. The new “conservative movement” co-opted the classical liberal remnant of the time.

Already distorted, the conservative acquiescence to the left on terminology made a bad situation worse. And it has only worsened further over the decades, to the point that today the word liberal has become practically unusable in some corners, in spite of its rich and glorious history.

And yet this is mostly true just in the United States. In most places in the world, the word “liberal” still means what it is supposed to mean. More substantially, it is the right word. It has a beautiful tradition. And I agree with Mises who said there is no suitable replacement.

“This usage is imperative,” he wrote in 1966, “because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals from slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage.”

I’ll say it again: Don’t give up the term liberal. You might even be one.

Despite the gruff gun salesman behind the counter, I won’t give up the term “liberal.” The way I feel about that grand word is the same way he feels about his guns. You can take “liberal” from me when you pry it from my cold dead mouth.

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.

Bloomberg for President?

/in , , , , /by

Amid reports that the FBI is close to recommending that the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified materials, and that FBI Director James Comey and other agency personnel investigating Clinton may resign if the DOJ refuses to do so, sources close to Michael Bloomberg say the billionaire former mayor of New York City may run for president if Clinton appears unable to win the Democratic Party’s nomination.

CBS New York reports, “[t]hey say Bloomberg would strongly consider running if the general election looked like it would be a contest between Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republicans Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.” Bloomberg, who has let on that he would be willing to spend 1 billion dollars on a campaign, is expected to make his decision by March. Four states are holding their presidential primaries and caucuses in February, and another 14 will do so on Super Tuesday, March 1st.

Appearing unfazed by her troubles, Clinton insists “nothing that I did was wrong” and said of the Bloomberg news, “the way I read what he said was if I didn’t get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I’m going to relieve him of that and get the nomination, so he doesn’t have to.”

Unfortunately, from Clinton’s perspective, that may be a fairly big “if.” Polls show her being trounced by Sen. Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire and also losing Iowa, where the country’s first presidential primaries and caucuses will be held, and that her national figures are dropping. Other polls show that more Americans view her unfavorably than favorably.

Fox News reports, “[t]he FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.” Fox followed up on the story on Tuesday, saying, “The security investigation is now part and parcel with the criminal [public corruption] investigation.”

Bloomberg must theorize that he could appeal to voters on the basis of his success as a businessman and his time as the mayor of the nation’s most populous city. But he faces a difficult “if” of his own. Clinton been casting herself as the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history, a distinction Bloomberg would certainly want to challenge if he threw his hat into the ring. Also, and perhaps for the same reason, a Morning Consult poll released this week found Bloomberg at 13% in a hypothetical three-way race against Donald Trump and Clinton, 11% when the Republican candidate is Sen. Ted Cruz, and down to 10% when the Republican is Sen. Marco Rubio.

Bloomberg might be able to bump those numbers up among Democrats a bit, if he promised to pardon Clinton on the first day of his presidency. That would not only endear him to Clinton’s most fanatical supporters, it would wipe the slate clean, at least legally-speaking, for someone who shares his deep antipathy for guns. With public opinion trending steadily against gun control, a President Bloomberg couldn’t afford to have one of his strongest anti-gun allies in court or in prison.

Americans Oppose Unilateral Actions, Wary of Federal Government Gun Control

/in , , , , /by

Despite a highly-publicized speech and a multi-week media blitz aimed at convincing the American people of the importance and legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s executive maneuvers on gun control, the American people remain unpersuaded. Polls show that Americans are unconvinced about the effectiveness of further gun control measures and are in opposition to Obama’s decision to work outside the traditional political process. An additional poll offers important insight in to one of the reasons the public has repeatedly rejected new federal gun controls.

A poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily on January 4-7 asked if stricter gun control would “hinder self-defense, protecting family” or “reduce crime/keep guns out of criminals’ hands?” Only 42 percent of those surveyed responded that stricter controls would stop criminals from acquiring guns. Moreover, the poll found that more members of the public believe an increase in gun ownership would lead to an increase in safety rather than an increase in crime. The poll also found that the vast majority of Americans agree that the Second Amendment “will always be a relevant and necessary safeguard against tyranny,” including 52 percent of Democrats.

Similarly, a Rasmussen poll conducted January 6-7 revealed that Americans question the efficacy of Obama’s executive actions, but it also showed the public is skeptical of the legitimacy of Obama’s decision to act unilaterally. Survey takers were asked, “Will the president’s new executive order further extending federal government oversight of gun sales reduce the number of mass shootings in America?” A mere 21 percent believed that measure would be effective, while 59 percent answered that it would not. Further, indicating that at least half of Americans didn’t sleep through grade school civics, when asked, “When it comes to gun control, should President Obama take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed or should the government do only what the president and Congress agree on?” a majority of 58 percent answered that the president must work with Congress.

Part of the reason the Americans lack an appetite for gun control is revealed in another Rasmussen poll conducted January 10-11. The survey asked, “Do you trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws?” A staggering 59 percent of those polled do not trust the government to enforce gun control laws fairly. A mere 28 percent trust the government with this task, while 13 percent were undecided.

These results are in line with broader measures of trust in the federal government. Since the 1970s, Gallup has routinely conducted a poll asking “how much trust and confidence do you have in our federal government in Washington when it comes to handling [domestic problems] – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?” Under Obama, the federal government has breached Watergate-era lows in trust.

With a severe distrust of the government’s ability to fairly carry out gun control policies, the widely-opposed decision by Obama to go it alone on guns is unlikely to bring about the sort of togetherness across the political spectrum that Obama purports to seek. Those currently running for the Presidency that hope to reverse the climate of distrust with Washington might do well to exhibit trust in the American people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and their ability to make decisions through their elected representatives.

RELATED VIDEOS:

In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that, with his latest executive actions on gun control, President Obama has once again chosen to engage in political grandstanding instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Rep. Schweikert Introduces D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act

Anti-Gunners Endorse Hillary Clinton for President

VIDEO: Gun Control Debate in the Sunshine State

/in , , , /by

Christian Ziegler, the Republican Party of Sarasota State Committeeman was on the Alan ABC Channel 7 to debate President Obama’s Executive Order on gun control. Ziegler was on the Alan Cohn Show. Cohn is anchor and managing editor of ABC 7 News at 7:00 p.m

In an email Ziegler wrote:

I appeared on WWSB ABC 7 tonight to debate Ed James III, Democrat for FL House, about President Obama’s Executive Order on Gun Control.

Click here to watch the debate and then, if you have any thoughts about this issue, please reply back to this email [Inform@christiangop.com] and share them with me.

-Christian Ziegler
State Committeeman, Sarasota County

Here is the video of the Alan Cohn Show debate:

RELATED ARTICLE: The Facts Behind 4 of Obama’s Claims About Guns

The Wanderer: A short film about a woman, a gun and survival

/in , , /by

This short film features unique guns, interesting characters and professional cinematography, but the star of the film is the location: a defunct nuclear missile silo.

EDITORS NOTE: For more information on the video: http://tinyurl.com/qfof2f8. For more information on Weapon Outfitters: http://tinyurl.com/oe9vk7w. See more at: http://www.recoilweb.com/

Poll: 61% Believe NRA’s Firearms Policies Make America Safer

/in , , , /by

In this News Minute video from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that a Rasmussen poll released this week found that 61 percent of Americans agree that the NRA’s position on gun rights protect them.

RELATED VIDEO: President Obama’s last act against America will be a massive push to strip away Second Amendment rights. Video by Bill Finley:

Florida Sheriff: ‘Be Ready And Be Armed For Active Shooter Incidents’ [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

iveySome very wise suggestions from a Law Enforcement Leader who get’s it.  while not stepping into politics steps away from those who march lockstep in the effort to disarm and render defenseless law abiding citizens.

It’s telling to note this man’s honesty and understanding when he refers to himself as an armed citizen.

The Florida Family Association reports in an email titled “CAIR plays roll in President Obama’s lecturing Americans over Islamophobia”:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release hours before President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address titled “CAIR Asks President Obama to Condemn Islamophobia During Address to Nation on Terror. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is calling on President Obama to include a condemnation of rising Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation …

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release immediately following President Obama December 6, 2015 address titled “CAIR Welcomes President Obama’s Rejection of Islamophobia in Oval Office Address. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), today welcomed President Obama’s rejection of Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation … President Obama repudiated the view that there should be a war on Islam, acknowledged that the vast majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and that extremists are a “tiny fraction” of Muslims worldwide …

Islamization and radicalization are two distinct Islamist movements which threaten America. Islamization is the process of infiltrating and changing American public policy to conform to Sharia. Radicalization is the manifestation of the violence advocated by the Quran and perpetuated by Imams. Unfortunately, while radicalization garners the headlines the president and many elected officials, including Republicans, and a multitude of media moguls, including talking heads at Fox News, give Islamization a dangerous pass out of political correctness.

Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct supposition:

  • Eighty one (81%) percent of respondents to Al Jazeera survey say they support ISIS. In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic,“Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
  • Center for Security Policy “Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad” was released on June 23, 2015.Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of this country. According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.   The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is the president of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques. The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia. David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Survey abstract: A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

During President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address he irresponsibly scolded American’s who dare be afraid (ie Islamophobic) of Muslims who want to eliminate them simply because they are infidels. Obama’s scolding of rational American’s concern over Radicalization and Islamization reinforce political correctness which is dangerous to the public safety of all Americans. A neighbor of the two Islamists in San Bernardino witnessed them receiving suspicious packages which turned out to be used in their Jihad on innocent American citizens. The neighbor did not report the suspicious behavior out of fear of being labeled an Islamophobe. President Obama’s irresponsible address gave greater weight to erring not to be an Islamophobe over the public safety of Americans.

When will President Obama tell Muslims to stop clinging to their religion and guns?

/in , , , , , , /by

President Obama has scheduled a broadcast to the nation to address the recent attacks in Paris, Mali, San Bernardino and today in London. His administration has made it a point to never blame Muslims for their individual actions, nor to blame Islam for its hate of non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

Perhaps it is now time for President Obama to face the reality that Muslims cling to their religion and guns. The difference is they use their guns to further their religion. Christians and Jews do not.

Paul R. Hollrah reports:

On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia.  Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promote tolerance, to ensure public safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)…”

This is the official narrative of the Obama administration.

As I pointed out in my column “The neo-Democrat Party: Devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed“:

I believe what President Obama has truly done is fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party of JFK to the Democrat Party of BHO. I use the word Democrat because the Party of Obama is not Democratic, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. The membership of the neo-Democrat Party are made up primarily of the devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

Those who oppose Obama and the neo-Democrat Party, including JFK Democrats, are subject to ridicule, rejection and bullying.

Extremism in the name of the collective is the over riding strategy of the neo-Democrat. Radicalism is the tactic. The more extreme the ideal, the more it is embraced. This leads to what some have labeled a form of political insanity. I call it political suicide. History teaches us that tyrants and tyranny ultimately lose the support of the masses. Why? Because the policies implemented harm the masses.

[ … ]

The ideal of collectivism is alive and well in the neo-Democrat Party. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed, those who make up the core of the neo-Democrat Party.

[ … ]

The Democratic Party of JFK has morphed into the neo-Democrat Party by dint of constant pressure from the radicals and the constant retreat of the Jeffersonian Democrats.

Today the Democrat Party has fundamentally transformed into the party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

It is a struggle between the civilized man and the uncivilized man (savage).

dietrich bonhoffer quoteI expect President Obama to defend Muslims and Islam in the name of tolerance and civil rights. But whose tolerance and who’s civil rights? Not those of Christians and Jews.

Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

I expect President Obama will express more absurdities, which have become his administration’s and the Democrat Party’s official ideology.

Florida: The Truth about Open Carry — Erroneous Claims Exposed

/in , , , , /by

Many folks remember that during the fight to pass Florida’s Concealed Carry law, the Florida Sheriffs Association opposed concealed carry.  They literally said they didn’t like “hidden guns.”

At the time, open carry was legal in Florida and had been for decades.  They said if people were going to be allowed to carry guns, they needed to carry them openly so law enforcement officers could see them and know who had guns — they claimed it was a matter of officer safety.

Now, they have reversed positions.  They claim concealed carry is fine and they don’t mind concealed guns.  BUT, open carry is dangerous. They claim they won’t know the good guys from the bad guys, and one sheriff (now retired) said law enforcement would have to “draw down” and anybody carrying openly.  You’ve probably heard or read most of the rhetoric.

They always lead off saying they are strong Second Amendment supporters then proceed to explain why they OPPOSE Second Amendment rights.

The Constitution guarantees your right to keep and bear arms and it certainly doesn’t say you can only exercise your rights if your sheriff agrees with it.

Below are the facts about open carry — it is a rebuttal of some the latest claims.  You may also click here The Truth About Open Carry to download a copy for the fact sheet to share with others.

The Truth About The Open Carry Bill & the 45 States that Allow Open Carry

In recent Palm Beach Post Blog articles and a Tampa Bay Times Blog article, the Chairman of the Florida Sheriffs Association’s Legislative Committee (FSA) is quoted with some erroneous claims regarding the proposed open carry bill in Florida (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz and HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz).

In recent Palm Beach Post Blog articles and a Tampa Bay Times Blog article, the Chairman of the Florida Sheriffs Association’s Legislative Committee (FSA) is quoted with some erroneous claims regarding the proposed open carry bill in Florida (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz and HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz).

Below are some of those claims and our responses.

FSA CLAIM: “The bill as currently drafted is extremely broad, lacking limits on when, how or where firearms could be carried.”

FACT: The same provisions and restrictions that apply to concealed carry also apply to open carry (s.790.06).  Only a person with a license to carry concealed will be able to carry openly. Additionally, the improper exhibition of firearms law (s.790.10) applies whether carrying concealed or openly.

Further, because of these and other erroneous claims, a clarification amendment, to stop open carry opponents from continuing to make such false claims, was added to the bill in Senate Criminal Justice Committee the morning of 10/20/15 – We know the spokesman made that claim even AFTER the clarification amendment was added because the spokesman made reference to an amendment “that didn’t pass” in the same committee meeting.

Since the FSA spokesman obviously doesn’t want to believe the NRA’s data, the following data was provided by Florida Carry, Inc. – and their data confirms ours.

FSA CLAIM: “The bill’s proponents claim that 45 other states already allow open-carry. But that’s not really accurate.”

FACT:  To the contrary, it is accurate.   Forty-five (45) states allow open carry of firearms.  Varying restrictions on open carry in some states does not alter the fact that 45 states allow open carry.

  • 15 of 45 open carry states require a license to carry concealed or openly.
  • 30 of 45 open carry states do not require any license to carry openly.
  • 0 of 15 of the concealed carry license states require additional training to carry openly.
  • 0 of 45 states offer a separate “open carry” license.
  • 2 of 45 states require an open carry holster.  On 1/1/16 Texas will require a holster.
  • 0 of 45 states require a retention holster.
  • 5 of 15 are “may-issue” states where law enforcement issues licenses.
  • 15 of 15 states require the license holder to produce the license on lawful demand by a law enforcement officer.

FSA CLAIM: “… most open-carry states have strict rules about … producing the permit on demand.”

FACT: This is a red herring.  FLORIDA law already requires license holders to produce a license on demand by a law enforcement officer.  And for the record, all 15 states that require a license, require producing the license on lawful demand by a law enforcement officer.

FSA CLAIM:  “…[I]t’s ‘intellectually dishonest’ to say open carry laws are working in the 45 other states because there are so many variations in the laws and the demographics.

FACT: The open carry laws are working in 45 states. Opponents have presented no evidence to the contrary – no evidence that it isn’t working in any state and no evidence of problems in any state. These are just baseless allegations.  Simply because different states have variations in their laws does not in any way alter the fact that open carry is allowed and that it’s working.

FSA CLAIM:  “In Pennsylvania, for example, cities can opt out of its open carry law and some, including Philadelphia, do just that, Gualtieri said. Florida cities don’t have the option to opt out of a state law.”

FACT:  Pennsylvania DOES NOT allow cities to opt out of its open carry law. Pennsylvania does not require a license for a person to carry openly.  Philadelphia cannot “opt out” of the state open carry law.  Pennsylvania state law allows the city of Philadelphia (and only Philadelphia) to require a license to carry openly in Philadelphia.

FSA CLAIM:  As for demographics, “You can’t compare Sioux Falls, S.D. to downtown Miami or downtown Tampa or downtown Orlando,” Gualtieri said.

FACT: This argument is illogical and perhaps intentionally misleading. Seventy percent (70%) of the American public live in open carry states from all regions of the country.  Many of the 45 open carry states have large and diverse cities just like Florida and where you live geographically, whether it’s Trilby, FL or Fanning Springs, FL, you have the same constitutional rights as citizens who live in Miami, Tampa, or Orlando.

FSA CLAIM: “…the state’s trespass law gives businesses the right to ask anyone openly carrying a weapon to leave their property,” but they … “will be reluctant to tell a person wearing a .45 to leave.”

FACT: Posting signs prohibiting open carry inside a business establishment is a simple solution.  Proper notification will stop citizens from even entering the establishment.  Property owners already must post trespass signs to notify the public to stay off private property.

Businesses have the right to refuse service and evict anyone they wish unless it’s done on the basis of race, gender, or religion.  Further, it is common to see signs that say, “No shirt, no shoes – no service.”  Why are they reluctant to post signs saying, “No open carrying of firearms?”

FSA CLAIM: “..if you are McDonald’s you won’t be able to exclude somebody from putting their gun on the table and sitting there and eating.”

FACT: Again, any business may evict a customer for behavior they deem to be offensive, dangerous or inappropriate.   Further it is a criminal offense under s.790.10 to exhibit a firearm in a rude or careless manner.

The Evil of Gun-free Zones

/in , , , , /by

One thing worse than supporting bad policy is knowingly supporting bad policy.

Worse still is knowingly supporting bad policy and shielding yourself from its destructive effects — while visiting that policy on children.

There has been much debate recently surrounding so-called “gun-free zones,” places such as schools, where law-abiding people won’t carry guns. But really there should be no debate. This is because it’s plain that even the zones’ defenders — liberals — don’t really believe they’re a good idea.

For evidence, consider a largely forgotten video made in 2013 by Project Veritas (PJ) after The Journal News in Westchester, N.Y., printed the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in its coverage area.

Posing as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence,” PJ operatives visited the homes of Eric Holder and various liberal journalists to ask them if they’d “support the cause” and post on their lawns a sign stating “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE.”

Not one accepted.

At the home of The Journal News’ Greg Shillinglaw they were told, “In this neighborhood that nobody puts out stuff like that” (except maybe at the schools?). The person at the Shillinglaw home concluded with, “I do believe in it, but I think I’ll pass on it.”

Translation: he believes in it for others.

Next was the Journal’s Mike Meaney. A woman answered the door and tersely said “I’m sorry, I can’t help, but good luck. …I have other reasons [for refusal] I can’t get into right now.” But, hey, they just needed to speak to ol’ Mike personally — I’m sure he’d snatch one of those signs up quicker than Hillary Clinton changes personalities.

The next one, the Star Ledger’s Bob Braun, offered tremendous support. Without missing a beat he said, “I agree with you and I am on your side on this, but I’m just wondering if that’s not an invitation to somebody with a gun!” as he emitted a chuckle. His wife chimed in, “I agree with you, but I’m not sure about the sign.” Braun then said moments later, “The problem in this town is, you know, somebody driving around here might think it’s a — seriously — might think it’s an invitation to come barging in.” But Braun did offer this consolation: “Well, if the sign said “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” without “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE,” I would put the sign up.”

Because a Gun-free-zone is a bad idea.

Except at schools.

Because the people who might drive around and barge into Braun’s house in Elizabeth, N.J., could never drive around and barge into schools in Elizabeth, N.J.

Or maybe it’s that children in Elizabeth, N.J., are bulletproof?

Now, it apparently took Braun — smart liberal that he is — all of two and a half seconds to figure out that putting a gun-free-zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Logically translated, it amounts to advertising, “We’re defenseless.” Yet he presumably supports them “in principle”; after all, he didn’t say, “Look, I support gun control, but not these zones.” So what’s the story here? Was this the first time he pondered the matter for two and a half seconds? When advocating policy, did he only consider it for 4/10ths of a second?

Clearly, these liberals either never thought their policies through or just couldn’t care less as long as their laws only hurt others. So take your pick: gross negligence or callous disregard.

Delving a bit deeper, we’re witnessing a typical leftist phenomenon: style over substance, image over reality. These liberals want to be seen as “good” people in their milieu; they want to appear enlightened in their echo chamber of effeteness. And achieving this has nothing to do with action. All their fellow travelers, that caponhood of hypocrisy, are as two-faced as they are. It’s all about what you say — all about posturing.

It’s reminiscent of some NYC liberals — in a gentrifying Brooklyn neighborhood fittingly called “Dumbo” — up in arms because “diversity” has come home: they’ve learned that their kids may be forced to attend school with poor minorities. One Dumbo parent actually said, “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children.” Yes.

And it’s more complicated when it’s about your own lawn.

Except that it really isn’t. It just seems so when it’s the first time in your life the realities of your ideology are brought home to you. Much like the youngster I once heard wonder why problems of poverty couldn’t be solved by just making more money, things can seem very simple to a child; they can also seem simple to a childish person, someone content to operate on emotion like a child or too self-centered — like a very young child — to consider how his actions, attitudes and advocacy affect others. This is the way of the overgrown juvenile masquerading as an adult that we euphemistically call a liberal.

But here’s the reality. Saying the politically correct thing — such as supporting gun-free-zone policies for schools — when you wouldn’t apply the same to your own home because you realize it’s a dangerous idea, doesn’t at all make you a good person. It makes you scum.

You’re willing to imperil American children nationwide just so you can strut around, puff up your chicken-chest and say “Look at me! I have the correct ideology!”

Don’t misunderstand me. Eliminating gun-free zones is no panacea. No doubt, maniacal mass murderers who target schools are to a degree motivated by the copycat factor and the maximized media attention attacking schools brings. Yet schools’ being gun-free zones does make them more attractive targets. And, no, it’s not necessarily because the perpetrators don’t have to fear harm, especially since these individuals often accept that their crime will be a suicide mission. But think about it: if your goal is to massacre a large number of people and go out in a blaze of notoriety, you want to ensure you won’t be stopped before your deed is done. Gun-free zones virtually guarantee this.

As for the “gun-free-zone for thee but not for me” liberals, I’m firmly convinced that some (not all, of course), on some level, aren’t all that troubled by school shootings. After all, it provides a great opportunity to beat the gun-control drum for people to whom “the cause” is everything. I mean, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. And what does it matter as long as the egg isn’t the egghead in the mirror, right?

Of course, there’s generally no such thing as being truly insulated from the consequences of your bad decisions. You know those gun-free-zone signs you think are such a bad idea that you wouldn’t put them in front of the home in which your child lives?

They could be in front of the school in which your child studies.

I’m talking about those signs that mean “We’re defenseless. Commit your massacre here. You’ll get 9 or 10 before the guys with guns arrive and stop you.”

Not that this will change many liberal’s hearts (forget the minds). The chances of a given liberal’s only child being killed in a school massacre are extremely slim. But the chances of getting that proud, self-satisfied, warm and fuzzy feeling from mouthing the right position and being accepted by the right people are 100 percent.

But if it does happen, perhaps you can console yourself with the knowledge that you took one for the cause, can rage in the media and maybe even appear in front of Congress. I just wonder, will you think it was all worth it?

As for legislation creating gun-free zones, I’m game. Really. But with one condition written in: any politician voting for the bill must put a “Gun Free Zone” zone sign in front of his home. After all, Mr. Compassionate Liberal, if it’s good enough for America’s children, it’s good enough for you.

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

Israeli Minister: “Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism”

/in , , , , , /by

Recent reports out of Israel show that that Israeli civilians aren’t taking a recent spate of terrorist violence lying down, they are arming themselves to fight back. Further, the Israeli government is cooperating by taking measures to ensure that more citizens will have access to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their communities.

In recent weeks, Israel has experienced a wave of attacks, primarily stabbings, carried out by individual Palestinians against Israeli civilians. According to the Washington Post, as of Wednesday, eight Israelis had been killed and dozens injured in this latest round of violence.

The Israeli government has taken drastic measures to combat the attacks, calling up reservists and deploying troops in cities. However, with the unpredictable nature of the violence, civilians are turning to private gun ownership for safety.

In describing the clamor for arms, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported “[c]ars are double- and even triple-parked outside a gun shop in Israel’s coastal city of Tel Aviv. Inside, customers jostle each other as they wait to be served.” The report goes on to quote store owner Iftash Ben-Yehuda, who said, “[t]he last time the shop was so busy was probably in the 1970s. I’ve never before seen such stress or panic.” The article also notes that applications for firearms licenses have risen “by tens of percent” in only 10 days.

Some seeking arms recognize that the effects of carrying go well beyond their own personal safety. Jerusalem resident Netanel Oberman told Bloomberg News, “I want a gun not so much because I’m worried for my own safety, but because I’ll be better prepared to protect other people from attack.”

Israel Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan seems to agree with this assessment. In a statement Wednesday, Erdan noted, “[i]n recent weeks, many citizens have helped the Israel Police subdue terrorists. Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism. Therefore, I have worked to ease conditions for obtaining firearms.”

Further, on Wednesday, the Ministry of Public Security issued relaxed guidelines on who is eligible for a firearm license. The move makes it easier for those on active or reserve military duty to acquire a license, as well as civilians who have completed a requisite security guard course.

Israel typically has very stringent firearm licensing requirements that have gotten progressively stricter over the course of the last two decades. However, just last year, government officials were forced to ease restrictions on carrying firearms following a brutal terrorist attack that resulted in the murder of four Orthodox Jewish men in a West Jerusalem Temple.

Unfortunately, as the Bloomberg News article makes clear, some law-abiding civilians are unable to get a firearms license even with the relaxed rules. Segev Gorbitz of Jerusalem told the outlet, “[i]t’s not right… I want a gun to defend myself and my family, and if you’re an Israeli like me who served in the army and have no criminal record, you should be able to get one.”

Remarkably, even given the present dire situation, Israel’s anti-gun activists are still out in force. The AFP article quoted a leader of an Israeli anti-gun coalition called Gun Free Kitchen Tables, who told the outlet, “[i]n the long run it is obvious that more weapons creates more danger, not more security but the opposite… Encouraging civilians to use firearms on the street could lead to very unfortunate results.” Similarly, according to Bloomberg, Galia Wallach of NA’AMAT, which holds anti-gun positions, protested her countrymen’s increased access to the tools of self-defense, telling a radio program, “I’m very concerned that easing licenses for guns might escalate violence.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Thirty Israeli students attacked during visit to Joseph’s tomb

Democratic Debate “Race to the Bottom” on anti-gun posturing

Hillary Clinton Calls us her Enemies, While Dan Gross Calls us Terrorists!

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

Brady Campaign Labels NRA “Terrorists”

/in , , , /by

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has never had a firm grasp on the English language, as evidenced by the repudiation of their bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court. However, this week, in an attempt to demonize NRA, Brady Campaign took their hyperbole to a new low, referring to the NRA as “terrorists.” That’s right; according to the Brady Campaign, the grassroots organization comprised of 5 million freedom-loving members that are dedicated to using the democratic process and legal framework to defend the constitutional rights of all Americans are “terrorists.”

The craven statement was made by Brady Campaign President Daniel Gross to The Hill. In the article, Gross criticized two Democratic presidential candidates, the NRA D- rated Bernie Sanders and F rated Lincoln Chafee, for not sufficiently conforming to the group’s radical gun control agenda. In taking particular issue with Chafee’s debate performance, in which the candidate stated he would try to negotiate with NRA, Gross stated, “[t]his is not a negotiation with the NRA… We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time radical gun control advocates, and others, have used this type of reprehensible language to slander gun owners or NRA. In early 2013, Stop Handgun Violence founder and president John Rosenthal, who is best known for his anti-gun billboard outside Boston’s Fenway Park, said on the Ed Schultz radio show that the NRA “in my mind is a terrorist organization as far as I’m concerned.”

Beyond full-time gun control advocates, the culprits are often their allies in the media. As recently as this month, New York Daily News columnist Linda Stasi wrote, “NRA should take its rightful place on the State Department list of terrorist organizations.” Last year, Mother Jones promoted a cartoon likening NRA to violent jihadis. Of course, the anti-gun Twittersphere and blogosphere are replete with similar inflammatory name-calling.

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton has gotten into the act. In June 2014, during a CNN “town hall,” Clinton remarked that gun control opponents “hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” However, never one to rest on her laurels, Clinton outdid herself in early October, comparing NRA to a state sponsor of terrorism when she told an Iowa crowd, “NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists.”

Those attempting to vilify NRA as terrorists or extremists should recognize that NRA’s positions are well within the American mainstream. A 2014 Gallup poll revealed that 63-percent of Americans believe that having a gun in the home makes the home a safer place to be. Further, another 2014 Gallup poll showed that when asked “[i]n general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?” 52-percent of Americans opted to keep the laws the same or make them less strict.

In 2011, Barack Obama made a speech in Tucson, Ariz. following a tragic shooting, where he implored the nation to embrace civility in our political discourse. Obama noted that “only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.” Perhaps Obama would do well to direct similar comments more specifically at his increasingly base allies in the anti-gun community. We won’t hold our breath.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI: Crime Decreased in 2014

Those Poor Anti-Gun Researchers

In California, No Amount of Gun-Control Will Ever be Enough